Rhoads not traveled
Ah, the joys of no longer working at UVA. I can speak freely about Steven Rhoads [“Mommies’ Little Helper,” March 14] without compromising the integrity of my former position. Like most of us, I applaud women who choose to take on the toughest job in the world and stay home to be full-time mothers and wives. Any woman who wants to and can should without seeking the approval of Dr. Rhoads, me, Gloria Steinem or anyone else.
But that does not diminish the femininity of women who choose a career outside the home. I believe Dr. Rhoads is prepubescently juvenile to suggest that women who are ambitious are flawed because we have testosterone pulsing through our veins. After all, I am ambitious, and trust me, Mr. Rhoads, I am 100 percent woman. No testosterone here. As for being promiscuous…. I wish! Where do I sign up? Did that memo go out the day I called in sick with cramps, or the day I was out getting my back waxed with the boys?
I hardly need some misogynist telling me how I behave, what I think, want and feel. Write all the books you will, but your work equates to nothing more than a well-read virgin describing an orgasm to an audience full of nymphomaniacs. You have no idea. S.W.A.K.
Loree Jarrell
Charlottesville
Offices need love, too
Mr. Rhoads argues that women are more suited to the home because they are more nurturing. Even if that is true (and I suspect that, if so, it is largely socialization), it is a huge and erroneous leap to suppose that all nurturers belong at home. Yes, being a parent at home does involve nurturing (among many other things). But nurturing is not something that is confined to the home. Not only do many careers expressly involve nurturing (medicine and education to name the most obvious), the most successful women (and men) bring nurturing skills to virtually all professions, by mentoring colleagues, managing workers, wooing clients, negotiating deals, providing legal counsel, governing communities, coaching athletes and bringing scientific research from idea to fruition. Women should not fall into the trap of accepting that a talent for nurturing means we always belong at home. The businesses and professions that control our world need us too.
Claudia W. Allen
Charlottesville
Think again
This is a response to Laura Ramirez’s letter to the editor in your March 14-20 issue. [“Think about it”]. Ms. Ramirez stated that the cartoon that ran on page 33 of the February 21-27 issue was poorly done and could easily be misunderstood. In a way she is insinuating that the cartoonist himself, Keith Knight, is racist. Complaints about Mr. Knight’s cartoons are also featured in The Rant. My problem with the letter, and these rants, is the lack of research done prior to the complaint. Keith Knight is an African-American cartoonist based out of San Francisco, and his cartoons are statements. The steps of individuals and organizations taken to put a stop to racial profiling are wonderful, and a necessary step to take as we move closer to equality and understanding. However, to simply close your eyes and pretend that it does not happen is a step backwards in that movement. From my interpretation of the cartoon, Mr. Knight is simply trying to bring to light that these issues still exist in the world today. You can learn more about Keith Knight by going to his website listed on the side of his cartoons.
Aaron J. Fabio
Charlottesville