WW welcomes letters to the editor via mail, e-mail or fax. Letters must be signed by the author and include the author's street address and phone number for verification. Preference will be given to letters of 250 words or less. OF HYENAS, WILDEBEESTS AND SOCIAL JUSTICE I am writing this letter to convey to you my extreme concern and disappointment with Philip Dawdy's article on Multnomah County Commissioner Serena Cruz ("Why are so many people fuming over Serena Cruz?," WW, Jan. 12, 2000). As the state legislative advocate for the Oregon Federation of Business and Professional Women's Clubs, it is part of my job to stay informed regarding the performance of state and local elected officials. I was therefore expecting this article to provide me with information about Commissioner Cruz. Unfortunate-ly, I feel that I learned a great deal more about Mr. Dawdy's prejudices towards women and people of color than I did about Commissioner Cruz's performance as a public official. I, too, have wondered about Commissioner Cruz's vote on the smoking issue and would have been interested in what she said about her vote. But rather than quoting her statement so that I, the reader, could make an informed, intelligent and independent appraisal of Ms. Cruz's position, your writer chose to instead comment on her manner, writing, "hunched forward against the dais, Cruz went after the ordinance...like a hyena with a wildebeest." That's not reporting, that's editorializing, and it's bad editorializing. I was particularly disturbed by the number of comments made by Mr. Dawdy which were indicative of an insensitivity toward women and people of color. For example, even though this is an article about Commissioner Cruz, Mr. Dawdy could not refrain from mentioning that all of our county commissioners at this time were women. When we have all male members of government (and it wasn't long ago that all of the City of Portland commissioners and the mayor were male), it goes without comment. At least, it goes without comment by Willamette Week, as if that were the natural order of things, but an all-female council has to be remarked upon. Worse, and more indicative of Mr. Dawdy's attitude toward women, was his comment, "All that intuition sometimes comes in handy...." If our commission were made up of all African-Americans would you have even printed a comment by your writer that "all that natural rhythm sometimes comes in handy"? That comment may have been intended as a compliment or as a sneer, but either way, stereotyping based on gender just perpetuates oppression. And then there are Mr. Dawdy's comments on race. He is appalled that Commissioner Cruz would not only think that some citizens of Portland might be racist, but would actually say so in public. Does Mr. Dawdy actually believe that there are no racists in Portland? Does he forget that an African immigrant was beaten to death with a baseball bat in this city by other citizens of Portland for being black? Worse, Dawdy comments, "Latinos and other ethnic minorities...believe that the INS targets people based on their skin color." I have news for Mr. Dawdy. It's not just Latinos and other people of color who believe that the INS targets people based on their skin color. A lot of us white folk believe it too, including white juries who have found the INS guilty of numerous instances of racial profiling and the violation of civil rights by doing such things as strip-searching African-American women--women who are American citizens--who return from travel abroad, on the racist assumption that black women (and only black women) only travel abroad to be used as mules for drug dealers. Mr. Dawdy's own biases are so apparent in this article that I am not interested in determining whether or not anything he has said about Commissioner Cruz is true, except for one thing. He says that for Serena, social justice is job one. We, the Federation of Business and Professional Women, an international organization formed in 1919, believe that every elected official should consider social justice as job one, and if it's true that Serena Cruz does, then she will certainly have our support. Deni Starr Southeast Francis Street DON'T YOU BE MY NEIGHBOR You ask why so many people are fuming over Serena Cruz [Jan. 12, 2000]. The answer is because she does not represent us. She is her own idea of what we need and want. She brags about being a Boise resident. She lives a few houses away from me. I think she is slumming--using Boise to make other people believe she cares about poor people. I am a member of the Boise neighborhood. I have faxed, mailed and given a personal invitation to Serena Cruz to attend our Boise Neighborhood Association and learn what the good people of Boise want in our neighborhood. In two years, she has never joined us. She did do a walk-by at the national night out. So did other commissioners. Some of them have done a lot more for us than Serena ever has. Serena is not a good neighbor. She creates problems with her complaints about the neighbors, but does not keep her place up. Her boyfriend gets city-sponsored jobs in the area, but she has never helped any of our Boise Business Neighbors. I own a business, which sells light bulbs, items that she needs. She has never been in my establishment. One time I asked her in person to attend one of our Boise neighborhood meetings. I told her that if she wanted to represent herself as a Boise resident she should