The abuse of women just isn’t funny
Dear Editor:
We write in response to Jeremy Carroll’s Letter to the Editor on Friday, Feb. 10, 2006. Not only the content, but Mr. Carroll’s dismissive and mocking tone, confirm Ms. Eby’s concern about blindness toward the issue of violence against women. Ms. Eby did not suggest, in any way, that we should explore the historical construct of gender relationships and violence in a novel, TV show, musical, or well-known religious and commercial figure. She only said that in a play where violence against women is central to the plot, it is surprisingly and regrettably overlooked as an issue that warrants discussion.
If there were a play in which 50 people were killed, all of whom happened to be African-American, wouldn’t we wonder what part their ethnicity played in the event?
And though Mr. Carroll’s unreasonable criticism is easy to ignore, his derisive tone is not. He lambasted Ms. Eby’s cogent, well thought-out comments as feminist hysteria – the women’s movement gone awry – because as “a rich female in a powerful country where she can vote and receive the best education available,” she can’t possibly experience violence or discrimination or even argue for those who do. (It should be noted that Ms. Eby never disclosed her socioeconomic status.)
So while we would be happy to read a reasonable criticism of Ms. Eby’s argument, we have little patience for someone who disguises his lack of knowledge and careful consideration with hyperbole and statements that he erroneously believes to be amusing. Call us humorless, but the battering, raping and/or murdering of women are not funny subjects.
Next time, Mr. Carroll could benefit from developing an argument and researching it before submitting.
Melissa Beally
WU Class of 2006
Jesse Krohn
Harvard Class of 2006
Treasury instills fear in student group leaders
Dear Editor:
In response to criticism of my article of Feb. 6, I would like to clarify a few points for Ms. Wasserman and those who read my article.
First, Ms. Wasserman criticized my lack of knowledge about the SU Treasury, saying that she “attend[s] the [Treasury] meetings on a fairly regular basis.more than I can say for Mr. Wang.” She failed to realize that before her enrollment at Washington University last fall, I was treasurer of ArtSci Council and had to appeal frequently for funding. Contrary to what her letter insinuated, I do not make blind accusations.
Second, her argument that if ArtSci Council was granted money for its speaker “it would have wiped out all the remaining funds being allocated for the month of February” is erroneous. Funds are allocated semesterly so they can be distributed in any number of ways throughout the semester and allows for the flexibility needed when dealing with so many student groups. Funding Jonathon Kozol should not have prevented other events in February from occurring. There are more activities during some months than others; it would be unreasonable to assume that the same amount of money should be spent every month regardless of varying circumstances. As far as I know, there are no specific monthly allocations for SU funds, and there should never be.
Additionally, if the Treasury wanted to help as many groups as possible, they should have granted ArtSci Council at least part of Kozol’s lecture appeal. In addition to submitting our appeal in December, ArtSci Council had been in touch with the Treasury since last April. Ms. Barb Rea, who coordinates the Assembly Series, even met with members of the Treasury before Thanksgiving to talk about funding set aside for the lecture. Kozol’s lecture was supposed to come out of SU’s Assembly Series allocation and should not have conflicted with appeals from other student groups.
Ms. Wasserman also missed the main points of my article, namely that the attitude of the Treasury instills fear in student group leaders and that a small group of insiders are running the entire organization. From the Treasury minutes from Feb. 6, an SU Treasurer said of the Assembly Series: “If they didn’t plan well enough for the cost, they should have to cancel other speakers that haven’t yet been contracted.” Here is a clear example of the “us” versus “them” mentality.
Still, the greatest surprise was the lack of response to my editorial from members of the Treasury. Ms. Wasserman’s arguments would hold greater credibility if she actually had the experience of appealing for funds as a student group leader, not merely as an attendee at those sessions. Regardless of her views on whether the Treasury is right or wrong in this particular case, Ms. Wasserman should acknowledge that there are problems with the current system as a whole and that the Treasury should work harder to become more student-group-friendly.
James Wang
Class of 2006
‘That guy’ wasn’t reached by Jeff Stepp’s column
Dear Editor:
Re: “Don’t Be that guy, give her what she deserves” by Jeff Stepp (2/13)
Even though I am, and shall continue to be “that guy,” your article did not “piss me off” by blowing the whistle on the mistreatment of women in relationships. It pissed me off because it is completely uninformative.
According to your piece, I shouldn’t cheat on my girlfriend, I shouldn’t not communicate with her, I shouldn’t not eat her out, I shouldn’t be possessive, and I shouldn’t rape, harass or insult her. Fine.
I also shouldn’t piss in her Nalgene bottle and tell her it’s “Crystal Light.” I shouldn’t keep my checkbook in the body cavity of a roasted fruit bat. I shouldn’t steal wallets from gypsies “just to give them a taste of their own medicine.” I shouldn’t belittle a prehistoric fly trapped in amber in front of his friends, and I shouldn’t administer forced buttermilk enemas (even when the patient refuses solid food).
