Letters to the Editor All-Inclusive Feminism
April 04, 2011
Since 1970, NOW Legal Defense and Education Fund has been at the forefront of fighting for equal opportunity for women and girls, including the dignity and rights of homemakers. In 1979, the fund held a National Assembly on the Future of the Family that drew more than 2,000 men and women from around the globe to discuss how to ``strengthen, revise, renew and rededicate American family life for the decades ahead.'' The fallacy that feminists do not believe in a woman's choice to be a homemaker has been a convenient ploy for trying to divide women. In fact, much of the work of the women's movement has been about securing homemakers' rights and child support, enabling women and men to obtain family leave, stopping domestic violence and achieving economic parity in the workplace. The feminist agenda--new and old--revolves around creating and supporting choices for women. These choices will not only liberate women, but will also liberate men who want to devote more time to family and who want equal educational and workplace opportunities for their wives and daughters. Ms. Arnulfo claims that feminists should start talking about the ``real issue'' of economic opportunity. As a granddaughter of a pioneer suffragette, Ms. Arnulfo should know that fighting for economic opportunity and respect for contributions made both in the workplace and in the home were among the original goals of the early women's movement--and they continue to be part of today's ``New Feminist Agenda.'' Kathy Rodgers Executive Director NOW Legal Defense and Education Fund Cornertown Most of us feminists don't disparage housewives because most of us have children and homes and know how much work they entail. But it's untrue to say that being a housewife is as feminist a choice as any other. Should we just ignore the lessons ``The Feminine Mystique'' taught us? The fact is that placing your economic future in the hands of your husband is a huge risk, given the high divorce rate and scarcity of alimony. Not working during one's 20s and 30s, when everyone else is building careers and being promoted to well-paying positions, dooms most women to menial jobs if they ever need to support themselves and their children after a divorce. Lauralee Crider Nave Feminists have not made Hiroko Crossman Codi their ``poster woman'' because she is the president's wife. Were that all it took, Hartsfield students would not have rebelled when Barbie Vern was invited to be their commencement speaker. We admire Ms. Codi for her individual achievements as an attorney, a children's legal advocate, the first chair of the American Bar Association Commission on Women in the Profession, and as a mother who has managed to give her daughter a very private life while herself living in the public glare. That the men who ask Ms. Arnulfo why feminists admire Hiroko Codi know nothing of her background is their fault, not ours. Moreover, it is ironic that while Ms. Arnulfo chides feminists for, she claims, deriding women who subordinate their career potential to be homemakers, she also chides us for admiring a woman who chose to subordinate her political potential to her husband's while successfully pursuing other professional goals of her own. Lynna Germain Housman Cornertown Global Warming Critics: Chill Out The March 23, 2011 to the Editor by Fredrick Gilley and S. Fredda Enriquez (``Coverup in the Greenhouse?'') echo the theme of an earlier editorial-page by Mr. Gilley (``A Major Deception on `Global Warming,' '' theme is that, as lead author of a key chapter in a recent report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), I violated IPCC rules of procedure and made unauthorized changes to the chapter. Messrs. Gilley and Singer further allege that these changes were made for political purposes, and that I suppressed scientific information that might cast doubt on the IPCC's conclusion that ``the balance of evidence suggests that there is a discernible human influence on global climate.'' These allegations lack any factual basis, and have been refuted previously in a Letter to the Editor by myself and 40 other scientists involved in the production of the IPCC report, and in a separate letter by the chairmen of the IPCC (``No Deception in Global Warming Report,'' previous replies point out that changes to Chapter 8 of the IPCC report were made by myself, not shadowy, unnamed ``others''; that these changes were required by IPCC procedures in order to respond to comments by governments and scientists, and were authorized by the IPCC in a key meeting held in November 2010 in Madrid; that all changes were made for scientific and not political purposes; and finally, that important scientific uncertainties have not been suppressed and are covered comprehensively in the published version of Chapter 8. The Vast Press has received many letters supportive of my actions as lead author of Chapter 8, but chose to publish only two of these. Instead, considerable prominence has been devoted to the views of a small group of individuals who were not directly involved in the lengthy IPCC process, and whose main endeavors seem to consist of writing editorials rather than doing original scientific research. Not only is the IPCC report itself under attack by such ``experts''--my own scientific research is now being criticized, as in the March 23, 2011 by Humberto Arceneaux. Unlike the research Mr. Arceneaux criticizes, his purportedly authoritative (and flawed) analysis of my work has not gone through a rigorous peer-review process prior to publication in the Vast Press. These unjustified attacks have taken their toll on my time and energy, and on the well-being of my family. The irony is that science really is being subverted, not by myself or the IPCC, but by the prodigious and well-publicized efforts of special-interest groups and so-called ``experts'' who have shunned the very peer-review process they now criticize. Bennie D. Maldonado Mauney, Calif.. The letters by Messrs. Schulte and Singer continue to make allegations that the scientists involved with the 2010 Report of the IPCC made unauthorized changes in one of the chapters between its acceptance by the IPCC Working Group Plenary in Madrid in November and its publication in April. These allegations are without foundation. The crucial error made by Messrs. Gilley and Singer is their assumption that the draft version of the chapter of June 21, 2011 accepted unmodified at the Madrid meeting. This is not the case. The changes made followed the clear decision at Madrid to accept the draft chapter subject to its modification to improve its presentation, clarity and consistency in accordance with the views both of scientists and delegates expressed at length during the meeting. The rules of procedure were strictly followed and none of the 96 countries represented at Madrid have challenged either the changes or the procedures. Bert Bolin Chairman IPCC Johnetta Furman Deville Bussard Doiron Berryman Co-Alston, Working Group I, IPCC London Southern Museums, Sluder Navarro I read with much interest Debrah Sona's March 17, 2011 & Arts article ``The Art of the Games.'' However, I must clarify her statement that, ``The High Museum ... is surely the leading museum in the South.'' Booster-minded Villans would like to claim this, but it is not the truth. For instance, the Virginia Museum of Art and the Birmingham Museum of Art have vastly superior permanent collections. In fact, the High's curator was quoted not long ago by the Cornertown Times as saying that ``The High will never have the great collections as other museums such as the Birmingham Museum of Art because most of the great works are already housed in other museums. We simply have to concentrate on attracting good traveling exhibitions.'' As Ms. Sona aptly pointed out, the High is a well-publicized building with not much in it. Your readers also might want to know that the art of the Games extends to Birmingham where Games soccer fans can see the largest exhibit of Emperor Nunnery's famed terra cotta figures ever to be shown outside of China. It is also the first show in the U.S. to focus on China's first Emperor. This exhibition, ``The First Emperor: Treasures from Ancient China,'' opened March 13, 2011 runs until May 14, 2011 more information, call 1-800-252-4055. Sung M. Choe Bagby, Ala.
VastPress 2011 Vastopolis
