Opinion
Page 4 University Daily Kansan, October 29, 1980
24
An important message
For too long, the campus community has viewed the Kansan's editorial page as only a haven for columnists to espouse their views. This view, however, holds no water.
The Kannan editorial page is not only for editors and editorial columnists. It is not only for journalism students. It is not only for elite members of the community.
It is for you.
The editorial page is the most important public forum at the University of Kansas. The page is the only way a student can reach all the University community. Without it, freedom of speech wouldn't mean as much as it does.
Today, as a gesture of the Kansan's commitment to involve the campus in the editorial page, the Kansan has given several women the space to comment on the women's movement—an important, diverse movement.
Unfortunately, the Kansan doesn't have the space to devote entire pages to every
worthwhile cause, although the staff wishes it were possible. Yet, perhaps more than anything else, this page will serve as a symbol that groups and individuals should not hesitate to write guest columns and letters to the editor, especially when their writings could make a valuable contribution to the public forum.
It must be emphasized on occasion that everyone has a right to his or her own opinion. Sometimes those opinions are not so popular. Yet a responsible newspaper must offer as many different opinions as possible—regardless of their popularity.
In the future, as in the past, the Kansan will welcome guest columns and letters to the editor. As usual, space limitations will be a problem. As always, and as our responsibility dictates, the Kansan will make the final decision as to what runs on this page.
The Kansan takes this responsibility seriously. We will always strive to serve our readers in the best way possible.
'Sexist' column stirs women
By GAIL BOAZ
BY GAIL BONE Guest Columnist
On Oct. 24th, 18 women and two men requested editorial space in the Kansan to respond to sextis editorials by Bill Menezes. We are enraged at the sextist content in Menezes' column "Dear Calvin Klein . . ." and Laura Neumann's accompanying cartoon.
Although we realize the difference between news and editorsials, we also think that journalists must take responsibility for their work. This responsibility is proportional to the power of the news media. The responsibility of journalists, Columnists and cartoonists should not use their media to express their own personal bigotries.
Sexism, like racism, is expressed in many ways. It is largely a disease of the unaware. That is why several campus women's groups and one men's group sponsored Women's Awareness Week here at KU. These groups work to publicize the many options for women concerning lifestyles, careers and social roles. Women's Awareness Week is a chance for those who are unfamiliar with women's issues to find out how these issues affect both women and men.
It is inescusable that Menezes cites this program as a take-off point for his column. This is particularly appalling because Menezes is addressing the issue of addressed feminism as an issue on political or
social grounds. Again, this is a lack of respon-
sibility. The content and timing of this article are
largely unknown.
As students, we have a right and responsibility to see that our campus newspaper maintains a quality that we respect. If we sit back and allow students to see what we're doing in paper, we have no one to blame but ourselves.
We should channel anger into positive, constructive forces by expressing our opinions about what is written in the Kansan. That is how change will come about.
One issue that should be clear is that the women's movement is made up of many women who have differing opinions. One look at the schedule of Women's Week should prove the variety of issues this movement addresses: lesbianism, women's health and, women-men relationships. It is this heterogeneity that makes it ludicrous to stereotype "feminists."
We do not all agree with each other, but this is precisely the point we are trying to make. We do not pretend to represent all aspects of the women's movement; unfortunately we did not have the space to include many views that are just as valid as ours. We are all together into stereotyped roles. We are individuals with minds of our own. We will be heard.
Gail Boaz is a Prairie Village junior.
Dear Bill Menezes . . .
Guest Columnist
By ADRIENNE CHRISTIANSEN
Bill, you're on my stumping ground now, and your right ignition is so destructive that the remainder remain untouched.
The best advice my mother ever gave me was, "Let people talk, Adrienne; they either show their ignorance or their intelligence." Mom would be proud of me for listening to Bill Menezes speak his mind on reactionary topics all semester, but she would also be appalled at the blatant sexism that his most recent editorial reeks of.
