THE FIRST LADY

Why is it so often implied that anyone who criticizes or is wary of Hillary Rodham Clinton is an anti-feminist or intimidated by a woman in a position of power (“Hillary in the Hot Seat,” by David Lauter, May 23)? I know many people wary of Hillary Clinton who are liberal-minded, pro-equality Democrats who voted for Bill Clinton. Here’s the point: I voted for Bill Clinton, not Hillary Rodham Clinton. She is not an elected official or a “co-President.” Nowhere did her name appear on the ballot. Her life and ideologies were not scrutinized by the media and public as those of the other candidates were. If we are now electing couples rather than individuals, why don’t we just make it official and include spouses’ names in the ballot box. LANSING MCLOSKEY Venice

I am disturbed that Lauter made use of the word feminazi as if it were a dictionary word rather than a slur made up by that arch-right winger Rush Limbaugh. Granted, Lauter put quotes around it, but that won’t tend to keep it from soon becoming part of the language. The word not only insults feminists but also makes light of the atrocities of the Nazis and belittles the fate of 6 million Jews during World War II. Feminists are progressive by definition. To equate them with Nazis is nothing short of disgusting. PEG YORKIN FEMINIST MAJORITY FOUNDATION Los Angeles

How interesting that your cover photo of the First Lady shows her leaning so far to the left. GARRETT BURKE Los Angeles Editor’s note: But it’s to her right.

“She did not take her husband’s name,” the preacher shouted, referring to the First Lady. Well, the preacher needs to be set straight. There is nothing in the marriage contract stipulating that a woman must change her name. MARIE CATHERINE REYNOLDS Chino

Lauter called the First Lady the first in modern times to come into the White House having had an independent career. Even if we forget about Eleanor Roosevelt, what about Betty (Bloomer) Ford, the dance and fashion model? What about Nancy (Davis) Reagan, the movie actress? Were theirs not real careers? Or do these women predate modern times? JANET DIMAGGIO North Hollywood

Lauter responds: Both Mrs. Ford and Mrs. Reagan gave up their careers years before their husbands became President. Neither came into the White House from an independent career. Mrs. Roosevelt developed her independent career as a public figure only after her husband was elected. Any President is surrounded by influential advisers whom no one elected. Those who object to the influence of Hillary Clinton (or Nancy Reagan) but not to a Brent Scowcroft or a James A. Baker III or a Thomas F. (Mack) McLarty seem to be objecting to something other than non-elected status.

MULTIRACIALISM Why “begin . . . untying the Gordian knot of race” (“Shades of Black,” by Karen Grigsby Bates, May 23) when we can cut the knot in half by refusing to label anyone, including ourselves? When each person sees every other person as an individual, rather than as a label, we will have solved the race issue. PAM WYLIE Fullerton

The term multiracial may be the ultimate explanation for blacks who “don’t look black,” much like the “colored” class in South Africa. However, as a light-skinned black woman I have no desire to be co-opted by this pseudo-racial classification. It isn’t that I have no pride in my other blood, but rather that I was raised in a rich black culture and taught to be proud of it. It is important not to embrace too hastily the “multiracial” mantle, because in doing so we risk losing our commonality, numbers and identity. One of the beautiful and unique aspects of us African-Americans is our rainbow of hues. Our struggle against racism has been too long and difficult to be allowed to simply disappear into the melting pot. MICHELE KINGSLEY CHEVEREZ Santa Barbara

Bates has painted a portrait that reveals how thoroughly and effectively Americans, black and white, have been conditioned by centuries of racial bias. Because they attach so little value to anything African, individuals with a duality or plurality in their genetic parentage are rushing desperately to embrace the establishment of a new racial classification. With job and school applications now offering racial categories such as biracial or multiracial, people are hoping that checking any one of these categories will dilute the stigma they believe comes with African-American identification. In America, a biracial or multiracial child may have white, Asian or African genetic parentage, but he or she will have only one culture: African-American. No African-American, Hispanic-American or Asian-American will ever be acknowledged as white by American society as we know it, and checking off the biracial or multiracial box won’t make it so. ROLAND S. JEFFERSON DOCTOR OF PSYCHIATRY Los Angeles

In this country, someone one-eighth American Indian and seven-eighths white is generally perceived as white, but a person one-eighth black and seven-eighths white is said to be black. As one who is part black, part Cherokee and part white, I hope I live long enough to see the day when a person born in this country is simply considered an American ACHIENE AVERETTA Long Beach

