The problem with the discourse about women, and if they should stay at home and care for their children and/or pursue their own careers is the implicit notion that men have to work and support their wives and children and that either working or staying at home, are only options in personal furfillment for a women. It is never asked how men feel about working. They are just supposed to be there, like a piece-of-furniture, supporting their wives and families. They are supposed to acquiesque to which ever decision the woman makes. That's a very ironic way about thinking about men, from women who wished not to be thought of in this manner.

It is entirely ignored now the fact that for most middle-class families, two paychecks are a necessity if one wishes to live the classic 1950's middle class life. This means that for most women, working is not an option, it is a necessity. It also means that working is not for self-furfillment, it is for money which is precisely the reason most men work.

I think that in asking the question of "staying home or going-to-work," the real point and question is being overlooked. The real question is should women have other interests and sources of sense-of-self beyond merely being homemakers and mothers? I think that the answer to this question is yes, and not only for the sake of the women.

Women who have trained for careers and have worked are more likely to be able to relate to their husbands and their problems. They will be more able to relate to their husbands and their problems. In short they will also make better wives as they will be able to relate to their husbands and their work lives more effectively. They will have the state in the wide world of things. They will be able to think beyond the provinciality of their homes, their children, and their other friends and relatives.

Ms. Walsh's letter suggests that she had both an inclination to stay at home with the children and also an inclination to pursue her career. That's honest. No human being, male or female or otherwise, is only one thing. That's what we need to recognize, that if women feel under pressure to make one choice or the other, than perhaps the problem is not one of personal philosophical choice, but rather the society and the job market at large.

Dear Editor:

If there so-called fiscal conservatives really believed in balanced budgets, the they should have supported Al Gore who was going to continue the balanced budget and fiscally responsible policies of former President Bill Clinton.

All this talk about a "Reagan Legacy" and how it was betrayed is nonsense. The deficits expanded under Reagan precisely for the same reasons they did under Bush 43, because of massive tax cuts for the very rich. The current President Bush did not betray the Reagan legacy, he carried on in the same tradition, with even more disasterous results.

This is always the problem of image over reality in American politics. For the fiscal conservative crowd that is now discovering its disillusion with Bush, Clinton and Gore represented "big spending liberals" in their mind. It doesn't matter what they acutally do or did, only the symbolic association, which they loathed, in their mind.

Sincerely yours,

Arthur C. Hurwitz

Dear Editor:

Al Franken was correct in pointing out that two of the honored guest at the Women's Campaign Fund benefit, Senators Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins, were working against the interests which the WCP claims to advance. This is particularly relevant with regard to confirmation votes for Supreme Court Justices who will have an influence on our society, and the fate of many women, for years to come.

Bringing more women into the political process is not an end in itself. It is supposed to advance a certain agenda which involves access to contraception, the right to abortion, improved educational opportunities, and universal, inexpensive, and good child care for all. Politicians, if they happen to be women, who do not work to advance this agenda should not be supported.

There are plenty of right-wing women: Phyliss Schafley, Lynn Cheney, Elaine Chao, Ann Couture, and the like. Because they happen to be women do not mean implicitly that they will work to improve the lot in life of others of their gender.

Sincerely yours,

Arthur C. Hurwitz

Dear Editor:

The real problem with all "galmour professions" such as acting, and also writing, is that there is very little room in them for people who are not at the top of their field. That means that for an actor who is not established, there is no middle class career track. Either one becomes famous and makes a lot of money, or one makes no money at all.

I can certainly understand why Birkenhead would like to stop acting, but I really do not understand why he would substitute one "winner take all" occupation for another one with similar problems. If he wrote that he was off to Law School or Business School, or even if he found himself a teaching job, then I would understand. But what makes him think that writing is going to be any easier than acting?

Sincerely,

Arthur C. Hurwitz