It would have been helpful had you given some indication as to your definition of "feminists." Bill, contrary to the extremes you construct, the women can be or restrict on what women can be, do or wear.
Feminism means different things to different people. For some it means that Victorian views of sexuality are ridiculous and that women can enjoy sex without guilt. For others it means women can take advantage of their capabilities and enter academia, the work force, or male-dominated fields. But feminism is not restricted to this alone. It also means that women have meaningful relationships with both men and women and still be affirmed as human beings.
Men, too, can reap the benefits of the women's movement. Men now have the opportunity to be warm, affectionate, and if they wish, break free from their stereotypes with a little-little-linen-padded" mackom male ideal.
By all indications, Bill, you have misconstrued who feminists are by creating two categories for women to fall into. Either we are supposed to be "mindless harpies" or all others whom you title as "feminists." I'd bet the Calvin Klein Sassooning would define themselves as feminists although they might agree with the ideals of the women's movement.
You and your restrictions. Since when do "real" feminists have to go braless, not have their legs and look tough. Some of them are better than others, who do define themselves as feminists ought to have the option
to choose that way of personal dress without your value restrictions placed on them. I'm outraged that you would say "thus any women, regardless of race, national origin or feminist creed, can look terrific," simply by putting on a pair of tight jeans. If you want to comment on current fashion, do so, but don't link it to the social movement I am a part of, because you want to ridicule those who hold opinions differing from your own.
One assumption you make is that the wearer of designer jeans is trying to show off her sexuality. Wrong. Designer jeans are a status symbol, not a sex symbol. This attitude is shown so clearly in the Laura E. Neumann cartoon by the use of "upper-class", snobbish language. Look at the telephone, at her gold bracelets. She's not saying, "Hey, I can be equal and sexy at the same time!" but "Hey, I can show how ritzy I am!"
--ankles and legs, and just plain embarrassing falls every month. Yet they continue to be marketed and worn year after year.
The worst part of your attitude that women cannot wear fashionable clothing and be feminist is that it is a destructive one. You dismember women's bodies by calling them "assets." You invalidate the person and her words by placing your flights of sexual fantasy above all else. I guess we're supposed to be flattered that you can think of us as nothing more than walking sperm receptacles. Well, you're wrong. A woman is more than a body and a "mind."
Your lack of understanding about feminism, about women, about fashion and about human dignity is appalling. Your editorial cannot mask your sexist attitudes. Bill, this isn't satiric, it isn't humor and it isn't an opposing view of Women's Week 80." It it's ugly, hateful sexism. You're entitled to your mysoginist, conservative views but you're want to make ignorant criticism of the women's movement, you can fully expect a reply from me and expect reactions from women on campus time and time again. We're not only fighting Bill Menezes' attitudes. We're fighting for a full, dignified life.
Adrienne Christiansen is president of the Commission on the Status of Women and is a junior majoring in women's studies and speech communication. She spent last summer in Washington, D.C. working at the National Organization of Women headquarters.
The University Daily KANSAN
(USPS 589-649) Published at the University of Kansas daily August through May and Tuesday during June and July except at Saturday, Sunday and holidays. Second-class postage payable to Kansai, Kansas 60535. Submit your resume to the University of Kansas for a fee of $25 per student in the county. Student subscriptions are $2 each, paid through the student activity fee. Postmaster: Send changes of address to the University Daily Kansas, Flint Hall, The University of Kansas.
Business Manager
Klaine Strahler
Editor
Carol Beler Wolf
General Manager and News Adviser Rick Musser
Kansas Advisor Chuck Chowin
Fashion oppresses many wimmin
By JANA SVOBODA
Guest Columnist
Guest Columnist
The practice of foot-binding was not just a fad, but a way of life for wimmin in China for 1000 years. Small feet were considered essential for wimmin in order to be marriageable, and during these times, marriage was the only means of survival for women.