To the reader who truly is an asshole to his girlfriend, the first set of “shouldn’t”s (with the exception of cheating) sounds as remote and irrelevant as the second. The asshole himself would probably agree that he shouldn’t be a dick in the ways mentioned in your article. In order to make a difference, you, as the writer, must show how each of these pitfalls (being selfish in bed, etc.) sneaks past the asshole’s conscience and causes bad behavior. You must identify the rationalizations, thoughts and subtle beliefs that allow this to happen.
I’m occasionally a misogynist and usually a bad boyfriend. I am this way, however, because I don’t internalize the shit that you list in your article, not because I am factually ignorant of what constitutes the mistreatment of women. If you want to help, you’ll have to get more specific, more insightful and show a greater appreciation for the subtlety of the dickhead psyche. Otherwise, all you do is insult my intelligence.
This makes me wonder – if you really had nothing to say, Jeff, why write the article at all? I think it is because you may just be the “goody-goody, chivalrous punk” that you insist you are not. We’re on to you.
Kawika Chee
Class of 2006
War on terror won with actions
Dear Editor:
Re: “Fear, our lord and savior” by Jeff Stepp (Feb. 6)
Concerning Mr. Stepp’s column on the political uses of fear by Republicans in the war on terror, a few observations:
1. Likely there is political calculation when the Republicans invoke the terrorism threat. When Democrats make the oft-repeated charge we are no safer from terrorist attacks than before (such as on Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi’s Web page), however, there is a curious editorial silence about Democrats stoking fear for their purposes.
2. The Pentagon’s plan may or may not work. I suspect it would take a very significant amount of credible research, however, for the public to trust the assessment of a college newspaper over the Department of Defense on this matter.
3. Yes, the future security environment is very hard to predict. Yet critiquing the Pentagon’s attempt to do so implies a. the critic has an alternate plan, and thus made his or her own imperfect prediction or b. the critic would prefer to wait for the future to arrive and just see what happens, which is probably the least attractive option.
I do agree with Mr. Stepp’s final assessment that our situation is frightening. Yet I attribute that fear to the fact that we face an adversary that would gladly kill anyone reading this paper if they thought it would generate publicity or political advantage. Expressing opinions on national security is certainly a right, but one can’t escape the nagging feeling that the same editorial pages criticizing the administration for aggressive security measures would be the first ones to demand the president’s head in the event of a terrorist attack that could have been prevented by those very same measures.
Bryan Kirchoff
University College
Diwali inherently religious
Dear Editor:
Re: “Secularize Diwali” by Satyam Khanna (Feb. 10)
Diwali is a Hindu religious celebration. As such, any event associating itself with Diwali HAS to have at least a Hindu undertone to it in order to remain true to what it is supposed to represent. The Diwali celebration at Wash. U. grants Hindu students at this university an excellent opportunity to celebrate this important holiday and expose the community at large to a spiritual outlook it may not be otherwise exposed to.
If the author believes that the cultural importance of non-Hindu South Asians has in general been overlooked, then the proper time to address this issue is during the planning of an event specifically designed to raise South Asian awareness. If such an event does not yet exist, perhaps it should. Expecting a Diwali celebration to reflect anything other than Hindu festivities, however, seems as preposterous as expecting the celebration of Easter to suddenly start including elements from Holi.
Meghana Karnik
Graduate Student, DBBS
Sex Issue errors regarding Pride Alliance
Dear Editor:
The article titled “Sex Week aims to arouse and inform campus” had a few errors in it that should be corrected in Wednesday’s issue. [Editor’s Note: These errors were corrected; unfortunately, we were unable to run any letters in Wednesday’s issue.] Pride Alliance was hosting an event in conjunction with SHAC and the St. Louis Guardian Project that was entirely separate from the emergency contraceptive event that same night. It seems that the reporter melded the two together. Our event focused on safer sex, not contraception (sort of a non-issue to us gays). Additionally: while we appreciate your newspaper’s use of the abbreviation “GLBTQIA” in most things, it is not appropriate for everything. The event on Wednesday, for example, was only about GLB (gay, lesbian, bisexual) issues and had little impact on the other parts of the abbreviation. Other than this minor qualm, the sex issue was great! Keep up the good work.
Tom Giarla
Co-President of Pride Alliance
Better publicize sporting events
Dear Editor:
I graduated in engineering from Washington U. in the early ’60s and have fond memories of Dear Ole Washington University. My wife Nancy and I usually attend a football and basketball game each year. We think it would really be great if the games could be publicized more so that families with young children would attend. The games are fun, the cheerleading is fun and the families would have the opportunity to see a beautiful and tremendous college campus. This could create interest for a young person to later attend the university. Washington University would be doing a real service to the community by exciting young minds to want to attend an institution of higher education. And always remember, everyone, what baseball broadcast Hall Of Famer Good Ole Harry Caray used to say at the end of each and every one of his broadcasts: “And always remember, folks, you don’t have to take part in a sport to be a good one!”
Dick Reeves
Student Life’s Sex Issue
Dear Editor:
YOUR 2/13 ISSUE IS TOTALLY INAPPROPRIATE
Paula Canoy
WU Planned Giving Office