EDITOR: It shows poor judgment to ask such flippant rhetorical questions ("Did you have anything to do with burning down that school on Queen Anne?") during your interview with Mayor Paul Schell ["Questioning Schell," Josh Feit, April 5]. For what purpose does such "sharp wit" serve? It certainly provides no useful information. The Stranger seems to have this habit of reading the writing on the wall--the conventional wisdom--and then launching all-out attacks, [with] no real sense of what is appropriate or not; it's like children imitating adults. It's fine to put that stuff in an op-ed editorial, because it is funny, but to mouth off during a Q&A session with the mayor is childish, disrespectful, and tacky.
Reuben, via e-mail
JOSH FEIT, TIM KECK, AND DAN SAVAGE: In your interview with the mayor, you asked Paul Schell to name a mistake he had made, and what he had learned from it. He admitted having been unprepared for the WTO, but claimed: "...my values are intact about letting everybody be heard." What outrageous revisionism! Mayor Schell not only allowed the Seattle Police Department and officers from nearby jurisdictions to be co-opted into the WTO's private security force at the expense of Seattle taxpayers, he [also] illegally suspended First Amendment rights to freedom of expression in a huge portion of downtown Seattle! Mayor Schell is entitled to his own values, but they should scare the heck out of anyone who believes in the Bill of Rights.
Alex Myrick, via e-mail
EDITORS: If I ever entertained the foolhardy notion that maybe Mayor Paul Schell is just as misunderstood and well meaning as he purports to be, The Stranger just cured me of that. I read "Questioning Schell" with equal parts incredulity and disgust. You'd think a grown man with a degree and some experience dealing with the public would figure out how to handle the Mardi Gras riots after the WTO's bloody pepper-spray [display].
Schell's clueless... all the way up to the way he was played, drawn, and quartered by the wise-ass verbal beating from his interviewers. No wonder an innocent man died in what basically amounted to nothing more than a race war at the cops' expense. Next time this jackass decides to make his police force stand down (and let's not kid ourselves, Police Chief Gil Kerlikowske was just Schell's puppet) in the midst of an approaching riot, somebody make sure Mayor Paul Schell is there to witness the violent mayhem firsthand. Perhaps when his face is being slammed into the concrete sidewalk repeatedly while various orifices are simultaneously being violated by strangers' fingers and bottles as the cops stand around and gawk with the rest of the civilian cowards, [Schell will realize] just how serious the past two riots were and just how stupid his lack of leadership... nah, probably not.
Carol Banks Weber, via e-mail
DEAR EDITOR: Thank you for the recent article that summarized Mark Sidran's accomplishments as city attorney ["Mark Sidran's Seattle," Stranger news staff, April 5]. I'm sure you meant it as an indictment of his record, but for me it served as a reminder: I fully support what Mr. Sidran has done in an effort to make my city a more civil place to live. I think he would make a far more effective mayor than his opponents. I will not predict a Sidran victory next November in liberal, politically correct Seattle. However, I think you will be surprised at the number of votes he gets from the "silent majority."
Bob Knudson, Seattle
DEAR PAULA: Well of course Shaun Surething is a feminist. Look at his upbringing--and he's gay ["Growing up Male and Feminist," Paula Gilovich, April 5]! Why didn't you interview me? I'm a heterosexual male who feels that women should have equal pay, etc., and who constantly has unprovoked conversations about feminism with my girlfriend! Now that is a story!
Look at it from my angle: I have to live by this socialized masculine gender role that doesn't allow heterosexual men like me to talk about feminism or not go to strip clubs without being severely ridiculed. Surething can talk about feminism and not go fishing because he can be brushed off as "Oh, he is just gay." He is allowed that flexibility. Of course he isn't going to relate to the kind of masculine guys who go to strip clubs: He's gay! Why would he enjoy such a thing?
Now take a heterosexual male such as myself, who doesn't relate to that type of masculinity and finds things like strip clubs boring and insulting to my intelligence. There are men, like myself, who do feel uncomfortable at times subscribing to the traditional masculine role, but unfortunately I do my best to follow along obediently, so that I can hide from the ridicule. Many times, the only time I can truly be myself is with my girlfriend, who doesn't feel uncomfortable when I share my tender emotions with her. If I try this with my friends, then I am a "pussy." If Surething does this with his male friends, it's "Oh, he's just gay."
Lastly, it's hard being the untraditional heterosexual male because of this whole Third Wave feminism: Women want a man who is strong--yet caring and understanding; who shares his emotions; a man who still opens doors sometimes... depending on what mood the woman's in. Give us a break from time to time! It can be hard knowing when what kind of behavior is appropriate. There are a lot of us trying to walk this tight line, while at the same trying to stay true to ourselves. If we didn't stay true to ourselves, then the only reason we'd be here is to please women. I think anybody would agree that that is a little pathetic, and nobody wants that.
Page, Tacoma
PAULA GILOVICH RESPONDS: You cannot brush off the feminism of Shaun Surething because he is gay. In my life, much of the most stinging sexism has come from gay men. Shaun is different. He reached past his own make-up (boy, queer) into the realm of a complex ideology. And thank god for that. I am definitely pleased that you identify as a feminist--this truly is so rare for men. But you lost me when your letter unraveled into a pile of cultural fear: "...the only reason we'd be here is to please women." Yes, masculinity is relentless and overwhelming if you're trying to define yourself within and without it simultaneously. But check it out, Page: That's what women are doing all the time.
EDITORS: What happened to Shaun Surething is a crime. A hate crime against MEN. First of all, his mother, who clearly had a history of choosing bad men (like so many women), attempted to castrate him by surrounding him with other women who had "issues" with men in the "lesbian/feminist community." No doubt he was rigorously indoctrinated in all the ways men are sexist/racist/abusive/oppressive/rapist/psychopaths who always leave. And then she runs into the arms of a stupid, drunken, domineering hillbilly, because that fits in with her distorted view of what masculinity is or should be. Clearly there's a pattern here.
Then Shaun goes to Olympia and surrounds himself with the equally fucked-up daughters of the women he grew up with. More castration: strict, extremist politics of those who fear and despise men. So what is the result? Emotional chaos. This is an extreme and shameful example of the demonization of men in both the feminist movement and the popular media.
Here in the liberal Northwest, men are made to feel ashamed for our sexuality, our strength, our physical and emotional needs, our energy and competitive drive, and our tastes, humor, and cultural icons. That's a tragedy. There's more to male culture than strip clubs and Deliverance-style fishing trips. There's humor, music, art, sports, and adventure. What's WRONG with those things? What's WRONG with being male? When I look into the eyes of Shaun Surething in the photograph, I see an extremely sad and lonely individual. One who has been made to fear, despise, and reject the very essence of who and what he is. This is a hate crime.
Stephen R. Sestrich, via e-mail
TO THE STRANGER: I found some of your comments and opinions on the film Enemy at the Gates to be very offensive, disgusting, and narrow-minded; they show a gross lack of integrity [Film Shorts, Kudzai Mudede, April 5]. Being of British descent, I now intend to see this British-made movie and recommend it to many other people, of all nationalities. Your cheap-shot views toward Britain and the British film industry only go to show your ignorance and lack of intelligence. I can only guess that you have a personal grudge against Anglophiles. It's a minor miracle that you have a job when you keep making silly comments like that!
