Women’s issues are not so simple
In his Feb. 26 column (“”˜Octomom’ represents gross irresponsibility in society”), Alex Pherson could have used the opportunity to write an insightful, thought-provoking piece on the complex moral issues underlying a woman’s reproductive rights, individual responsibility and the government’s role in securing the former while ensuring the latter.
Instead, he wrote a grossly misguided piece on his view that the prevailing lack of individual responsibility in America is the fault of women.
He claimed that, “America is rife with narcissistic women who selfishly use pregnancy as a relief for the desolation of their own lives.” And along the same lines, he continues: “(The) magnification of single mothers is part and parcel of today’s concept of victimhood.”
Implying that today’s single mothers victimize themselves in order to elicit sympathy, and tax dollars, from the American public is outrageous.
It may be true that Nadya Suleman, with her 14 children, is willingly and irresponsibly placing an unfair strain on an already suffering government budget. But Pherson’s suggestion that Suleman’s perspective is the paradigm for all single mothers in America is mistaken.
On the contrary, there are many single women with children actively seeking ways that they can better their situation. And may I remind Pherson that most single mothers do not impregnate themselves ““ perhaps he should focus on the whereabouts of the fathers before blaming America’s problems on single mothers.
Pherson is right to point out that irresponsible behavior should neither be ignored nor encouraged. However, his method of doing so is, once again, ineffective while still managing to be offensive. In reference to the “soaring illegitimacy rate,” Pherson points to the 1960s women’s movement, and the subsequent Supreme Court decision on Roe v. Wade legalizing abortion, as somehow the cause of what he portrays as yet another sign of our oh-so-irresponsible times.
Further, he suggests that the women’s movement was an “anti-American” embodiment of “victimhood.” To clarify something for him, the women’s rights movement was not about sex or victimhood ““ it was about equal treatment of men and women in all sectors of life, both public and private.
It is clear to me that Pherson was trying to tackle a very important issue in today’s world: how to balance the obligation of government to protect its citizens’ basic rights with the obligation of each individual to act in a responsible manner without taking advantage of his or her own government.
Unfortunately, Pherson ended up exemplifying the very irresponsibility he aimed to criticize when he ignored the responsibility he has as a writer, and indeed as a person: the responsibility to thoughtfully and carefully consider the complexities of the issues facing our world today.
Emily Dupree
Third-year, philosophy
No “˜slippery slope’ for marijuana bill
I want to point out the inconsistencies in a recent editorial (“California marijuana act ignores morality,” Feb. 26). By their own admission, the board “is not concerned with the idea of controlling and legalizing marijuana.”
Why then, do they feel that this bill warrants their opposition? Because one of its benefits, raising revenue for the state, is apparently an immoral aim in a piece of legislation. Am I the only one who finds this stance to be unbelievably asinine?
This measure, which the board is apparently “not concerned with,” would raise revenue regardless of the time frame of introduction. But when the state is in a budget crisis it is clearly unethical to support it. Um, what?
Furthermore, why isn’t the board advocating against recent measures to increase income taxes? By the board’s logic, raising revenue for the state in a time of crisis is absolutely immoral and unethical.
The board also subscribes to the idea that there is a “slippery slope” when it comes to allowing legislation legalizing marijuana: “If this legislation succeeds, what is stopping the state from proposing other measures that could potentially alleviate the economic crisis, such as lowering the drinking age or legalizing prostitution?”
Maybe the editorial board needs to retake a high school government course: Legislators can introduce any bill that strikes their fancy. There are no laws about what you can and can’t introduce; however, your constituents can vote you out for a bill they don’t like or the Supreme Court could declare it unconstitutional.
The slippery slope argument is a strawman and favorite of those opposed to such movements as same-sex marriage rights, “If we let a man marry a man, what’s to stop someone from marrying their pets?” Not an effective way to make a point.
Finally, whose morality is being ignored here?
I personally don’t think that smoking marijuana responsibly is immoral, however, I know many people who would disagree.
Who is right?
Decide for yourself, and remember to consider the facts of this bill and not its reason for introduction.
Andrew Boggeri
Third-year, aerospace engineering
Fact-checking would benefit writer
In his opinion piece “Singling out Israel for boycott is anti-Semitic, unreasonable, and unrealistic” (Feb. 26), Alex Schulman accuses those of us who support boycott, divestment and sanctions toward Israel of being “anti-Semitic.”
Unfortunately, his own writing shows only that Schulman is deeply confused.
It is disturbing, to say the least, to see someone write sentences such as “Israel’s is the only culture in the region worth any respect at all.”
The rest of Schulman’s rant touches all the usual bases: “singling out,” “right to exist,” “martyring small children en masse.”
Of course, he’s the one doing the singling out; Israel is the party killing “small children en masse,” and no state in the world has a “right to exist” ““ people have that right, forms of political organization don’t.
And, embarrassingly for Schulman, Sudan is already under international sanctions.
Christian Haesemeyer
Mathematics professor, UCLA