4
University Daily Kansan / Monday, March 30, 1992
OPINION
Feminism needs update
The other night, while waiting in line at the grocery store, I overheard a woman discussing her marriage plans with a friend. The bride-to-be was musing over the lengthy last name of her groom in regard to new credit cards, checking accounts, etcetra.
Suddenly, a third woman, (we'll call her the "anti-man woman"), intervened in an angry tirade, pawing off her. "I don't know what you're asking," women as the loss of the maiden name
Amy
Rew
Guest
columnist
Identity crisis? When did women begin to equate to a name? Where is the Bureau of Identity Trade anyway? I'll need to know when, (and if), I decide to marry and forfeit my right to a personae.
The "anti-man woman" was sent forth to confuse us enough to sell ourselves short and buy those loony self-help books about "loving men too much." I fear these women and their quasi-movement more than any male power.
If we as women want to reinstate a feminine movement, let it be out of
compassion for both sexes. Remember, little boys and girls were not born fearing and resenting one another. Someone sent us off to certain schools of thought in either pink or blue cover-ups. How can I, as a woman, deny the exploitation of the male? Society never gave him the option to see me as an equal.
Don't get me wrong. I'm not rejecting a need for another feminine movement. Nor am I excusing the many intolerable acts of a male-dominated society. I only ask women to realize that the term "feminist" is an outdated term that cannot possibly define the social and political reformations that
the "gentler" woman desires.
How about a term less defensive to men, such as "humanistic movement"; a movement which includes men in the reshaping, the benefits, and thus the fulfillments of more positive gender relations?
I happen to enjoy male input, as well as male companionship, and would rather strengthen these bonds than threaten them.
These men may have left her a name, but they also left her a mind, a heart and a body.
As for the "anti-man woman," I'm sorry that her self-image is so deflated that she feels defined by a mere name. Maybe she should look at it this way: it wasn't her name to begin with.
No lineage can ever deem these obsolete. Only she can.
It was her father's, her granda-
ther's, and hisfather's father's.
Amy Rew is a senior majoring in journalism.
THE UNIVERSITY DAILY KANSAN
Clinton is the clear choice
The 1992 election likely will be won by the candidate who best presents a vision of change
Voters are worried. They are worried about the future of the United States. And worried if there is a presidential candidate in the race who can ease their concerns.
A recent poll indicated that 78 percent of Americans think that the country is "on the wrong track."
This feeling has left the presidential candidates scrambling for ideas. And so far, only Bill Clinton has come close to articulating a vision for the United States in the 21st Century.
Clinton is the only candidate left in the race who has put forth a plan for America's future. He has presented detailed proposals on such crucial issues as education, welfare reform, health care and the current recession.
Clinton is running for president on his solid record as governor of Arkansas. Since 1981, Clinton has proven his ability in Arkansas to provide the leadership necessary to create jobs and spur economic growth.
Arkansas has been ranked fifth nationwide
in new jobs and ninth in wage and salary growth since Clinton took office. That's the kind of leadership the country needs to get out of the recession.
And Clinton has shown he is willing to take new approaches to old problems. He has proposed a "domestic GI bill" for education that would help students pay for college by performing government service.
In contrast, President Bush has offered no substantial new proposals to deal with the problems of the 1990s. He has been content to sit on his hands as the domestic economy has slid into one of the worst recessions in the post-World War II era.
Many voters are fed up with Bush's flipflops on issues such as abortion and tax increases. And they are tired of his insistence that cutting taxes for the wealthy is an economic panacea.
It's time for a change. Lately, even Bush has said this. The 1992 election will likely be won by the candidate who presents the best vision of change.
And while he's not perfect, Bill Clinton is the only candidate so far who has come close to that vision.
Chris Moeser for the editorial board
Plan to let students vote on distributing fees to groups would do more harm than good
Student Senate should reject a plan that would allow students to fill out forms to determine the amount of financing that University groups receive from student fees. It is a good idea for students to have input about how their fees are spent, but this plan is not the way. The potential for problems would not outweigh the benefits.
Currently, financing for groups is determined by the Student Finance Committee. Group representatives are allowed to present a budget and discuss it with the committee. This allows for group members to explain and discuss their budget with Senate in an organized way. This process would not be used with the new plan except with excess funds.
One of the problems with the proposed plan is that it is not a need-based plan. It is a plan based on which club can make the most noise to attract favorable student attention. This could result in some groups not even receiving enough money to survive. Other groups might receive more funding than they actually need. And all clubs could never count on
having the same amount as the semester before. No group should suffer a financial loss just because it is not as popular as another group.