Our organization, Multiracial Americans of Southern California, provides education, support and activities for multiracial couples, families and individuals. We also welcome aboard anyone concerned about the improvement of racial and cultural relations in Southern California. Fifty similar organizations are active across the country, as is the national Association of Multiethnic Americans. I applaud your inclusion of Bates’ article. NANCY G. BROWN PRESIDENT, MASC Los Angeles

As the product of a black father-white mother union, raised behind the Orange Curtain by an all-black family (my adoptive mother is black, American Indian and Jewish; my adoptive father is a light-skinned West Indian), I could relate to Bates’ article. I have been called Persian, Italian, Israeli, Mexican-American--you name it. I, too, was the target of the wrath of young black girls, who in college accused me of trying to steal “their men.” All my life I was taught that I was black--period. But it is quite difficult to retain that perception of oneself when everyone else has a different one. I live for the day when I don’t ever again have to hear the question “What nationality are you?” LESLIE NASH Costa Mesa

WHITE-CUBAN TIME The racial sentiments expressed by writer Alex Abella (“The New Rhythm of Florida,” May 23) and Olga Garay (director of Cultural Affairs for Miami-Dade Community College) are repugnant to me. I believe that their views should trouble every person who is not a white supremacist. How can Abella fail to note the crassness of Garay’s “heartfelt . . . no Moors on the beach” reference to display her white pedigree? How can Abella let slide by Garay’s backhanded compliment to the Mexican people. And are we Cubans the only Hispanics to celebrate our Spanish heritage? Why doesn’t Abella acknowledge blacks’ omnipresence in everything that is vital in the Cuban culture? Instead he throws us a bone by mentioning a few famous “mulattoes.” It all reminds me of at least one reason that the Cuban Revolution was so necessary, even if it was so tragic. I feel for the people of Overtown and Liberty City. For they, too, run on white-Cuban time, as do the black Haitian corpses that occasionally appear on South Beach. JOSE ANGEL SANTANA Santa Barbara

Abella responds: My intention was to point out the paradoxes of Cuban culture in the United States, not to preach any kind of white supremacy. Cuban culture is predominantly the mix of Spanish and African; thus all Cubans are, regardless of their skin color, both black and white--a mulatto culture, not unlike contemporary American culture, incidentally.

THEY SAY IT’S IN THE TRANSLATION In response to the letter from Keith Douglas Young (May 23) concerning equality for Iranian women (“Losing Faith,” by Robin Wright, April 25), I must take exception to Young’s position that the Koran states that men are superior to women in Sura 4, Aya 34. Unless Young reads Arabic, he was not reading the Holy Koran but a translation of it. The distinction is essential. Although the original Arabic text has never been modified, even in the slightest degree, translations into other languages may vary. My Koran, translated by A. Yusuf Ali, has an entirely different interpretation, as would most Arab-speaking Muslims. Instead of taking a particular Aya out of context, the entire content of the Koran should be considered. The roles of “superior man” and “inferior woman” simply do not exist. Rather, the complementary nature of the marriage relationship is apparent, where both partners are equally accountable before Allah for their actions and receive rewards or punishment accordingly. Concerning the letter from Annie Caroline Schuler (May 23): In her impression relating to a woman’s testimony she should be aware that during the time period that Sura 2, Aya 282 was revealed, women were unaccustomed to conducting business transactions. Therefore, if two women could corroborate each other’s observations concerning the particulars of a transaction, their testimony would be accepted. Schuler’s inference that this makes a woman half a human being is insupportable. CATHY FARARJEH Moreno Valley

A more accurate translation of the verse in question is: “Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because God has given the one more strength (i.e. physical strength) than the other, and because they support them from their means . . . .” (from the A. Yusuf Ali translation). G. MADYUN Altadena

Young quotes the Koran, which clearly puts a woman’s worth as less than a man’s, and Schuler asks why most religions devalue women because of having different genitals. It’s really very simple. Virtually all religions were devised by males. And he who gets to write the rules, almost without exception, will be sure to give himself the best deal. The unfortunate part is that God gets a bad rap because of human beings who claim to speak for Him or Her. Lucky for us, God has infinite patience and love. GEORGE A. CROLY Santa Maria