To the Editor:
Re “Less Marriage, Less Sex, Less Agreement,” by Nicholas Kristof (column, May 30):
Women’s discontent with marriage is not new; it just became more obvious because the availability of both birth control and abortion freed women to express their discontent by either not marrying or not remarrying.
Recently the number of women who are choosing not to marry has reached a level that is alarming to those who become anxious when the power of traditional hierarchies weakens.
So it’s not surprising that a prominent feature of the MAGA movement is an effort to bully women back into dependency by appointing Supreme Court judges willing to revoke their access to abortion and perhaps also birth control.
This bullying gets dressed up in religious rhetoric that ignores the obvious truth that our freedom of religion must always include freedom from others’ religious convictions.
The only way to have a satisfying marriage is for both partners to want to be in it. Mr. Kristof is right to emphasize the need for men and marriage to change, not for women to lose the ability to choose what kind of life they want.
Susan Stewart
Broomfield, Colo.
The writer is a retired marriage and family therapist and a co-author of “Flying Solo: Single Women in Midlife.”
To the Editor:
I share in Nicholas Kristof’s lament that our society is increasingly cynical about romance and marriage, and I was disappointed to read that so many women believe that men are simply incapable of engaging in a joyful and equal partnership. Is my wonderful husband really such a rarity?
In our 15-year relationship, I have never once questioned the value of our commitment. He is my companion, confidant and cheerleader. We manage our household as a team, divvy up tasks and make joint decisions about our son’s care. We talk about everything under the sun. Over dinner, we share what we’re grateful for.
Certainly, it is true that some men are apathetic, others violent and cruel, and women deserve and should demand better. But there are real winners out there, too. Men who show up, do the dishes, hug their children and love their partners.
I hope future generations are not so jaded as to dismiss the possibility of soul mates, of all sexual orientations. I hope that someday, someone somewhere gives my son a chance to show that he is sweet, sincere and supportive, just like his dad.
Olivia V. Sanderfoot
Los Angeles
To the Editor:
Rather than repeated paeans to traditional marriage and monogamy and incessant bemoaning of modern society’s inexorable move away from both, society needs new myths, models and institutions to support and applaud modern, courageous and pioneering men and women who choose fulfilling lives without a permanent lifetime partner.
Nicholas Kristof might consider employing his considerable intelligence and imagination in service of this need.
Roliff Purrington
Vienna
A Misguided Arms Competition With China
To the Editor:
Re “America’s Military Is Not Prepared for War — or Peace,” by Roger Wicker (Opinion guest essay, nytimes.com, May 29):
Senator Wicker’s proposal to plow hundreds of billions of dollars into a lavishly funded high-tech arms competition with China over the next few years is deeply misguided. It could make a devastating war between two nuclear-armed superpowers more likely even as it diverts funds from other urgent national needs.
As I noted in a paper I wrote for the Brown University Costs of War Project last year, the United States spends roughly twice as much on its military as China does, and it far outpaces the country in numbers of nuclear weapons, advanced combat aircraft, transport systems and total naval firepower.
The wild card is the race for hypersonic weapons and autonomous weapons systems controlled via artificial intelligence, where relative U.S. and Chinese capabilities are harder to determine. But this is precisely why dialogue about whether and how to deploy these dangerous new technologies is most urgently important.
Cooperation between the United States and China will be essential if we are to address the most pressing threats to our common future, from climate change to pandemics to global inequality. Doubling down on a militarized policy toward Beijing is the worst possible way to keep the peace in the decades to come.
William D. Hartung
New York
The writer is a senior research fellow at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft.
To the Editor:
Re “Doctors Are Still Figuring Out Adult A.D.H.D.” (Science Times, May 28):
As a psychiatrist who has treated many adult cases of A.D.H.D., I appreciate your thoughtful article. One factor not mentioned in the challenge of making a diagnosis is the patient’s response to medication. While the individual symptoms of A.D.H.D. are not unique to that condition, if a sufficient number of them are present to suggest the diagnosis, a medication trial can provide useful information.
The most effective medications are some forms of the stimulants Adderall and Ritalin. But patients with A.D.H.D., given their physiology, are less likely to experience the stimulant effects of these medications; they instead experience improved attention and organization. Therefore, a patient’s ability to comfortably tolerate the medication can be an additional diagnostic clue.
Regarding coexisting conditions, like substance use disorder, depression or anxiety, these conditions are often a consequence of A.D.H.D. Especially in patients who are not yet diagnosed with A.D.H.D., the apparent misuse of stimulants such as cocaine can represent an attempt at self-medication to address the symptoms of A.D.H.D.
Also, more attention needs to be paid to the emotional consequences of undiagnosed A.D.H.D. The frustration of attempting to function in the presence of A.D.H.D. symptoms can often affect one’s sense of self and can contribute to anxiety or depression, or both.
Bruce Cody Fisher
San Francisco
Trump’s Divisive Rhetoric
To the Editor:
Re “The Trump-Oprah Voter,” by Kristen Soltis Anderson (Opinion guest essay, May 28):
Ms. Anderson’s analysis of Donald Trump’s appeal doesn’t address the public’s responsibility in electing such a person to the presidency. The “power of celebrity to shape public opinion” is the primary issue that needs to be explored. It seems the American voter would rather be entertained than address the issues that affect their lives.
The former president recently said there would be a “blood bath” if he wasn’t elected. He also recently said that “any Jewish person that votes for Democrats hates their religion.” The rhetoric that Mr. Trump uses to castigate opponents is appealing to the uneducated.
When Mr. Trump said immigrants are “poisoning the blood our country,” I expected an educated public to unequivocally reject and condemn such nonsense. When he and his supporters say “make America great again,” an educated public should ask what exactly that means. Mr. Trump’s childish name-calling and disparagement of others need to be examined as irresponsible political rhetoric.
When he makes such comments as “the threat from outside forces is far less sinister, dangerous and grave than the threat from within,” it is incumbent upon voters to discuss the evidence that supports such an assertion. Mr. Trump would not be a legitimate political figure with an enlightened public.
Larry Hoffner
New York