To: Zoltan! who wrote (201981 ) 11/12/2001 10:10:46 AM From: E Respond to of 769670 Morning, Z. I wrote a longish post to S_F last night and lost it. Sigh. Later, maybe. I read Sullivan from time to time, not consistently. I'll be off SI today trying to get some work done, but as long as you're here, I'm going to say something about your Sullivan quote from Katha Pollitt's piece:"9/11 and its sequelae [sic] have definitely rehabilitated such traditional masculine values as physical courage, upper-body strength, toughness, resolve. Pollitt is such an ideologue she can't resist a dig even when it insults women. Okay, on upper-body strength men win hands down. (Though it's hardly a 'value') But the myth that courage, toughness, and resolve are not attributes or values shared by women no longer prevails.(It would seem positively ungrateful to ask why, in a city half black and brown, the "heroes" were still mostly white, and, for that matter, still mostly male.) It would not only seem ungrateful, it would seem gratuitous, dumb and disingenuous, the answer is so obvious. Well, not 'obvious,' but complex-- and there is no evidence that the explanation is departmental bigotry. Does Pollitt think the fire and police departments haven't tied themselves in knots trying to recruit minorities? And those fields are not closed to women, and, to allow them entry, physical size and strength requirements have been lowered to the point where one meets cops who are quite petite. Pollitt surely knows that her publisher, The Nation, is very short on black editorial staff, and surely knows the reason, there. It would be easy to make a dig implying that Victor Navasky and Katrina Van den Heuvel were racist, but the actual reason is not that. BTW, why is there a '[sic]' after 'sequelae' I wonder.