A three-inch foot was the stirred-for ideal. Therefore, a long and extremely painful process of molding and forming the foot was considered necessary. This process bent the toes all the way under the foot and the arch was bent almost in half. Bones would be broken and rebroken to attain what was known as the "locus hook."
After the process was started, walking became impossible. This was considered unfortunate but unavoidable side-effect of attaining beauty.
They throw the women's entire body out of line, and restrict her to walking only on certain smooth, surface surfaces. They uncover muscles, tendrils and taper muscles and ligaments, sprained and broken
Madison Avenue tells us that we've come a long way—but have we? Wimrin are still participating in foot-binding and mind- and body-binding by wearing fashions we're told to consider essential to beauty, or even essential to being taken seriously. Consider the clothing fads of today. In the past several years, spike heels, never gone from the fashion scene for long, have returned to dominate the shoe market.
Spike heels are the epitome of modern day foot-binding. They cramp the toes into a triangular shape, balance the weight of the body precariously on a half-inch heel, disallow flexibility of the foot and ankle, and make it impossible for a woman to run or even walk in a reasonably self-assured manner.
The straight-skirt skirt is another example of restrictive and repressive clothing that has returned in the last few years. Any woman who has worn one can attest to the fact that it is impossible to move eight inches apart to move only eight inches apart, making normal-sized steps impossible.
These are only two of the fashions we are told are a "must" in order for us to be attractive, hireable, etc. What about "support" clothing that binds and constricts blood flow, such as girdles, pantyhose with "slenderizing" panels, uplift bras, ect. And there's always time to wear them. Another thing is makeup. Surely the reader remembers the Maybelline scandal years back—mascara that blends as well as lengthens your lashes.
Why do winnim continue to submit to the whim of fashion? It isn't because we are stupid—it is because we are trapped into a system that tells us our value is dependent upon what we look like. Every day we are assaulted by hundreds of advertisements telling us that we just don't measure up—our bodies are that too fat, too thin, too lumpy, so温柔, too hairy, too poorly proportioned; our faces don't flow, or光owe much, are too pimple, too dry, too unattractive; our legs are too long, too short, too chunky, too hairy.
On and on they go, to tell us how their cosmetics or clothes or shoes or course or diet or book can make us the "10's" everyone is telling us we should be. And it's never enough—for even if one year we happen to have the body that will call the patient "in," one year later, when the tides change, we're back where we started from. And while we are suffering and feeling inadequate, Mad Avenue is laughing all the way to the bank.
Some popular fashion magazines tell us the
"average" women spend around three hours a day preoccupied with her body. That might be OK if they were spent in a positive way—getting exercise, nutrition and self-h健康。
Instead, it is spent on a variety of rituals of cover-up—applying makeup, dressing, combing, blow drying, straightening, curling, dyeing hair, and so on. Many winnim spend 20 minutes a day just scraping all the hair of their bodies in order to apply makeup. They love, and then another 10 minutes or so to make sure that all of their body parts are smelling antiseptic.
It's not that our bodies really smell all that bad. Yet Mad Avenue has spent a fortune on convincing us that they do, to ensure that we will spend a fortune to make sure they don't. Fifteen years ago, vaginal deodorants were unheard of. So a man invented "hygiene" spray, went on to create a myth of an odor, and then went on to invent a market for the spray—a market that never knew before that their vaginal smells were offensive.
There's a lot of truth to the fact that wimmin are "slaves to fashion." We are wearing an invisible ball and chain caused by a society that tells us we are never good enough and one that keeps us constantly preoccupied with our appearance and it's supposed inadequacies. That same ball and chain also is physical: it appears on our faces, binds our bodies, and restricts our movements—all for the sake of fashion.
I think that it is time to revolt: time to start wearing clothes we can move in, time to throw away all the needless trappings of makeup, deodorants, razors, and blow dryers that keep us restricted in time, money and health.
