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