Your Turn Letters to the Editor

The illogic of misanthropy

I guess it is not odd that we go from discussing fundamental religiosity one day to ecstatic misanthropy the next.

On the one hand, it seems necessary for the pious zealots to indulge in mythical revelations about Thor, Persephone or Krishna nearly every week.

On the other hand, fairness to left-thinking abstraction dictates that someone describe the human race as “selfish” and “hateful” and art as the only redeeming quality of humankind (as in the April 6 column, “The logic of misanthropy” by Katherine Pugh).

But I have to ask: What is the problem with us measuring our environment meaningfully, carefully and thoughtfully without the crutch of the preconceived notions Pugh herself bemoaned (or based on the Bible – get away from me you scary people)?

I have to deplore Pugh’s simplistic, catchall impressions of people like I do the arrogant, self-imposed ignorance of the fascist religionists. That kind of flagrant impetuosity needs to be shot down like all others.

Excluding the introduction, Pugh’s perceptions were robust and well explained; everything she wrote merited consideration. We all have a mix of the good and the bad in us. But what good does general finger pointing do anyone?

I still have to wake up and eat breakfast, whether or not I am an awesome person or am going to “HELL.” You are just going to put me in a bad mood if the first thing I hear in the morning is an intelligent woman calling me a “corrupted materialist” for no reason.

– Jack Lavelle

What in the Dickinson?

Mike Dickinson has stated in his response to a previous editorial, “The question I seek to find the answer to is, why are there two editorial standards, one for other students and another for me?”

With this statement, Dickinson’s problem becomes clear: He doesn’t care about diversity or full representation or anything; he cares about himself. He has a personal vendetta against The CT, and he’s using his position of power to seek revenge.

I’m sure he’ll try to backtrack and attempt to explain away his words. However, they are clear and honest. I feel terrible that such a selfish person is on our SGA, and I fear how else he may attempt to abuse his power.

– Zachary J. Palmer

‘Broad’ response

First off, I must say that I have no intention of attacking the author of the article “Broad categories,” Alex Jones. I had a chance to hold an Internet conversation with him, and it is completely obvious that we disagree on many issues. As a constitutional right assured by the First Amendment he is entitled to express his opinion. However, the main point I tried to explain is that generalizing all women to be in one of the three categories is where I believe he has gone wrong. To marginalize women in such a way is the exact problem that society has been living with for centuries.

It is entirely possible for there to be women in this world who play games, who use sex to get what they want and who make it a point to make men suffer. But it is completely relevant to say the exact same thing about most men. In fact ,I think more men than women act in such a way. I have heard men say that women are prudes for not having sex, but then suddenly they are sluts when they decide to give in to the incessant pleas by the man for their bodies. I’ve been told by men that women were made to attract men and that we have no idea what our bodies do to their loins. To me that is all a bunch of ridiculous insinuations used to make women feel

inferior. Put another way, this desire to use sex seems to be the only way that these men can continue to dominate women.

Unfortunately, some women play into this because they believe that this is their role in life, or that it is a way to retaliate against men by acting the same way as they do, or it’s the only way they know how to act. Unfortunately, these ideas stem from the patriarchal view that this society has held for centuries.

Women are looked at as sex objects. Take for example the increasing numbers of rape, or the women that you see in magazines and the media. These women are mostly dressed in provocative clothing meant to cater to men’s fantasies and there are headlines telling you how to keep your man or how to pleasure your man. Women are taught from a young age that they are to attract a man, marry, have children and if they decide to follow a different path there is something wrong with them.

I am not saying that women shouldn’t get married or be mothers, but when it is used to keep women in an inferior position located within the confines of the male-dominated world, that is a problem. I believe that if this patriarchal view was eliminated then women would be seen as human beings on an equal level with men, and the women who have not been able to break out of the mold would finally be able to respect themselves in a way they never knew they could. Once this occurs then the woman thought to be a tease, a mother hen, a predator or even the femme-nazi (the term men seem to use against a woman who seeks change) would disappear.

So I think before anyone decides to make a negative generalized statement concerning a particular group of people, he or she should first and foremost learn about the group they intend to discuss. Once men understand the situation from the perspective of the marginalized group (i.e., women) they will be in a better position to take the actions they hold issues with not as a characteristic of the entire class of women but the manifestation of patriarchy.

As Anatole France said, “An education isn’t how much you have committed to memory, or even how much you know. It’s being able to differentiate what you know and what you don’t.”

– Amanda McElhinney