_______________ KIDNAPPED BY PETER KURTH (05/07/98)
	Peter Kurth is dead-on accurate about the media's complicity in assassinating the character of his sister Barbara. Two nights ago, Bill Maher (host of ABC's "Politically Correct") went into near histrionics defending Stephen Fagan, all the while calling Kurth things like a "rampant alcoholic." None of the guests were familiar with the facts either -- although Ben Jones did try to defend her -- from the viewpoint of a recovering alcoholic. Not once did Maher or his guests get the facts straight: that Barbara Kurth never was an alcoholic in the first place, was never declared an unfit mother by anyone other than a con artist's paid mouthpieces and two very delusional teenage girls and is the real victim of Fagan's awful vanity. -- Todd Wolf Peter Kurth's article about the kidnapping of his nieces (the daughters of Stephen Fagan) and the efforts of his sister to re-establish contact over many years was a wonderful cri de coeur, not only for his sister (who has been retarnished in every popular press article about this incident), but for all women who get similarly lousy treatment in the press when they find themselves unable to overcome the twin obstacles of money and unbelievable cunning. I hope she is able to find peace now, no matter how this gets resolved. -- Alice Lieberman Peter Kurth cheapens his call to hear his sister's side. From the skirting around of three eyewitnesses to his sister's alleged neglect of Rachael and Lisa (Wendy) to the petty mentioning of Fagan's hairpiece, this was an article that did nothing for me to see why Barbara Kurth does not deserve a critical eye. Kurth also does nobody any favors in denying the simple truth that 20 years ago mothers were automatically considered the proper recipient for custody of a child. Without even addressing this fact, Kurth shows that he is unable to give a reasoned perspective to the article. While I don't expect him to take Fagan's side, his glaring omissions make his article undigestible. -- Greg Kushmerek I enjoyed reading Peter Kurth's article about the kidnapping of his sister's two children. I found the article compassionate and truthful. When I hear her two children, Lisa and Rachael, talking on television, I tend to feel sorry for them. The Fagan family has obviously put them in a situation in which they feel that they must solely support their father and shun their mother. It is disappointing that these two young women don't have sense enough to investigate the whole situation and draw their own conclusions. It's even more disappointing that Stephen Fagan is playing on the sentiment of both of his daughters and the general public through the Jerry Springer media. I have a lot of respect for Barbara for not playing the same type of game as her ex-husband. She respected her daughters enough not to publicize their lives, but rather sit and wait to see if they come to her. They will come, Barbara. Give them time. They are still young and naive. They are as curious about their mother as she is about them. One day they will call. They are just scared that they will lose their father and have not had time to absorb the fact that they now have a mother. -- Nancy Avitia The real damage here has not been done to the children, but to Barbara Kurth. I don't know what it's like to have children. I think my imagination is good enough to consider how I might feel if two helpless innocents were taken from my care by a man I considered a criminal. I think I can imagine what it would be like to worry about a missing loved one for almost two decades. I'm glad Barbara Kurth now knows what happened. -- Keith Welch I have just concluded Peter Kurth's article about his sister Barbara's plight. I, too, saw the girl's "message to their mother" and my heart stood still for Barbara. Unfortunately, it will probably not be until these girls have children of their own that they will ever understand the love that they were robbed of by their "loving" father. They will probably never understand, nor ever want to understand, that the love they felt from their father was motivated by an overriding hate for their mother and an evil too dark to realize. Mr. Kurth, I applaud your sister for her nonaction in this matter. It does take a great deal of love to refrain from screaming out all of the anguish that has been experienced throughout this ordeal. Barbara has chosen to take the high road. Let us just pray that good does win out in the end. -- Kaye Alderman
_______________ RESPONSE TO LETTERS ATTACKING COURTNEY WEAVER'S UNZIPPED COLUMN (05/08/98)
	Courtney Weaver's response: It has never been the purpose of "Unzipped" to condemn or condone a person's sexual proclivities and presumptions. Does talking with Larry Flynt or Randall Terry mean that I agree with their extreme views and stereotypes about women or sex? Of course not. My goal in talking with "Ted" was to dig deeper into some of the myths that might drive a person to date one race or another, or, conversely, not to date them. For those who believe that I necessarily accept these myths is to miss the point entirely. I still believe that getting these kinds of politically incorrect issues out in the open is the first step toward breaking down stereotypes. Nobody enters into an encounter with another without making some sort of judgment, correctly or incorrectly, about their interlocutor. I assumed that "Ted" was attracted to Asian women because HE believed the stereotype of the docile servile Asian. Please note the uses of the words "stereotype," "cliché" and "misconception" within the column: They are deliberate word choices. Nowhere do I state or imply that I embrace them. In order for Ted to be completely honest with me, I spoke in a language that I assumed he would understand. For those that missed that ironic point, I will hammer it again: I had stereotyped Ted as an inarticulate, frightened male who would be too weak to form a relationship with women that HE assumed would be aggressive (white) and instead turned to those he felt he could dominate (Asian). (Whether he fits that stereotype is not for me to judge.) Do I personally believe that all white women are independent and assertive? No, just as I don't believe all Asian women are necessarily any more docile than, say, me. For those that are offended by this column, I urge you to get off your high, politically correct horse and lighten up. Every single person in the world prefers certain physical features over others -- be it dark vs. light hair, tall vs. short, fat vs. thin, fit vs. sedentary, tan vs. pale. It's the presumptions behind those proclivities that are to be questioned and explored. But judged? I just read the hate mail on your article about Ted and Asian women. Once