Letters: 40 years of feminism

Sir: I was born in 1965 and read your piece on Betty Friedan with interest ("Feminist author Betty Friedan dies on 85th birthday", 6 February). When our first child was due, I planned to return to the job I loved. Once our daughter was born, I realised that, however compelling my paid job, I now had a far more compelling and important one to do. It was a job I was loath to delegate to anyone else. I decided to become a full time parent.

I have subsequently discovered from many conversations with other women that I am unusually lucky. In looking after our children, I have the full support of my husband. I came under no pressure to use my several qualifications to earn money and to pay someone else a low hourly rate to care for the children. Many other women are not so fortunate. Some are genuinely delighted to be in full-time paid employment and to use some of the money earned to pay for child "care". The majority of women I have spoken to who have returned to paid employment often when their children are still very young, have expressed regret and explained that they had to as it was expected of them, by partners and/or society as a whole.

The irony of social change over the last 40 years is that then women could not say "Who am I, what do I want out of life?" because they were under huge pressure to stay at home; now women often feel huge guilt about not being in paid employment; some because family income is low, others because they are "too expensive" to look after their own children. We have devalued child care and by so doing, devalued those who care for children, family life and children themselves.

I hope that when our two daughters are of an age to be having their own families they will have a genuine choice over what to do with their lives and, if they feel like it, will be able to conclude without guilt, pressure or shame that what they really want to do is to bring up their own children.

KAREN RODGERS

CAMBRIDGE

Cartoons are part of campaign of hatred

Sir: I am a Muslim writer and lecturer. Following the publication of cartoons lampooning the Prophet Mohamed, I watched with horror news reports of demonstrators in London calling for a repeat of 7 July suicide bombings and beheadings.

Memories of the insanity of book and flag burnings during the Rushdie fiasco came flooding back - I had hoped that the Muslim community had learned some lessons from that farce. I know the police are planning to prosecute those protestors who carried the inflammatory placards, and I hope that Muslims in Britain will make an effort to debate the issue intelligently rather than resort to violence.

But at the same time, I ask our non Muslim, co-Europeans to be aware of the incredible hurt felt by the global Muslim community by the cartoons. Prophet Mohammed is a father-figure for Muslims, adored, loved and respected. To imply that his teachings legitimise terrorist activities is in itself a deliberate act of incitement to hatred. The purpose behind the publication and re-publication of the cartoons was deliberate provocation, based on a belief that Muslims are fair targets for any kind of insults.

Given that the Jewish community in Europe is facing unprecedented levels of anti-semitism, and that the extreme far right is increasing its preaching of intolerance, the media needs to show restraint. Freedom of speech is not a synonym for freedom to spread hatred and unjust stereotyping. The world-wide Muslim community already feels that it is the object of a global crusade by an American-led administration. For most Muslims, this issue is just one part of a campaign of hatred that includes Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, and the invasion of Iraq.

Has Europe learned nothing from the holocaust against Jews in Europe? That too began with a propaganda campaign that vilified a minority.

KHOLA HASAN

CLAYHALL, ESSEX

Sir: I found it unsettling when I read stories about nutcases burning embassies in several locations throughout the world in response to cartoons published in Denmark. Are people really so absurdly stupid?

Or perhaps they have a point, in which case, Katie Gent, who took offence at your recent caricature of Menzies Campbell with a Zimmer frame (letter, 8 February), ought to pop down to E14 and set fire to your premises. Or better still, anyone over the age of 64 in any country should pop down to the British embassy with a box of matches.

I was equally unsettled to discover that the British press "chose not" (rather than "were clearly too scared") to publish the cartoons. Never mind freedom of speech - what about a free press?

How appalled I was to learn that there are plans afoot for a demonstration in London. Why should ordinary peoples' day out in London be ruined by this inflammatory protest? We will respect religion seems to be the message being drummed into me. Why should I respect blind faith?

Until we all embrace reason and use facts as the basis of our opinion and beliefs, the world will never be a safe place. For the sake of future generations, is it not about time for laws to be passed whereby we cannot indoctrinate our children with dubious hypotheses?

JON MACKENZIE

PORTSMOUTH

Sir: Are the Danish newspaper's cartoons as offensive as we are being told they are? I learned from Dominic Lawson's article ("Hysteria, hypocrisy and half-truths", 7 February) that Islamisk Trossamfund, the Danish Muslim group that raised the issue, must have thought they were not, as they have circulated three extra, very unpleasant, cartoons to make sure that every Muslim who saw them would be offended.

It appears that all over the Muslim world the newspaper is being blamed, not for what its artists drew, but for what they did not draw. So who drew the extra three that guaranteed all the outrage? Would Islamisk Trossamfund please tell us?

JEAN ELLIOTT

UPMINSTER, ESSEX

Sir. Dominic Lawson's comparison of cartoons in a Saudi paper portraying Jews in a negative light and the cartoons published in Europe about the Prophet is flawed.

As Muslims we are continuously being portrayed in cartoons, movies and TV programmes as blood-thirsty terrorists who oppress women. Although this is far from the truth for the majority of Muslims, such portrayal never results in the public protest seen in the last week.

For us, insulting the Prophet is like praising the Holocaust for the Jews, an act so deplorable that it has been outlawed in most of Europe.

TAREK ABDEL-RAHMAN

LONDON W2

Sir: People regard free speech as something far more complicated than it actually is, with serious animosity as a result.

There has never been, and never will be, completely free speech; though I hope that there will always be completely free opinion. The extent to which the latter can be expressed is controlled by something called common politeness. One should not consciously or deliberately insult others on matters which they regard as a fundamental principle. It really is as simple as that.