Another problem is that groups would have to lobby to receive student support. This could lead to groups spending their budgets on publicity campaigns. Students interested in groups can learn more about them now during fee-payment time by visiting the group tables.
Students don't need to be solicited by club members bombarding them with literature and trying to get their fee vote. There is already enough soliciting with newspapers and coupon books.
If Senate wants more student input, there are other ways to get it. It could try having an open meeting where students could express their opinions about how their fees are spent. Students also could be given a report about how their fees are spent, along with a questionnaire asking for their thoughts.
It is good that Senate is concerned about students and wants more input so that it can truly be a representative system, but a method should be determined that would not hurt University groups in the process.
Amy Francis for the editorial board
Reagan is repugnant
In your March 3 article on the KU Libertarians, Ken Collier, political science professor, speculated that Libertarian Party membership probably declined when Ronald Reagan ran for office because "some Libertarians found Reagan's policies attractive." In fact, they did not.
While it may be true that Reagan's rhetoric regarding shrinking the size of government attracted many voters, his policies regarding civil liberties and military intervention in foreign lands were repugnant to the libertarian ideal. Libertarians regarded his censorship and law enforcement policies as grave threats to the freedoms guaranteed under the Bill of Rights. In addition, Libertarians recognized Reagan's 'shrink the government' rhetoric as just that. Government under Reagan grew at a previously unheard of rate as evident by the skyrocketing federal budget, deficit and payroll. Libertarians believe that only in a society
that places a high value on both personal and economic liberty will people have the opportunity to succeed at making the kind of life they want for themselves and their loved ones. The tired old politics of the established parties offer us neither.
Lettersto the editor
Frank Kaul president, KU Libertarians
Defining free speech
Maggie Childs of KU's Human Relations Committee is philosophically confused. "Free speech" vs. "hat speech" is not a dichotomy. Free speech can include hate speech. The minute you legislate hat speech is you no longer have free speech. But the real problem is the word "appropriate" as used by Robert Shelton and Tom Berger. This is the word we use today to cover up our ignorance of absolute right and wrong. When we try to legislate our own ideas of what is appropriate behavior for others, we risk tyranny.
As an example of inappropriate behavior, Robert Shelton refers to "macho" criticism on campus of homosexuals. As a former professor of psychology, I know of no evidence that can remove this behavior from the realm of moral condemnation. To try to legislate on this behavior would be nothing but ideological conceit, arguably a projection of one's own moral bankruptcy.
The spectacle of liberal academia, which generally wanders in the fog of moral relativism, trying to legislate speech to conform to its own private fantasies of what is right and wrong, should have the rest of us. (as James Jones suggested.) reaching for our guns to resist the new "culture."
I never cease to be amazed at the dither that the simplest moral issue can cause on the KU campus. I think there should be a law against academic pronouncements in newspapers. Now that would be appropriate.
Lawrence resident
I would like to respond to Eric Hockersmith's hunting bashing on March 19. Mr. Hockersmith, I bring you bad news. We live in a world full of things that are not pleasant to think about. There is war, racial discrimination, poverty, sickness, babies who die in their sleep, and animals that must eat other animals.
Yes, it might seem hard to believe, but animals eat each other. Gosh, can it be that that something must die so others can live? Scary concept. jujh?
I agree that hunting no longer serves the basic human needs that it once did, but to condemn all hunters is absolutely ridiculous. It is a fact of life that humans eat animals, and it will be hard to change that.
Fortunately, we no longer have to do the dirty work ourselves and can head to Dillons to purchase what we need to survive. Unfortunately, this leads to people like yourself who sii
Hunters aren't beasts
Hunting is not a murderous rampage through the woods. It is a time to enjoy nature, and as carnal as it is, get something to eat. Believe it or not, it is also fun. There. I said it. Hunting is fun. Pretty hard to understand unless you have experienced it.
Hunting is not for everyone, and eating meat is not for everyone either. However, there is no need for people like yourself to portray hunters as a bunch of murderous beer-drinkers out to have a good time. Sure, I can head to Dillons just like everyone else and pick up a package of chicken breasts, but an animal still died. I know that becoming a vegetarian eliminates the need to kill animals, but it is really not feasible or necessary for everyone (key word is everyone) to not eat any meat. If I may quote Kate Kelley on the 16th, "sometimes it's OK to lighten up."
on their high horse and look down on all others as carnivorous beasts.
Erik Anderson Lawrence senior
Stick
by David Rosenfield