Clinton’s candidacy

Re “Who’s sexist now?”, Opinion, May 29

Rosa Brooks’ columns always make my blood boil -- especially this latest one, another sophomoric diatribe against Hillary Rodham Clinton. Brooks didn’t have to offer Margaret Thatcher or Malika Aroud as evidence to back up her obvious claim that not all women are nurturing and gentle and that some may even be bellicose. One need only look at Brooks’ penchant for unfair, small-minded and below-the-belt opinions to come to that same conclusion.

Women (and men), millions of them, want Clinton to be president for myriad reasons, only one of which is the fact that she would be our first female president. She would bring to that office great strength, uncommon brilliance, a staggering amount of knowledge on issues of urgent importance, years of experience in problem solving and, yes, a nurturing and caring heart.

Marcia Kahan

Rosenthal

Santa Monica

--

I am a woman. I am a Democrat. And I am sick of Clinton being held up as the standard-bearer for our gender in this campaign. Clinton lost me when she became a hawk on the war. Her behavior in the last several months has been one shock and disappointment after another. Women, like men, vote for a candidate based on his or her ideas about domestic and foreign policy issues, the economy, the war, education, race, poverty. Barack Obama has a powerful vision for this country that appeals to me and millions of other voters.

To vote for Clinton just because she’s “the woman” reduces all of us to a one-dimensional, entry-level feminism that is outdated and out of touch. Wake up; it’s not 1979.

Michele Greene

Los Angeles

--

Clinton is lucky she was born female, otherwise she wouldn’t have much of a reason to run for president -- seemingly, her sex is the basis for her entire campaign. Her political values, stance on the war and questionable morality become second-hand assets in a nation that sees her primarily for, as Brooks puts it, her double-X chromosomes.

It is true that our society is male dominated, but is that a valid reason for enthroning female mediocrity? Maybe those who say the nation is not ready for a female president are right. However, Clinton has an ex-president as a husband and easy access to the White House -- maybe those who vote against her are not sexist but rather are supporting candidates whose names are not tainted.

Yana Pavlova

Hollywood