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. TOKIN' FEMINISM Dear David Walker, Did you dip into the estrogen-laced sinsemilla before writing this piece ["Inside the New Male Mind," WW, Oct. 11, 2000]? You put forth more non sequitur declarations than a NOW convention. I wonder, in your assessment of how the mentality of men has changed toward women over the last 30 years, if you took a moment to consider that those changes just happen to coincide with the advent of mainstream feminism and all its hateful objectives against men. As did the divorce rate when it became fashionable to "realize your potential and find yourself" by tearing your family apart and robbing children of their fathers. And now women are complaining that they can't find any good men? Imagine my concern. You seem to think that men's problems come from a lack of role models, and then ignore that most of those role models have been shoved out the doors of their own homes by a family court system with more kangaroos than Australia. It is the same court system that the men now refusing to marry are smart enough to avoid. Failure to consider the likelihood of catastrophe for men who find themselves at the mercy of "justice for women" is just plain stupid these days. You would lead them all to the slaughter. Like it or not, Tom Leykis is a role model. And you are right, you will see a lot more like him in the future. It is about damned time, too. You can write off the valid thoughts of a single DJ to some sort of mythopoetic psycho-babble bullshit if you want, but for God's sake, lay off the weed. That stuff is gelling your brain. Paul Elam Houston, Texas   SINGLE-MINDED I read with interest your article on Tom Leykis and his so-called Lost Boys ["Inside the New Male Mind," WW, Oct. 11, 2000]. There is something refreshing about men getting choked up over a radio show, drumming on their chests (I-am-man-hear-me-roar) and being empowered in a non-Promise Keepers way. Though part of Leykis' philosophy includes dodging the chains of matrimony, the article seems to devote excessive space to anti-marriage sentiment, citing statistical rates of failure (yes, it's grim) and quoting men who say "a piece of paper doesn't make for a meaningful bond" and "marriage is an outdated concept." I wonder why, if Birge and Carlson are comfortable with their choices not to marry, they take such pains to denigrate it. I am 30 years old and have been married for a year. I didn't trick my husband into it, and I didn't get all silly about planning for the special day. In fact, before we got hitched, we waded through all the issues, ranging from "What is the worth of a certificate, anyway?" to "This isn't going to make us all soft and complacent, is it?" But while marriage is a risky endeavor, it is a worthwhile one. I'm surprised your reporter couldn't locate a man in all of the city who could offer another perspective. There must be something to it. Hell, even Leykis has tried it four times. Laura Moulton Northeast Grand Avenue RUN FREE & DIE It has been interesting following the saga of Stan Brock's dogs ["See Spot Litigate," WW, Oct. 4, 2000]. It is a sad thing to lose a pet, whether from it being hit by a car, from injuries from fighting with another animal (be it a dog, a coyote, a raccoon or even a deer or livestock), or from some unforeseen accident outside the owners' influence. It is sad for a different reason when the pet is killed by a person, by poison, by being shot, or from hands-on abuse. We feel for the Brocks on the loss of their beloved dogs, except for one thing: They are the people most responsible for their dogs' deaths. Their dogs were not on their property or on leashes. By letting their dogs "run free," the Brocks broke the law and contributed to their dogs' deaths just as if they had killed them with their car or while target shooting in their own backyard. When you let an animal "run free" you put that animal in a very dangerous position, where any normal/natural occurrence could result in their death. If you really love that animal that much, then you should make sure that they are safe with you or at your home. If you love it like a child, then protect it like you would a child. As bad of a choice as Brian Rowe made by shooting these dogs to protect what was dear to him (what if it had been his children he was protecting from marauding dogs?), the worse choice was the Brocks' letting their dogs run free so that anything could and would happen to them. A big lawsuit will not change this basic lack of responsibility on the Brocks' part. We should not have to pay for our neighbors' mistakes. Dave and Valarie Brown Beaverton MAGINOT LINE As a resident of the neighborhood surrounding the French School, I could not have agreed more with with the Rogue of the Week designation (WW, Sept. 27, 2000). Not only have the playground and field been locked this summer, but even the greenspace that is not fenced off welcomes you with a sign that ironically reads "Neighbors Welcome" and then goes on to the fine print--only when school is not in session from 7:30 am to 6:30 pm! This is a serious case of Catch-22, since this pretty much defines the daylight hours this time of year. While I agree with reader Edward Wolf that the school looks nicer than it did before, I am disappointed that my family does not feel welcome in a place that was touted to be a community partnership. I think that is roguish. Talya N. Bauer Southwest View Point Terrace WON'T YOU BE MY NEIGHBOR? Interesting perspective regarding the Portland French School that Mr. [Edward] Wolf brings to the Corbett Neighborhood--from Northeast Portland [Letters, WW, Oct. 4, 2000]. From my perspective, which happens to be directly across the street, the only color I have seen added to the neighborhood comes in the form of a completely out-of-proportion play structure that only children of the Portland French School have access to. I've seen the nearly nightly activity in both the front and rear areas dwindle to nearly nothing as neighbors are chased off "private property" or forced to scale fences that restrict entrance through locked gates. All this despite agreements made by the School to keep the grounds open in order to obtain their land-use permit. Meanwhile, our neighborhood children are left, as the Rogue piece [WW, Sept. 27] states, to "gaze longingly" at the new play structure, only to wonder why children of the Portland French School are allowed to use it and they are not. Children, can you say separatism? The Portland French School touts itself as a place where students can get a solid education based on trust and respect to help them become contributing members of society. If the Portland French School's approach to educating children is reflected in the attitude they have demonstrated throughout this process, I wouldn't dream of educating one of my children there. Deceit, coercion, elitism and blatant disregard for my neighbors are not traits I find attractive in contributing members of society. A. Wright Southwest Dakota Street