Rivers on Changing Gender Roles

Re “Millennial Woman: Make Her GI Jane, Not June Cleaver,” Commentary, Oct. 1:

Caryl Rivers paints the woman from early history as a fragile creature totally consumed by her fecundity. The anthropological records demonstrate that women were the main providers through their gathering activities. Being a mother meant also to be a gatherer.

In many cultures, women’s productive roles--as market women, for example, in West Africa--are taken seriously and are seen as an important aspect of their maternal role. In the West we have gone very far, if not to extremes, by creating this simplistic dichotomy between production and reproduction.

BARBARA WATSON

San Diego

Rivers’ article is a new low in liberal, feel-good feminism. Rivers may think that “past constraints on female behavior are easing,” but it is not monolithic male-imposed constraints that hold back women in the fields she mentions. Women and men are simply different in the areas of physical strength and aggressiveness.

There is a gulf which women will simply never cross; if Rivers doesn’t think that is true, send her down here to Camp Pendleton and let her spend a few days in the field with our infantry Marines. After 18-20 hours per day on the move with an 80-pound pack on her back and a rifle in her hands, we will see if the “old gender roles” have really changed.

CAPT. STAN COERR, USMC

Carlsbad

Rivers seems to focus on only two aspects of womanhood: 1) the reproductive paradigm, and 2) women’s physical triumph over men, whether it’s athletics or law enforcement or war. Is her goal to see women become the dominant gender? If so, will this stop wars, or drive-by shootings or prison riots? Is her goal to see women defeat men at everything from the 100-meter dash to the Indianapolis 500 to the Super Bowl?

Unfortunately, her observations are reactive, not proactive. While rejecting the June Cleaver image, she offers no palatable substitute, only a sweating, grunting Demi Moore who can kick the daylights out of any man, woman or child looking at her crosswise. Who is going to take care of the children with men and women locked in mortal combat to determine which gender reigns? On a more basic level, who is going to take care of the family?

Most of all, what happened to those relationships between man and woman called love and commitment? Do these have any role in Rivers’ sexual paradigm?

JOHN GOBBELL

Newport Beach