Page 4
Opinion
University Daily Kansan, November 14, 1980
Don't go bowling yet
For the past several years, bowl speculation for the University of Kansas football team has ended after the first week of the season.
This season, after a tie with Oregon and two straight losses in the first three games, it seemed the trend would continue. When one examines KU's current 3-4-2 record, it seems as if the trend has continued.
But bowl talk is prevalent around KU these days.
If the Jayhawks win their next two games—road encounters with Colorado and Missouri—they will finish 5-4-2 and, more importantly, third in the reputedly tough Bir Eight Conference.
A bowl bid would possibly be in the of-
fing. And a bowl invitation would be
dramatic indeed after Kansas was picked by many to finish last in the conference.
Yet the team and its fans shouldn't overreach. Winning at Missouri will be a tough chore. The team needs to take each game—as the cliche goes—one at a time.
If the Jayhawks lose their next two games, the season probably will be viewed by some as a mediocre one. But if the Jayhawks win, the season will have been a smashing success.
After all, a loss against lowly Colorado tomorrow afternoon would quickly squelch bowl talk for KU. And the game against Missouri would be meaningless from the standpoint of post-season activity.
End-of-the-season games haven't meant this much to the Javahaws in a long time.
Letters to the Editor
Lesbians practice sexism; abuse privilege of meetings
To the editor:
During Women's Awareness Week, I attended one of the scheduled activities sponsored by the Commission on the Status of Women, the Women's Coalition, the Men's Coalition, KU-Y and the Women's Resource Center. It was advertised in the Kasan as "Lesbianism and Women's Liberation—a Women's Awareness Week discussion."
From this, I naturally assumed that it was to be a presentation for all interested people rather than the club meeting for lesbians who had been out to be their sexual experiences that it turned out to be.
Before the meeting was five minutes under way, one member of the audience called for the dismissal of all male members of the audience. The women who presumably were in charge considered the proposal appropriate, but (ever so diplomatically) assured the men that they could stay for the presentation.
It also was said that their presence would inhibit the "emotional level" on which the "dramatic readings" were to take place. The men also were told that they would not be welcome for the discussion period afterward. I was appalled at the lack of courtesy shown to these men and (later) straight women who took the time and interest to attend.
There was clearly an absence of diplomacy and consideration for those of us who were willing to try to understand lesbianism and were open-minded enough to come and listen or participate in the so-called "discussion." I ask these women (who profess to be professors of and secretaries of sexual orientation) to disrupt the entire presentation? Why, also, would they read material in a public place that they obviously think is unsuitable for some of the public who attended?
I ask these questions now because they were left unanswered in the 'discussion pages'.
Come now, ladies, tell me how this attitude differs in principle with your perception of how the hetero-world generalizes about homosexuals? I wish to suggest that people who have had a chance to choose. As people, we all have different capacities for understanding each other.
Instead of a discussion of "Lesbians and Women's Liberation," the panel of women read from a collection of "coming out" experiences. After the panel, member refused to open their minds enough to answer pertinent questions that a couple of the audience would like them to direct a question to them concerning their anti-male, anti-straight attitudes, to which one of them firmly assured me that "no men have the capability to understand women."
The panel also took the time to harp on their oppression. Granted, gays are oppressed, like many other minorities, but how do you plan to alleviate or otherwise lessen that oppression if you do not allow a fetish heterosexual to ask you questions in public and then like a bunch of irresponsible radicals?
I fail to see how the material that these obviously narrow-minded women deemed appropriate to present is in any way effective in relating lesbianism to the women's movement. It is also disappointing to see a group of people openly abuse the time that the commissions and coalitions set aside for them.
Jame Brown
Overland Park freshman
Congrats from KSU
To the editor:
As agreed between your student body president, Greg Snackade, and I, I wish to congratulate the KU football team, coaches and fans for an impressive victory Nov. 11.
Thanks for competing once again in a healthy intratestrate rivalry. It was encouraging to see the tremendous amount of sport displayed by everyone from your university.
Randy Tosh KSU student body president
Libertarianism
To the editor:
There are two points that I would like to make concerning Professor Shaffer's denunciation of Libertarianism. First, his evaluation of Libertarian economics was a slap in the face to his own profession, economics. Second, his outcry against an individualist society, his remarkable display of "social consciousness," was nothing short of a plea for socialism, which would explain his other field of interest—Soviet studies.
Although Shaffer's portrayal of a Libertarian society was quite dramatic and sentimental, it was economically and logically invalid. He based his conclusions not upon the objective facts of free-wheel supply-and-demand economics, but upon the socialistic assumption that, given the freedom to do so, man will price himself right out of business.
