Keith Burgess-Jackson, J.D., Ph.D.

To the Editor:

Re “Geraldine A. Ferraro, 1935-2011; She Ended the Men’s Club of National Politics” (obituary, front page, March 27):

Geraldine A. Ferraro was a feminist icon, a role model to millions and an Italian-American pioneer. In addition to shattering the glass ceiling for women in national politics, she endured double-barreled ethnic derision at the hands of both the male-dominated media and the Washington establishment.

But when this feisty former assistant district attorney upbraided a patronizing George H. W. Bush in the vice-presidential debates of 1984, the entire nation took notice.

Ms. Ferraro paved the way for Hillary Rodham Clinton, Madeleine Albright, Condoleezza Rice and Nancy Pelosi to play pivotal roles in the political fortunes of our Republic.

But unlike the Sarah Palins and Michele Bachmanns of today, she eschewed a rigid ideological orthodoxy.

ROSARIO A. IACONIS
Chairman
Italic Institute of America
Mineola, N.Y., March 27, 2011

Note from KBJ: Why the gratuitous jab at Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann? Why the redundancy: "rigid ideological orthodoxy"? And what's wrong with being rigid, if you're in the right? Rigidity in defense of innocent human life (for example) seems perfectly appropriate. Are we to be flexible in defending innocent human life? Ironically, the letter writer sounds rigid, ideological, and orthodox in his feminism. Oh, wait. I'm giving the letter writer too much credit. He's not interested in fairness, civility, or honesty. He's interested in attacking his enemies, even in a letter that purports to be a celebration of the life of Geraldine Ferraro. Note also that he's attacking women. With feminism like that, who needs patriarchy?