ROANOKE TIMES
Copyright (c) 1996, Roanoke Times
DATE: Sunday, March 10, 1996 TAG: 9603080006
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: F2 EDITION: METRO
TYPE: LETTERS
THERE IS a new chauvinism being celebrated in Blacksburg this month (and next): the so-called Women's Month 1996. This enterprise, the stated goal of which is ``to educate people about feminism,'' is underwritten by Virginia Tech, and includes a full calendar of events on its campus.
A sampling of events and sponsors should prove elucidating. Scheduled seminars include the following: ``Perverting Evolutionary Narratives of Heterosexual Masculinity, or Getting Rid of the Heterosexual Bug,'' ``Moving Forward from Beijing,'' and my personal favorite, ``The Sexual Politics of Meat: an ecofeminist analysis of the interconnected oppressions of sexism, racism and speciesism.'' For the religious-minded, there will be a ``Feminist Theology Panel,'' a discussion on ``Women and the Catholic Church,'' a ``Night of the Goddess'' celebration, and the film ``Thank God I'm a Lesbian.''
Of course, Gloria Steinem (founder of Ms. magazine) is the keynote speaker. Some of the events' sponsors include The National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws, the New River Valley Coalition for Animal Rights and the Environment, and the Montgomery County NOW.
Can you imagine the outcry that would be heard if social conservatives carried on a five-week-long extravaganza in Blacksburg at taxpayers' expense? And at a time of so much budget cutting in higher education? Yet there's a strange silence here. I believe most people in Blacksburg don't support Women's Month, but choose not to speak out because they're intimidated; don't want to be labeled chauvinistic, racist, homophobic or cruel to animals; indifferent; or figure if they just ignore it, it will go away. KEVIN SEBRING BLACKSBURG
Who needs flicks for bleakness?
IN RESPONSE to Mike Mayo's Feb. 10 review, ``Boozy `Leaving Las Vegas' is bleak and believable'':
Thanks, Mayo. After reading the first sentence, I realized that I didn't have to finish reading the review, but I had just saved myself $5.75 and two precious hours of time that could have been wasted watching another realistic movie with an unhappy ending.
You see, I'm a member of the disdainful public that goes to the movies for sheer unadulterated escapism. I don't want to see real life - I live there. I want to see the bad guys get caught, see the guy get the girl at the end and live happily ever after, and see the problems of world hunger and nuclear disarmament solved in 90 minutes. I want to go home feeling as though the burden of living my mundane existence has been lifted for a while.
I'm cynical enough to realize that if a realistic sequel to a happy-ending movie such as ``Sabrina'' were made, it would probably have the Harrison Ford character wanting to divorce his wife, but unable to do so because the prenuptial agreement that had been written in French wasn't binding by American law. The character played by Julia Ormond would end up in a treatment center for anorexia because her husband would withdraw into workaholism and totally neglect her, not to mention the white-collar crime and various adulterous affairs that would take place. I don't need to go to the movies to see this. All I have to do is get in a long line at the grocery store and read the tabloids.
I hope Hollywood continues to churn out movies with "obligatory happy endings" because I'll continue to go to the theater and watch them. If they're good enough, I'll rent or maybe even purchase the video tape - because that's entertainment! BETSY RICHARDS ROANOKE
The challenge to Forbes supporters
UPON COMPLETING my first effort with my federal income taxes, I decided to crunch numbers and see what percent I was paying with those taxes. From my 1040-A form, line 23, I took the tax amount I had computed and divided it by my taxable income, line 22. The answer was 15 percent, which immediately turned my mind to politics!
Needless to say, I thought of a Republican candidate and his proposed flat tax of 17 percent. This brought to mind a recent Doonesbury cartoon where Steve Forbes was visiting with a New Hampshire farm couple.
Farmer: "As I understand it, you want a rate of 17 percent, but we currently pay only 15 percent! So you're proposing a plan that will increase my taxes by hundreds of dollars while reducing yours by millions? Is that right?"
Candidate Forbes: "There'll be some sacrifices, yes."
I think Forbe's greatest asset is the inability of most Americans to compute base, rate and percentage-type problems. Ah, hah! The failure of the American educational system? Maybe so. FRANK D. WILLIAMSON COVINGTON
U.S. policy on AIDS wrongly depicted
THE HEADLINE (Feb. 10 edition) screams "Clinton slams military's AIDS policy." Nothing in the article warrants that headline. The president didn't "slam" the military at all.
Among other things, the Defense Authorization Act signed into law by President Clinton includes the policy of the United States government on the subject, not that of the military. Until now, the government's policy was that HIV-infected military people be kept in active service and treated at government expense. Such persons, because of treatment policy, aren't assigned to combat duty or overseas posts. Apparently, the new provision is intended to improve combat readiness by forcing these noncombat people into retirement, to be replaced by combat-ready people. The new policy is that any serviceman or woman infected with HIV is to be honorably discharged within six months. Clinton has instructed his administration to provide full disability-retirement pay, health-care coverage and transitional benefits, like vocational education, to those forced out.
An act of Congress to change government policy shouldn't be translated in a headline to demean the armed forces. The armed forces serve the president, and do not make policy. The president may not agree with the law, but he cannot change it. It's a law the military must obey. ARTHUR A. STRUNK Capt., U.S. Navy (Retired) MONETA
China is doing its best for orphans
I DIDN'T appreciate the political cartoon on your Feb. 7 Opinion page that insinuates all orphans in China are sentenced to an early death. Recent media coverage of deplorable conditions in Chinese orphanages is based on information gathered prior to 1992, and on conditions in only a few orphanages. This coverage does nothing to improve our relations with China. And it could ultimately hurt orphans if China decides to end its excellent international-adoption program.
Do you realize that 3,000 Chinese orphans were approved for international adoption last year and have joined loving families in Canada, the United States and a few other countries? One such adoption was for my daughter. I traveled to China last summer with a group of 10 prospective families, four from the Roanoke area. We were treated by the China International Travel Service with courtesy and respect, and our adoptions were smooth and well-orchestrated. The orphanage that housed our daughters took excellent care of them, and we could tell their caretakers loved them very much. It was a tearful parting when we took our babies, but the caretakers were glad they would be getting good homes.
At least nine adopted Chinese children are in the Roanoke Valley at this time. All of the parents, along with friends across the United States who have adopted, are delighted with our children, and extremely grateful to China for taking such good care of them before we picked them up. Our children will grow up knowing their heritage, and we hope to instill in them some understanding of the complex problems - too complex for those with a "Western" mind-set to totally comprehend - in their birth country.
I'd like to see some positive press about China. Orphanages all over the world struggle to feed and support abandoned children. It's certainly not unique to China. I feel they're working hard to care for their orphans. Please don't give China more bad press that could lead it to close its adoption program. KATE J. GERNHARDT ROANOKE COUNTY
LENGTH: Long : 139 linesby CNB