This assumption, which substitutes fear for facts, is the same assumption that led our judicial system to outlaw such acts as prostitution, gambling, drug use and suicide—acts most commonly known as victimless crimes. (A victimless crime is a contradiction in terms, a joke and a slap in the face of justice.) That is, analogous to the case of a woman decriminalized, then everyone (himself included) might be tempted to run out and slit their wrists. The Golden Rule of his economics is, "Distrust your neighbor as you distrust yourself."
This leads to an overwhelming question: Who do you trust? Shaffer inevitably offers us a governmental big brother, a sort of modern-day superhero who would coercily entrench economic equality.
Granted, this solution has proven effective. The recent developments in Poland would seem to indicate that everyone there is suffering equally.
Liberitarianism, on the other hand, puts the responsibility for man into the hands of man. Contrary to Shaffer's paranoia portrait of a Libertarian society, Libertarians promote a completely responsible society—one in which the person who would suffer would suffer. This parable will illustrate the type of man who would suffer in a Libertarian society:
Two men are walking through the woods in a snowstorm. They are five miles from town.
The first man decides it would be easier to be carried than to walk, so he plops down in the snow and declares that he will not take another step. What will the second man do?
Put in a nutshell, Shaffer suggests that man is economically naked without a gun to his head. Libertarians believe that no man should live with a gun to his head. There is no middle ground—you either have a gun to your head or you don't.
In our present "socially conscious" society, and most certainly in a socialist society, the government (God) intervenes and points a finger to the second man's head, saying, "Carry him."
Finally, concerning Shaffer's implication that fiction writing is divorced from reality: The bur that Solzhenitsyn wrote under the Nazi middle did not feel too fictional to the Soviets.
In a Libertarian society, however, it would be the second man's choice. The first man might very well freeze, starve, or whatever—but then that was his choice.
Kevin Helliker Kansas City, Kan., senior
Letters Policy
The University Daily Kansan welcomes letters to the editor. Letters should be typewritten, double-spaced and not exceed 800 words. They should include the writer's name, address and telephone number. If the writer is afresh off the job, they should include the writer's class and home town or faculty or staff position. The Kansan reserves the right to edit letters for publication.
The New Conservative Tide in American Politics
President doomed during zero-year
For those people who, like me, are still in shock because this nation actually elected an aging ex-actor to the presidency, there is still reason to have hope for the future. If historical precedent holds, Ronald Reagan should die in office.
The odds that Reagan will survive as president are not good because of the "zero factor." Since 1840, every president who was elected in a year ending in zero has died in office.
If Reagan dies, his supporters will have William Henry Harrison to blame, because he began the death streak. It all started when President John Adams appointed Harrison governor of the Indiana Territory. Later he also was appointed as governor of the Louisiana Territory. Harrison negotiated treaties with the Indians and opened new lands to settlement.
It just so happened that during this time the Indian chief Tecumseh and his brother, known as "The Prophet," were attempting to combine their tribes between the Ohio River and the Great Lakes in opposition to the encroaching whites.
Tecumseh particularly was incensed about the taking of lands along the Wabash River, and even after he and Harrison met to discuss the agreement on the settlement of the land was reached.
So, on Nov. 7, 1811, Harrison led militia and army regiments to the Tippacone River near Lafayette, Ind., and defeated Tecumseh, his brother and their tribes in battle.
It was essentially the first battle of the War of 1812, and later in the war, Harrison met Tecumseh again. During the Battle of the War of 1812, he captured Fort Niagara, British forces and their Indian allies, led by
Tecumseh. During the battle, Tecumseh was killed.
According to legend, it was then that Tecumseh's brother, "The Prophet," pronounced a harrison and all future elections elected in a "zero-year" would die in office.
Harrison was elected in 1840. After an hourlong inaugural speech, the longest in history, in March 1841, he caught cold. This soon developed into a severe illness on April 4 after being presided for only 30 days.
Of course, at that time it was probably easy to
BRETT CONLEY
ignore the curse and say it was only a coincidence that Harrison had died. Yet the legend became stronger after the next six presidents elected in a year ending in zero also died in old age.
Abraham Lincoln was the first to follow Harrison. Lincoln was elected to his first term in 1860. He was assassinated by John Wilkes Booth and died April 15, 1865.
Next was James A. Garfield, elected in 1880 and assassinated in September 1881. In 1900, William McKinley was elected, and he, to, was assassinated. He died Sept. 14, 1901.
Warren G. Harding was elected in 1920 and
apparently died of pneumonia—a complication of food poisoning—in 1923.
After the election of 1940, it took Franklin D. Roosevelt several years to succumb to the curse. He died of a cerebral hemorrhage in 1945. John Kennedy, who was assassinated in 1963.
All told, of the seven presidents who died, four were assassinated and three died from natural causes. Also, of the seven, only Lincoln and Andrew Jackson managed to live past their third year in office.
