Image provided by: Texas A&M University
About The Battalion. (College Station, Tex.) 1893-current | View Entire Issue (July 1, 2004)
UpMiunf w iipiipppiiiipiiiii I Sll W intee waslf Opinion I i in r» w i vi i<>\ ^ick Pe to 3 as run aste Left-wing extremists mar feminist ideals with liberal political agendas 'bi hast am lesday rse that icken q Jtraget by the, tee. He y nfora ste site. steCor its oet, work. 3 Texal ners Defining Feminists I t’s the first day of the first women’s studies class for many students it Texas A&M, and the pro- essor asks how many of hem consider themselves eminists. Many apparent vomen’s studies neophytes lance around self-con- ciously, obviously feeling onflicted. Because while nost of them do believe eerar: hat women and men are equal and should be irofa- reated as such, vivid images of bra-buming, lairy legs and armpits and women screaming my body, my choice” undoubtedly rattle tround inside their heads. Which then begs the LINDSYE FORSON everalQuestion: Just what is a feminist? Webster’s New World dictionary defines 'eminism as “the principle that woman should tave political, economic and social rights equal o those of men.” Yet, for many, holding this elief is not enough to make one a feminist. While many feminists are liberals, many feminist activists unfairly discount the rest of Ihe feminists: Those who may not be pro- poice or have other conservative political lean- I ngs. Elizabeth Cavendish, interim president of he radical pro-abortion organization NARAL 5 ro-Choice America, said she believes the con cept of a Pro-Life feminist is an oxymoron. “I think it's an oxymoron to say Feminists for ife,” Cavendish said, according to the abcnews I Web site. “You can't be a feminist and be anti- :hoice, or a feminist as I understand it, meaning hat women are trusted to make their own decision. The irony of this statement is that many of he women who pioneered the feminist move- nent were staunchly opposed to abortion. Elizabeth Cady Stanton, who played a major ole in organizing the legendary women’s con tention in Seneca Falls, N.Y, and whose name s virtually synonymous with the early feminist Jnovement, held that abortion was detrimental I mo women and the war she dedicated her life to fci vaging on their behalf. infer “When we consider that women are treated are , jis property, it is degrading to women that we hould see our children as property to be dis- j 0 f jr |)osed of as we see fit,” Stanton said. Susan B. Anthony also opposed abortion, in Cel oncer were, clean: that * iod pr worai: 1 pti ' but; t ofdl t,"sal all 0 don’t f I thiol saying, “Guilty? Yes. No matter what motive, love of ease, or a desire to save from suffering the unborn innocent, the woman is awfully guilty who com mils the deed. It will burden her conscience in life, it will burden her soul in death.” So according to Cavendish’s terms, neither Stanton nor Anthony was a femi nist. This is, of course, utterly absurd. And it doesn’t stop there. Those who desire, and perhaps have actually achieved, license over the term feminist demand that one support not only abortion, adhere to radical, leftist i political philoso phy as well. If one does not recite the p r e - ordained litany of pro fessed political stance exactly to their liking the offender is pilloried, their status as a fem inist ques tioned. All women, however, deserve to call themselves feminists if they so choose. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchinson a “female impersonator,” during the 1996 election, former NOW President Patricia Ireland beseeched women to vote only for “authentic” female candi dates, according to feminist author Karen Lehman’s column onslate.msn.com. “The only items on the real feminist agenda are equal rights and oppor tunities, a society capa ble of accepting the widest array of women's choices, and women strong and independent enough to make rational ones,” Lehman went on to say. But, ironically enough, in a movement original- founded on giv ing women the basic human rights of choice and personal autonomy, choice is exactly what the Iself-pro- claimed feminist establishment desires to take away. According to a 2001 Gallup poll, only a quar ter of American women consid er themselves feminists. It seems high ly unlikely that three-quarters of American women today believe that women do not deserve equal treatment with men. The problem is that the term been hijacked by a politically extreme, highly vocal feminist sect, which has succeeded in making the term’s connota tion more important than its annotation. When young women today first hear the word femi nist, most have an allergic reaction to it, due not to its meaning but instead to constructs popularly associated with it. And women need a divided front. Granted, women have come a long way in their quest for equality, but they have not yet arrived. Just last week, a federal judge granted class action status to a suit being filed against Wal- Mart for not only discriminating against women, but also retaliating against those who complained about its policies. Lawyers for the plaintiffs said that while 70 percent of Wal- Mart’s hourly employees are women, they account for less than 15 percent of managerial positions, according to Reuters. Women in the U.S. congress account for a meager 14 percent of its representatives, and various statistics sug gest that women still make only about 77 cents to a man’s dollar. At an April march for reproductive rights in Washington, D.C., several celebrities were enlisted to represent the cause, including actress Ashley Judd, whose mother, interesting ly enough, has been very vocal in her opposi tion of abortion. Judd wore a shirt with the mes sage “THIS IS WHAT A FEMINIST LOOKS LIKE” printed boldly across the front. Therein lies the problem: There should be no set prototype of what a feminist should look like. The parameters of what defines a feminist are actually very broad, but organizations like the National Organization for Women and NARAL are trying to severely restrict it. They are trying to make political ideology the benchmark of whether or not one is a feminist, which does the cause a major disservice. It creates an artificially imposed division in women who ultimately want the same thing- political, social and economic equality between men and women. Lindsye Forson is a senior journalism major. Graphic by Ruben DeLuna l reaf the (S ten Saddam’s trial symbolic victory for new leaders DAVID SHOEMAKER T he early han dover of power in Iraq likely tem porarily stymied mem bers of the insurgency, but what will bolster the new government more than a reprieve from violence is the fact that the United States is