_______________REALITY BITES BY KAREN GRIGSBY BATES (07/30/98)
	Karen Grigsby Bates' article raises some fine points as to why feminism doesn't appeal to more black women. She says that there are "imperious" white women who "revert to a position of privilege ... based on [their] historic position[s] as American icon[s]." She may be right: In my personal experience, some women's groups resemble sororities in which the members are mainly interested in becoming Alpha Female. Alas, white women aren't the only to jockey for position. "Women of color" will point to the color of their skin and proactively accuse white women of racism. No reference to the individual's thoughts, words or deeds is provided to explain why she's racist. The accusations are devoid of any real-life specifics, save the vague context of "history." The point of this accusation is not to foster a constructive dialog or even a frank confrontation about race attitudes. Rather, it allows the woman of color to ennoble herself through co-opted suffering. Now she's on top because she's morally superior to her white sisters. Another problem Ms. Bates has with feminism is that it doesn't acknowledge the difference between the world as it is and the world as it should be. But in criticizing the Central Park jogger and Desiree Washington she dishes out her own "should haves" from her armchair. The jogger should have known that Central Park is dangerous. Desiree Washington should have known that Mike Tyson is a brute. To defend her lack of compassion toward these victims, Bates counters feminist theory to assign motivations to the victims' actions leading up to the crimes. She boldly tells us that in reality women can't go out at night, and "no means no" is diluted when we go to men's hotel rooms at 2:30 a.m. I seriously doubt the jogger knew that Central Park was dangerous, but decided to exercise her right to go out anyway. I seriously doubt Desiree Washington knew the risks of Mike Tyson's companionship but thought she could enlighten him with a "no means no" lesson. At 18, she may have been too inexperienced to understand dating. We've all innocently taken some chances that looked unsafe in retrospect. Unfortunately, Washington and the jogger suffered terrible consequences. Bates should try harder to understand other people's thought processes, and show more humanity. -- Marceline Rogers Chicago "Reality Bites" by Karen Grigsby Bates was one of the best things I've read on the Web, or anywhere else, in a while. I enjoy most of what I read in Salon, but Bates' take on feminism and "Miss Anne" really stood out. -- Renee Cashmere "Of" and "for" are small words, but they're important ones. And they both have distinct meanings. For instance, the feminist group NOW is not an acronym for the National Organization of Women. The full name is the National Organization for Women. In Salon, Janelle Brown's article about Time magazine's death of feminism piece and Karen Grigsby Bates' piece on black women and feminism have both made this error. It matters. NOW has always had male members -- in fact, the second member of NOW I ever met, way back in the 1970s, was a man. I was 12, and believe me, it made an indelible impression on me. The founders of NOW thought long and hard about their organization's name, because they had a vision of an inclusive world, just as those who founded the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People did. These names aren't acts of exclusion; they're expressions of hope. -- Martha Garvey Brooklyn, N.Y. Editor's note: Both stories have been corrected. Speaking as a white male who has long supported feminism, I believe that Karen Grigsby Bates makes an all too valid point. I hate to agree with anything the "backlash babes" (Camille Paglia, Christina Hoff Summers and their ilk) say, but they are right on one thing: Too many reformist feminist leaders are white, middle-class, adult women from the suburbs, complete with a white, suburban worldview. This "Miss Anne" mentality, as Ms. Bates rightly calls it, manifests itself most strongly in NOW's efforts to censor "gangsta rap," and had Bates used that as an example of feminism's white bias, she'd get no argument from me. However, I do have to take issue with her faulting feminism with "not accepting responsibility for their actions" regarding that Central Park jogger. Call it "motherwit," but trust me on this: There are a lot of white, middle-class suburban males (or anti-feminist females, for that matter) out there who would not say anything different. That does not make it any less victim-blaming. Somehow I doubt that Martin Luther King, Malcolm X or, for that matter, Louis Farrakhan, would advise African-Americans to submit to hate crimes against them (lynching, police harassment or brutality) as "simple reality." And that is exactly what radical feminism is saying, that it is a stinging indictment of American patriarchal society that we tolerate hate crimes against women, whether it be against Central Park joggers or women beat to a pulp on a Saturday night in either Simi Valley or South Central. There's no doubt that white women enjoy a hell of a lot more safety and security than women (or most males) of color, but white men-- and, to a great extent, men of color, who buy into white America's concept of masculinity, as Mike Tyson has -- are the safest and most secure of all. -- Peter D. Muir Alameda, Calif.
_______________WHY CLINTON CAVED IN TO ISRAEL BY JONATHAN BRODER(07/28/98)
	As I read Mr. Broder's article on the current state (or lack thereof) of the Mideast peace process, I became more and more concerned. He writes that Clinton's caving in to Israel's demands is due to the administration's paralysis in light of the Lewinsky affair. This may be. I have no problem with this view. It's his second reason that frightens me. Mr. Broder wrote: "If the Lewinsky scandal has tied one of Clinton's hands behind his back in the Middle East, his Democratic campaign finance concerns have tied the other. As Democrats prepare to recapture the House this fall, and as Vice President Al Gore gears up for his presidential run in 2000, the party depends heavily on a small number of wealthy Jewish donors. No one likes to admit that fact, but the nation may learn more about this dependence if Attorney General Janet Reno recommends an independent counsel to investigate campaign finance abuses during the 1996 election." This concerns me because Mr. Broder is implying, if not saying outright, that Jewish money controls American politics and policy. Mr. Broder, where is your proof? By implying this you are creating an indisputable fact à la journalism. But is it true? What percentage of contributions to the Democrats come from Jews, especially "wealthy Jewish donors"? Where are your facts and figures? Journalistic responsibility means telling the truth, and backing it up. By repeating the age old canard of the Jews' alleged power and influence, you degrade journalism. It is also frighteningly dangerous. -- Peter Eckstein
_______________THE MERRY RECLUSE BY CAROLINE KNAPP (07/27/98)
	I n response to a recent letter from reader Ellen McDermott, who seemed to be complaining about the Mothers Who Think department: I think I'm correct in assuming that the section was created to acknowledge that mothers think about issues other than diaper rash, spit up and colic. I would probably read the MWT columns even if I didn't have two young sons, and I don't think I'd feel alienated. I'm sure that many people, including fathers, women (and men) without children can relate to, be entertained or informed by the wide variety of topics and columnists. I appreciate the entire magazine, but especially look forward to reading the new "Mothers" column each day. -- Rachel Jones SALON | Aug. 4, 1998

R E C E N T L Y+| SINS OF THE FATHERS BY ROS DAVIDSON

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.