It's time to know that our appearance is not an intrinsic part of our value and worth, and to refuse to spend our money and our time on it. I have noticed this sick and sad forum of self-awareness.
Jane Svoboda is a feminist, KU student and a member of the Women's Coalition.
Women are vital, equal parts of society
Bill Menezes's "Dear Calvin Klein" article was disgusting. Your attitude does not allow a woman to be a complete person. Your view dissects her into a hypocritical sex object that claims to have a mind. Let me remind you that human beings are much more than that. We have emotions, body, intellect, and spirit. None of which exists separately from the others.
By LISETTE CRIDER Guest Columnist
One of the aims of the Women's Movement is to allow people the freedom of choice in how to express themselves as a whole person. Unfortunately, your stereotypes have given you a
tunnel vision which only focuses on a women's rear. Believe it or not, attached to every rear is a
the point that the female nuclear physicist would get more attention for her looks than for her knowledge is sadly true. It is true because of attitudes like Menezes'. Whether attired in Calvin Klein or thrift store jeans, feminists are needed to fight this degradation. The clothing does not matter. Beneath the cotton material women struggling to makepeace of the confining stereotypes that exist in our society. Your article proves that the fight is far from
The cartoon by Laura Neumann proves that this is not a fight of women against men. Sex is not the enemy. Attitudes which prejudge,
stereotype, and degrade are the enemy. There must be no pre-made boxes of what women should or should not be. A women does not have to crush herself into the standard image of housewife, career woman, dyke, cute little girl, community leader, teenager, or someone you can be able to express herself in whatever way she desires free from the confining attitudes of others.
This is a goal which will not only free women, but also men and peoples of all race, creed, and color. We are all on this planet together. Let us be inclusive and diverse, divide into groups and unite as individuals.
Lisette Crider is a sophomore in the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences.
Another perspective on women's status
By ANNIKA NILSSON Guest Columnist
This is in response to Amy Hollowell's column Oct. 24. I'm glad that you are trying to bring an international perspective to the women's movement, but I'm sad to see you doing it with the preconceived notion that America is a forerunner.
I know most Americans grow up learning how great their country is. Unfortunately many of them learn the same as other cultures, so some which are accustomed to some which are less advanced in any certain area.
The women's movement is international and you would know this if you had talked to more women from different countries. You are using different tools to show how far American women have come.
I want to use another country, Sweden, to show what results a different approach in the fight for equality have yielded.
Many of the changes in the status of women in Sweden have been initiated by the government, and an interesting difference from Sweden and the United States is that the Swedish government has realized women's roles can't change until they have the responsibility for children, home, and family.
Women in Sweden still have a long way to go before they will get equal political power. Now
There is a child care program that makes it possible for women to enter the labor market and 71 percent of Swedish women between 16 and 64 do work.
In the schools students are encouraged to question sex role stereotyping, both in their professional and personal life. Abortion is free in Sweden. It became legal in 1938 and since 1975 it's the woman's own decision whether she wants an abortion.
There are many American phenomena that are unthinkable to my Swedish friends, but they all deal with areas where the United States is not a country where I am comfortable. Why why why there would be any opposition to an Equal
Rights Amendment, and they don't understand when I tell them about the blantain discrimination women in non-traditional fields have to put up with.
I also want American women to realize that they still live in a very sexist culture and that there are alternatives. I don't want them to think that's the way we want to use our situation is better now than 10 years ago.
I'm not writing this to say Sweden is a forerunner or that sexism is eradicated in Sweden. It isn't. I'm writing it to show sexism can be fought in many different ways and that the issues fought for depend on the cultural setting.
we have to keep fighting for our rights and we have to keep challenging our culture, whatever it happens to be. We have to force our society to recognize women as a vital part, and we have to create a culture where all people can exploit all their potentials, talents and feelings.
Amika Nilsson chairs the Women's Awaremen-
committee for the Commission on the Status of
Women in Science.