I've been doing that, recently, and the results surprised me.

I didn't realize that very few of them stuck to passing canapés.

I didn't realize that over 90% of them, beginning with Abigail Adams, were very actively involved in the political process. (You'd like her. She threatened a women's rebellion against law if her husband didn't do something about women's inequalities before that law.)

I didn't realize how many of them showed far better judgment than their husbands. Not that I expected them to be idiots; rather, it became clear to me that most of their husbands owed their political success to their wives.

I didn't realize that a good half of them made some form of significant stride to expand this unpaid public service job by doing something new--be it Sarah Polk's virtual co-presidency or Betty Ford's willingness to talk about her health and addiction issues or Lady Bird Johnson as the driving force behind getting rid of the litter and billboards.

Sure, it's nice to make a couple hundred grand a year in a position of great prestige and influence. But Edith Wilson wouldn't have even had Michelle Obama in for tea, eighty-odd years ago. That Michelle Obama might now be the one deciding who comes over for tea is certainly overdue, but it will certainly be huge if it happens.

The reason I write (besides my admitted dislike of feminism and its basic, inherent hypocrisies) is because I think your article's 'feminist fury' isn't very respectful to the forty and more women who have molded the unpaid office of White House Hostess/First Lady into a such an important role--so important that it's valid to reject a Presidential candidate simply because his wife might not be up to the task. Could a single man or woman be elected today? I doubt it.

Michelle Obama is clearly up to that task. Like it or not, nothing she might do working with the hospitals would ever have gotten her name before me. Even aspiring to become First Lady (however reluctant) has done just that: now she's on my radar, and that of everyone else interested in public affairs. If her husband is elected, she will merit her fair share of the credit--perhaps more than half, because without her sacrifice I doubt he'd have a prayer. I think you ought to show more respect for the historic role of the First Lady, and perhaps even a little optimism about what stamp Michelle Obama might place on the role, instead of going on a rant about what a comedown it is for her.

jkk

I've never understood why people give the media free content unless they're getting something from the media in return. Sometimes that's spin doctoring, sometimes that's PR, theoretically it could be money--but for gods' sake get something. That way it's at least as moral as prostitution.

The catalogs you can at least chuck in the recycle. But what about those business reply envelopes? Each one sealed and tossed back into the mail empty requires the recipient to pay full postage. It's perfect: it raises first class revenue for the postal service, it directly punishes the junk mailer in the wallet, and it makes them dispose of their own garbage.

If you've got a lot of time on your hands, take all the junk you got that day (minus your name and address), and cram that in the envelope. Tape tightly. Then they'll have to pay for overweight and over-thickness. I used to do this back before I started to value my time. If you had chunks of sheet iron, you could even insert those in the envelope and mail them. Lead would be heavier and easier to work with, but lead is toxic, so definitely don't send that. I wonder what it costs them to receive a two-pound chunk of iron.

My method: I decide if the junk mailer has annoyed me in some way. Most do. All credit card offers automatically qualify, as do snooty magazines (especially anything from Conde(scending &) Nast(y). After all, I just know they'd love to make a donation to the USPS.

Let me get this straight. Abortion should be entirely the woman's choice (since the man isn't allowed to pressure her in any way and must simply accept her decision). If he wants the baby and feels pain that it won't be born, thus having the emotions of a responsible father, he creeps you out. But if he doesn't want the baby and she has it anyway, is he exempt from paying child support? Why do I suspect that isn't on the program?

And you wonder why some of us men did our utmost to ensure that we would never contribute to the conception or parentage of a child. From the feminist standpoint, mothers have rights and responsibilities; fathers have responsibilities but no rights (unless you call the obligations to rubber-stamp the woman's decision and write checks 'rights'). Charming.

Then again, feminists have persistently argued that something that can die without nourishment is somehow not yet alive. We shouldn't be surprised that in this area, too, they will selectively avoid any fact that proves inconvenient.