again, I believe the "educated" public just does not get it. Or maybe I don't get it, which is why I write this letter in defense of your article. Most of your articles bring double standards to the surface in an informal, nonscholarly way. For those who carp about standards in journalism, exploring the issues, yada yada yada, there are plenty of books on the subject. I doubt these hate-mail writers have versed themselves on the subject, and I think they are buttheads for expecting perfect, unbiased, pious approaches to one of the grayest areas imaginable (sex). What makes your articles interesting is the personable and engaging way you encounter these issues and portray them. Who wants to read survey research when they can be stimulated by an original narrative that shows interesting (and sometimes unfair, maddening, thrilling) sides to human nature, including yours? Ted is a doofus for pigeonholing women. I love redheads. Does that make me a bad person? My wife would say yes if I look at other redheads besides her. Are these letter writers better than you or Ted because they keep their preferences quiet? Anyhow, doofus Ted is a fact of life. Women who prefer Martians for their bright green schlongs is a fact of life. It would be nice if everybody was given a chance to show that they are worthy of rising above their given stereotype, but I bet those hillside singers who would like to teach the world to sing have their own annoying sets of prejudices. Expecting everyone to permanently set aside their preferences, stereotypes, hangups and fetishes is impossible. Besides, it would make for some lousy reading. Carry on. -- Steve McHale Courtney Weaver seems like an intelligent, skilled, witty and educated writer. I enjoy and often learn from her columns. However, "Wok Man" doesn't necessarily deserve the raft o' serious, considered responses it has generated. Two reasons spring immediately to mind: The first is that "Wok Man" articulates a rear-guard, camp-follower approach to the truth, devoid of any originality and therefore abysmally boring. The second reason no one should bother taking "Wok Man" or Ms. Weaver seriously is her laziness. Anyone with the balls/ovaries to write the aforementioned "column," gambling (correctly) that Salon will publish it, deserves admiration. But Courtney, don't confuse your journal entries like "Wok Man" with journalism. Hemingway said: "Never confuse movement with action." Most readers of Salon know the difference. Do you? -- Charles Higgins Boston, Mass. I am shocked not only by Courtney Weaver's inflammatory article, but also by the replies it has generated. Even in the words of their male defenders, Asian women are rampantly stereotyped as being the antithesis of "bitchy, sloppy, unclean" white women. The implication is that Asians are passive, neat and clean -- not bad characteristics, certainly, but stereotypical nevertheless. There is nothing wrong with being attracted to a certain "look," but to justify that attraction by stigmatizing other groups and therefore stereotyping your preferred group is ridiculous. Let's not descend to the level of the racist rhetoric we are trying to reject. As for Weaver, I think she missed the real story. We, as women -- whether white, African-American, Asian or anything else -- should band together to reject the kind of looksism and stereotyping that men like Ted practice. Ted apparently does not allow for individual personality characteristics in his Asian dates. He is as guilty of racism in his admiration of the group's perceived overall qualities as Weaver is in her characterization of the group as "passive, tiny and hairless." Men like Ted, in their "pedestalization" of certain groups of women, further the idea that we are not "real" individuals. I think it's sad that Weaver would allow her disgust with Ted to extend to criticism of her Asian sisters. We women must not allow male rhetoric to drive us apart. Presenting a united front is the only way we will ever overcome sexism, which harms ALL women, no matter what their race. -- Sarah Petrides
_______________ HOME MOVIES BY CHARLES TAYLOR (05/05/98)
	Thank you for Charles Taylor's new column. I was amazed to read about one of my all-time favorite movies, "Rio Bravo," which I watch religiously every time it turns up on TV, no matter where or when. His analysis was wonderful. I remember the first time I saw "Rio Bravo" at the theater in my Texas hometown. I was a teenager in love with Ricky Nelson and, of course, like a good Texas child, I had been raised on John Wayne movies. I attended "Rio Bravo" with my best friend (since second grade) and we adored it. We knew everybody in it and loved them all. Of course, Ricky was the movie for us and our fevered adolescent lusts. I laugh now when I see it -- laugh at the memory of two 16-year-old girls who owned every Ricky record sitting in the theater, eating popcorn and adoring that movie. What did we know? I'm so glad I had it then and so glad to see that it still holds up --intellectually, no less. Bravo, Charles! -- Ilona Fucci I was simultaneously pleased and dismayed when I read that you were starting a new video column that reviews not just recent films, but movies that I might not otherwise think to look for at Scott's Super Video. I was dismayed because, alas, you picked Charles Taylor to write this column. When was the last time -- aside from his recent rental of "Rio Bravo"-- that Mr. Taylor actually enjoyed a film? I am not going to argue about his critical facility, or whether he is right about the "artistic values" of particular films. My problem with Taylor is that he so rarely likes anything, and his tastes are so different from the vast majority of people I know, I don't understand what value his critiques could hold for your readers. I mean, even when I disagree with him, at least Tom Shales is funny; Taylor is just caustic. His recent column is an excellent example. He spends quite a bit of time lionizing both "Rio Bravo" and John Wayne's performance. Hey, I got no truck with that. But he makes sure to take a subtle potshot at "High Noon," and a blatant blast at Frank Capra. My point being, of course, that if I asked 100 random people on the street, I would be willing to bet that more of them enjoyed a Capra film (for all its "we-the-people speechifying") or "High Noon" than "Rio Bravo." Next up: Cintra Wilson reviewing children's theme parks. Oh, the humanity. -- Douglas B. O'Morain SALON | May 11, 1998

R E C E N T L Y+| TINY, FLAT-CHESTED AND HAIRLESS! BY COURTNEY WEAVER (05/06/98)

If you'd like to submit a letter to the editor for publication,
please e-mail us at salon@salonmagazine.com.
Letters may be edited for clarity and conciseness.
If you do not wish the letter to be published, please say so.