P F B CLARKE

LITTLE GLEMHAM, SUFFOLK

Human rights and company profits

Sir: While it may be the case that Google's share price has suffered as a result of the company's decision to bow to the Chinese government on censorship (report, 2 February), it should not be left to markets alone to reward or punish companies for their human rights impacts.

It is up to governments to uphold universal human rights standards, to which all businesses should be held accountable, and to put in place effective enforcement mechanisms. This would not only provide companies with the clearer terms of reference many are seeking, but it would help create a level playing-field internationally. No company should be able to gain a competitive advantage by abusing human rights, or to use compliance with national law as a pretext for colluding with repressive governments.

It has become a worrying trend that companies are increasingly prepared to compromise their principles in pursuit of emerging lucrative markets in countries such as China where human rights are routinely violated. It is time to stop dealing with China on the basis of a different set of standards to other countries.

PETER FRANKENTAL

UK ECONOMIC RELATIONS PROGRAMME DIRECTOR AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL LONDON EC2

Solving the mystery of sparrow decline

Sir: I was very interested to get such a fascinating update by Michael McCarthy on the Independent's Save the Sparrow project ("Revealed: why the sparrows are dying out", 6 February). Kate Vincent's finding might explain an experience that I had in relation to the loss of the small host of sparrows which used to inhabit the area around my and my neighbours' small gardens in Highbury.

For quite a long time our sparrows seemed to be bucking the trend and were not declining in the way they were all over London. The main feeders were one of my neighbours and myself. I was providing seeds and peanuts but she told me that she was also putting out grubs (maggots) which she said the sparrows liked. She moved out and I continued to provide the sparrows with the same food.

To my dismay the colony gradually dwindled down to a pitiful two or three, finally disappearing altogether. I never made the connection with the grubs she had been providing and assumed it was all the ghastly decking that was appearing in some of the gardens. Now I really do wonder if it was the "Vincent effect".

ROBIN ANDERSON

LONDON N5

Saddam's murders never justified war

Sir: P Edwards (letter, 7 February) displays an astonishing disregard for evidence. The letter seems to imply that Saddam Hussein's murderous record, compared with the death toll, somehow renders the invasion "just".

The allegedly humanitarian impulse which drove the "coalition of the willing" to generously bomb (with white phosphorous, depleted uranium and cluster bombs) Iraq was only proffered as an excuse after the initial justification of WMD proved so hopeless.

Need we really continue to ask whether the invasion was justified on (illegal) grounds of regime change? Surely the fact that this was never the official justification, not to mention the years of support the US and UK gave Saddam (while he was busy gassing Kurds at Halabja and Iranian soldiers) should preclude any more fantasising about humanitarian justifications of the war.

DAVID MARJORIBANKS

HARROGATE, NORTH YORKSHIRE

Sir: P Edwards is wrong: the 15,000 front pages he cites would list the victims not of Saddam's regime but of the sanctions imposed on Iraq by the UN (mainly, in fact, us and the US).

LAURIE MARKS

QUEENS' COLLEGE, CAMBRIDGE

Law and order

Sir: As an unashamed holder of a "Seventies sociology degree" and a Probation Officer for over 30 years, I learn without surprise that the extension of licensing hours - presumably introduced largely to increase markets and boost the economy - has brought about a decrease in the number of serious violent offences ("Booze Britain?", 8 February).

This tends to support my long-held contention that there can be a simple answer to the question "what causes crime?" - laws. Perhaps this news will provide a new impetus to look at legislation surrounding drugs other than alcohol: say heroin, for example?

HOWARD DAVIES

MANCHESTER

Sir: What an irresponsible statement by Mr Ivell of Regent Inns where he blames an increase in police presence on the streets for his company's poor performance. "There were a number of police visits around the high-street bars. People walking around in police uniforms don't exactly tend to enhance people's drinking", he said (report, 8 February). Mr Ivell seems unaware that the public in general would like to see a far greater police presence on the streets.

N F EDWARDS

KEELBY, LINCOLNSHIRE

Sensible borrowing

Sir: Johann Hari is wrong about the solitary reason for the property boom being the selling off of council housing stock (Opinion, 6 February). It is all about availability of loans and interest rates. For me as a civil servant in the Seventies, getting two and a half times my annual salary as a home loan was a privilege. I also needed to save a 10 per cent deposit. If we were restricted in the same way today, house prices would never got out of hand.

ANDREW PRING

BRADFORD, WEST YORKSHIRE

Blaming fathers

Sir: Whatever one thinks of the activities of Fathers 4 Justice, it is a pity that a commentator of Yasmin Alibhai-Brown's intelligence thinks it appropriate to describe their members as "horrid, selfish chimps" (6 February). Dehumanising one's adversary in argument is a vicious tactic with a bloody history, as Ms Alibhai-Brown knows. What makes her describe men who campaign for contact with their children as "errant fathers"; is she assuming men are automatically to blame for family breakdown?

BEN WHITESIDE

LONDON SW16

Europeans unite

Sir: Michael Collins (letter, 6 February) perceives interestingly - and, I believe, correctly - an evolutionary role reversal of Europe and Asia. However, history does not have to repeat itself. Europe is not doomed to be overwhelmed by Asia. We can compete on equal terms, but not as disjointed nation states of the passing era; a union of nations is a sine qua non. It is high time for the Europeans to embrace the concept of EU and to participate actively and constructively in it.

JOHN ROMER

LONDON W5

Back to nature

Sir: Rousseau was right in his treatise Emile about young men and nature (letters; 7, 8 February). Separate the two too much and you will have psychosis and violence. However unlikely it may seem, we now need a much bigger Scout movement than ever before.

FRANK SCOTT

LONDON W11