poised to carry out a promise that will allow Iraqis to establish their legitimacy for themselves. The United States has promised to hand over Saddam Hussein to Iraq for a trial in an Iraqi court, to be judged by his country men for his crimes. According to The Washington Post, he will be held in Iraq under guard of United States and other allied forces, but under the authority of the new govern ment. The next step, accord ing to the new Iraqi Prime Minister Ayad Allawi, is to have Saddam arraigned before the end of the week. Although a trial may not occur for months, the sym bolic value of a trial will help the new government make a clean break with the past. A trial will force the hand of those in the insur- gency who support a return to the old Baathist ways. Those in the insurgency will no longer be able to share the shield of just being against American troops with other insurgents; by being in favor of freedom for Saddam, they will put them selves at odds with Islamic fundamental ists, and with the large number of Iraqis who hate everything that Saddam and his followers have stood for in the past, present and future. But this opportunity for the new govern ment to prove itself might never have come to pass. According to an article by the If the new Iraq could not dis patch the most powerful symbol of the old regime, its legitamacy would always be in question. BBC, the Bush Administration did not want to release Saddam to the control of the Allawi’s government initially. According to the article, wiser heads in the administration realized that Allawi’s government would never survive if it could not pass this critical first test. If the new Iraq could not dispatch the most powerful symbol of the old regime, its legitimacy would be always be in question. And by trying the former dictator, Iraq could come to terms as a country with what happened in the past 25 years. It is unlike ly that Saddam will be tried until several months later, until many of his subordi nates such as Tariq Aziz, Saddam’s foreign minister, have been tried. This way, prosecutors will be able to build a stronger case against Saddam, on the evidence that will be used to convict his subordinates. Among the crimes he will likely be charged with include attacks on Kurds and his suppression of a Shiite rebellion after the Gulf War. It is also for the best that the Iraqi people will be able to judge Saddam rather than a tribunal in some faraway place like Europe. It will allow them to determine by their own standards what he deserves to be punished for and what exactly that pun ishment should be. Although Saddam still has American guards, the fact that he is now under Iraqi jurisdiction is a major victory for the new country. Although a trial of Saddam does not assure victory for the new Iraq over the old, it is a significant starting point. David Shoemaker is a senior management major. Tribute to fallen friend All members of the Chinese- American Association are greatly saddened to learn of the tragic loss of our beloved friend Susan Mallett. Words cannot match our deepest sorrow for such tragedy. As an inter national student adviser, Susan pro vided magnificent support, superb leadership and outstanding services in guiding students and their fami lies for student organizations like CAA that promotes Chinese- American culture exchange. Her professionalism, enthusiasm and dedication were truly exception al. Susan was an extraordinary indi vidual whose excellent services had enormous positive impact in the TAMU student communities and are highly appreciated by the people she served! Our hearts and prayers go to her family in this difficult period. Members of the Chinese- American Association Christians can be scientists, too In response to a June 29 Aggielife feature: I very much enjoyed the fine arti cle by Kendra Kingsley entitled "Test of Faith". However, I was appalled by the comment that Mike Suroviks attrib uted to his philosophy professor; namely, that one can't be a true sci entist if one is a true Christian. If this be so, then many of the great scien tists throughout history must be reclassified as something other than scientists, as they were true Christians. This includes Boyles, Pascal, Newton, Faraday, Maxwell, Kelvin, Kepler and many others. Many of our distinguished profes sors at TAMU are true Christians, as well as true scientists, including Marian Scully in physics, Jack Lunsford in chemistry, Jack Wilmore in exercise phisiology and James Womack in veterinary medicine. One does not need to be a materi alist, assuming the universe is a MAIL CALL completely closed system of cause and effect, to study natural process es. Walter L. Bradley, Ph.D., P.E. Mechanical Engineering Fahrenheit 9/11 well- made documentary In response to a June 28 mail call The polls are split 50-50, and America is not morally half-bankrupt, with religious and moral superiority corresponding to political allegiance. Roger Ebert, who has won a Pulitzer Prize for film criticism, says about Fahrenheit 9/11, "Most docu mentaries, especially the best ones, have an opinion and argue for it. Even those that pretend to be objec tive reflect the filmmaker's point of view. Moviegoers should observe the bias, take it into account and decide if the film supports it or not." Michael Moore’s film is biased and propagandistic. It is also an enter taining, revealing, and well-made film. The film argues that the Bush administration’s military campaign has also been full of propaganda. So examine the film and decide in who's hands is propaganda more dangerous. Justin Winn Class of 2000 Fahrenheit 9/11 just leftist propaganda In response to Sara Runnels' June 30 mail call: Republicans are not "utterly threatened" by "Fahrenheit 9/11." The movie is false and biased. Republicans are standing up and supporting the great president Americans have. Bush has done great things for the United States through some tough times. Imagine the movies that could have been made about Bill Clinton had Republicans controlled the media the way liberals do. People like Michael Moore have the right to free speech, but at what cost? His movie is strictly propagan da. As he said himself, "any swing voters that see my movie will leave having swung." Bush is hated because he has a backbone. Come election time, vote for Kerry if you feel you must, but don't do it strictly because you do not "like" Bush. Vote for Kerry because you agree with his views. Your guess is as good as mine on what Kerry's "views" are since he changes them all the time. He is a devout Catholic, but yet he is pro- choice. He is for, against, for and yet again against, the war in Iraq. Kevin Ray Class of 2004