Unfortunately, we do not know when Reagan is scheduled to meet his demise, but considering the effectiveness of the 140-year-old hex and Reagan's age and state of physical fitness, it looks as if it could happen at any time, maybe even before he officially assumes office.
Of course, this would make George Bush the new president. He would join the list of other successors, which includes biggies such as John Tyler, Chester Arthur, Andrew Johnson and William Jennings. The most notable successors were Theodore Roosevelt, Harry Truman and Lyndon Johnson.
It is hard to assess how good a president Bush would be. At least he has held government posts in other administrations and has had previous Washington experience.
Also, Bush appears to have the ability to understand complicated problems. He never has co-starred in anything with a monkey or been an communist leader of any type of labor union.
So, for those people who wanted to see anyone but Reagan as president, things look good. Maybe with a little belief in old Indian legends that they will get his in the end and we will all be saved.
Men face important identity issues too
By JOHN MACCHIETTO Guest Columnist
AN OPEN LETTER TO ALL MEN ON CAMPUS...
So, as males we are the favored sex of society. Hasn't that been a message of the women's movement? Believe me, there is another side to that story. Oh yes, we've had a tremendous number of opportunities in politics and careers over women in the last 150 years. We also have leaders and activists who have hurt attacks, ulcers and war deaths. In fact, we lead the way in all stress-related diseases. At the present rate, by the time we are 70 years old, our female peers will out number us 2 to 1.
My point is this: For every "women's" issue there is a comparable "men's" issue. I am not advocating a return to traditional gender roles; both are dysfunctional. However, to assume that women are more dominant than men (the favored sex) is not only ridiculous, but also fosters an attitude that is oppressive in itself.
It is impossible to elaborate on more than a few men's issues, so as one example, let's look at that old cliche, "We treat women as sex objects." Not many of us will deny that women are degraded in that fashion, but to believe that notion without understanding the reasons why this behavior exists only leads us to resentment, anger and worst of all, self-blame.
We as men are put into the role of initiator. On the surface, it looks as if we have "all the power," because it means we can ask out who we want, when we want. Unfortunately, it also means we are the ones who generally suffer that phenomenon called "rejection."
Have you ever considered how much power there is in accepting or rejecting someone? Rejection hurts more when it's done by a person, so in defense, we turn women into objects. It still hurts to be rejected, but less than when the "receiver" is an object.
Although this explanation may sound simple, it is one that has merit for anyone who has ever tried to write.
One other point: Women are not the only people who are treated as objects in our society. We as men have as "success objects" every day of our lives. Have you ever been to a party where you have not been asked your occupation or school status? What would happen if you replied "janitor" or, even worse, "homemaker"?
Do you honestly think many people would date you if your aspiration in life was to nurture children and take care of a home and family? The few male homemakers I have known have not only been isolated from their men friends but also totally excluded from their women homeowners peaking. How can we be expected to not be defensive about our job status if society (both men and women) rates our whole worth as men beings by the nature of their jobs. What should we learn that the status of the type of car he drives will affect who he can date?
I am not suggesting that we blame women for our problems; they are not the enemy. But it is important to note that women have
start to blame ourselves, we must remember that there are explanations for our actions. Men and women make up society, and many women encourage behaviors that keep us in our roles as teachers. We can learn what the behaviors we less learned what those behaviors are. How could they? We scarcely know ourselves.
It is important to know this if we are to survive the psychological and physical hardships of being male. However, we can pull through. But that means we must start to explore our lives as men. That is difficult to do because we have been told since early childhood that introspection is not an ability we possess because we are not female.
Yet we must do this. We also must start to look at each other as brothers as opposed to potential competitors. Otherwise, we become too dependent on women for our social and economic benefit most of all, we must think that only the women are victims of society's oppression. This is the first step.
John Macchietto, a Lawrence graduate student, is a member of the Men's Coalition.
The University Daily KANSAN
(USPS 680-644) Published at the University of Kansas Daily August through May and Thursday in June and July except Saturday, Sunday and holidays. Second-class postage paid at Lawrence, Kansas 60545; Mail in January or February except Saturday. Send student subscriptions a $2 as a fee to the county. Student subscriptions are a $2 answer, paid through the student activity fee. Postmaster: Send changes of address to the University Daily Kanaan, Flint Hall, The University of Kansas.
Editor Business Manager Carol Beler Wolf Eleanor Strahler
Managing Editor Cyned Hughes Editorial Editor David Lewis Campus Editor Jody Woodburn Associate Campus Editor Jeff Sperven Assistant Campus Editors Mark Spencer, Don Munday, Cindy Whatcome
Retail Sales Manager Kevin Koster National Sales Manager Nancy Glason Campus Sales Manager Barb Light
General Manager and News Adviser Rick Musser Kansas Advisor Chuck Chowins