Wasted Talents and the Second Lady

In Betty Cuniberti’s article of April 23, “The Shaping of Marilyn Quayle,” Mrs. Quayle is quoted as saying “. . . I think we are moving to a place where the question shouldn’t ever cross anyone’s mind, ‘Why should the Second Lady work?’ I think I’ve been given talents I should use.”

I see no valid reason that she should not hold a paying position, if that is her choice. First of all, Mrs. Quayle is not the one elected to office. Therefore, she is not responsible to the American electorate for any duties of the vice presidency, ceremonial or otherwise.

Second, the role of Second Lady is just that--a role. It is not a paid position any more than her choice of playing the role of wife and mother. There are a vast number of women today who hold paying positions while fulfilling other roles in their lives. Should the Second Lady not be allowed the same choice?

Third, is the right to hold a paying position questioned because of spousal relationship to an elected official? Or is it being questioned because the role we are discussing has been historically played by women? If Geraldine Ferraro had been elected, would her spouse have been expected to volunteer 100% of his time to nonprofit work?

DEBBIE AHLBERG

Bakersfield