become involved in the neighborhood, not just say she lives here. Her reply tells more about her than anything else. She said, "That is no way to speak to a commissioner." Sorry, Serena, you are not Queen Serena, you are a voted representative of the people. If you will not hear what we have to say, you have no business making decisions for us. Boise people are important people too. We know who we are and are able to decide what we need. You are not part of us by standing apart from us. Kay Newell North Mississippi Avenue SWINDLING SISTERS As a member of the linear white male power structure, I believe we should let the "Sisterhood Scam" run its course [Jan. 19, 2000]. These women are made for each other. But I do marvel at the naivete of their presumption that there is some kind of gender barrier to exploitation. Mike Rodrigues Southeast 22nd Avenue FOREVER IN BLUE JEANS I feel compelled to respond to E. Dye's article ("The Reign of Terror," WW, Jan. 19, 2000), which laments the popularity of biz-caz clothing in the workplace. She misses a critical point. Yes, the staple of my wardrobe is khakis and polo shirts, but I don't like it. In fact I hate it. I only dress this way because I can't wear blue jeans. My company's dress code doesn't allow denim. Does this ring a bell with anyone? I feel like myself in Levi's and would wear them to work every day if I could. Don't roll your eyes, Elizabeth. This wouldn't mean slithering down to slob-caz level. On the contrary, with blue jeans as the cornerstone of my working wardrobe, I would wear a dress shirt coupled with a sport coat or blazer. I would then not only be dressing hipper but more formally. Forget wearing a dress shirt and a blazer with Dockers; this is so square you might as well include a pocket protector and a tie. I choose not to wear a suit; I did that for 10 years and besides being uncomfortable it doesn't feel like me, either. In addition to the huge variation available with the jeans ensemble, personalized accessories even before considering jewelry would include assorted belts, shoes and cowboy boots. (Our governor misses the mark, though. Wearing neckties with jeans is so dorky that it should be outlawed.) So, because of the archaic dress code at work, my employer has ironically disallowed me from dressing much more stylishly and expensively. Are you listening, personnel department? Let me wear jeans and I'll cut my ponytail off. Maybe. Bruce Williamson Milwaukie REAL FUR FOR REAL PEOPLE Of course Kim Morgan's piece in defense of wearing fur ("Of Mink and Women," WW, Jan. 12, 2000) will draw reaction from readers. But it would be a shame if the debate is restricted to such obvious and narrow questions as "Should one don dead bunnies?" Ms. Morgan's article suggests the broader and more complex issues, such as how one chooses their causes, and how various worthwhile causes must be balanced against each other. We, as individuals, are not capable of giving our all to every crusade; neither, I suspect, can we honestly say that the causes we choose to champion are sufficiently philosophically pure so as to never interfere with worthy causes championed by others. Issues are messy: We are forced to pick and choose; we are forced to make concessions. So before you judge Ms. Morgan, take a look at yourself and recognize you have made your own choices that work for you. And while you're at it, take another look at Morgan's fetching, fur-enhanced photo. I, for one, believe she has chosen well. Rob Hart Northwest 19th Avenue FOR THE GREATER GOOD? I read your article "Of Mink and Women" (WW, Jan. 12, 2000) twice and attempted to find the fabulously "feminine" and "savage" in the accompanying ice-queen picture. Honestly, what I saw was more nauseating, smug and self-righteous than any real form of beauty. Your argument--if it's thrifty, looks great and isn't fur from an endangered animal, you'd wear it--would be more palatable if you understood the conditions under which some animals are raised and killed, or had some semblance of respect for the animals whose skins you covet. I realize you "don't give a rat's ass" about mink, but I find it bothersome that an animal is caged and skinned and its body discarded just so others can fawn upon you. Then again, your decision to wear fur is about something more than just your vanity. It begins with your alliance with your grandmother against your hippie mother. It's about standing up for your choice to wear something beautiful without your intentions being immediately judged or labeled. I also agree that we should not waste something that is still useful, including fur. What I find offensive is when you assert your "rights" with complete disregard and irreverence for the life and subsequent suffering of the animals whose fur graces your body. We all could do a better job at acknowledging that every act of living requires that something else die. We don't need to feel guilty about this fact, but we should question whether the suffering and damage incurred by our actions and decision 1) are necessary and 2) truly bring greater good to ourselves, our communities or the natural world. Let's take the time to understand that what we receive from this world--whether it is food, clothing or shelter--is a gift, not a right, and should be treated as such. Amy Livingston Southeast 16th Avenue - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Willamette Week | originally published February 9, 2000