Letters to the editor
Sexist context
Editor:I was truly disappointed in Princeton Kim’s article,
("Putting the `man’
back in manpower," Jan. 10). Unfortunately, Kim seems to belong
to that
fine group of men who believe that all women sew, all feminists
are
lesbians, all women blame emotional distress on PMS, all
feminists want to
take over the world, and of course, all women just looove to
shop. I
certainly don’t fit into any of these descriptions. If Kim
believes that
all or most women do, he surely is a Neanderthal.
Kim claims he is all for equal rights, but goes on to say that
"many
feminists" don’t "realize the true nature of equality." Gee, and
I thought
it would be a bed of roses! Please, don’t insult my
intelligence. I
understand the concept of hard work, and I have never been too
"frail" for
"demanding and rigorous" tests or examinations of any kind.
Kim states that "all things being equal, men are stronger
…
economically and politically." Well, buddy, all things are not
equal.
Children are conditioned to have gender specific traits. We are
taught that
women stay at home, and men work and run the world. It has been
this way
for generations. It’s no wonder that men outnumber women in high
paying
jobs and seats in Congress.
I understand Kim’s warning not to take his article too
seriously.
However, mocking women does nothing to help the struggle for
equality, and
only reinforces negative concepts about women and feminism.
Feminists don’t want special treatment, and we certainly do not
care for
superiority. I think we would all breathe a sigh of contentment
if one of
these days we simply achieved true equality.
So remember, men: The next time a woman calls you a sexist pig,
you
probably are one.Kami Graham
Second-year
Psychology
Unveiled sexism
Editor:I love men. I’m not afraid to admit it. What I don’t
necessarily like
are the actions of certain individuals, male or female, who
parade under
the visage of equality without unveiling their own inherent
sexism.
Princeton Kim began his column ("Putting the `man’ back in
manpower,"
Jan. 10) with a disclaimer not to take it "too seriously." Don’t
worry, I
didn’t. But I do want to elaborate on some of Kim’s ideas, in
case some of
the Daily Bruin readers did.
The first inconsistency is that "Feminists seek superiority,
preferential treatment." Not so. Most women, feminist or not,
would be
perfectly happy to earn the same amount their male counterparts
receive
instead of less than three-fourths for the same work.
Kim claims "all things being equal, men are generally
stronger
physically, economically and politically." Clearly, all "things"
are not
equal. I do not debase Kim’s gender; he has no right to degrade
womanhood
by the misnomer, "pathetic."
I’m terribly sorry that there are some people on the outskirts
of
feminist women who have bruised Kim’s fragile self-esteem. It is
my sincere
hope and belief that together, women and men can remove the
curtain of
ignorance to discover the light of equality.Brenda M. Simon
Third-year
General chemistry
Judging character
Editor:The Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. said that injustice
anywhere was a
threat to justice everywhere. He said this about segregation
and
discrimination: "Let us never succumb to the temptation of
believing that
legislation and judicial decrees play only a minor role in
solving this
problem. Morality cannot be legislated, but behavior can be
regulated.
Judicial decrees may not change the heart, but they can restrain
the
heartless."
What might Dr. King have said about our current treatment of
the
immature members of our species?
Dr. King devoted his life to opposing the choice to discriminate
on the
basis of race. But one week after his birthday we observe the
anniversary
of the Roe v. Wade decision, which freed us to choose to
discriminate fatally on the basis of "wantedness," physical
maturity,
appearance, sex, health, dependence, sentience, parentage or any
other
criterion, including race, if it is done before birth.
Are these criteria any less arbitrary or subjective than race?
By what
logic shall we choose criteria for excluding others from the
protection of
the human community? What does the acceptance of such criteria
for
destruction say about the content of our character?Alfred
Lemmo
Dearborn, Mich.