Opinion
Kansan
Published daily since 1912
Julie Wood, Editor
Laura Roddy, Managing editor
Cory Graham, Managing editor
Tom Ebien, General manager, news adviser
Brandi Byram, Business manager
Shauntea Blue, Retail sales manager
Dan Simon, Sales and marketing adviser
Scott Vallier, Technology coordinator
Thursday, October 28, 1999
Robert James Novak / KANSAN
Editorials
Sale of models' eggs promotes false values, endorses materialism
The sale of fashion models' eggs to the highest bidder is an unethical practice and should not be supported. Unfortunately, the sale of beauty to those who can afford it has reached a new level of accessibility.
Fashion photographer Ron Harris has started a Web site where the eggs of models are available for $10,000 to $50,000, with an additional 20 percent service fee. Harris, who also breeds horses, seems to have confused humans with livestock in this disturbing offer of beauty for a price.
Harris' idea of buying beauty is flawed in many ways. First, just because someone buys a model's
Buying an egg for a chance to have a beautiful child is an unethical practice
egg doesn't guarantee that the offspring will be beautiful. The mother contributes only half of the child's genes. The model may have recessive genes that could appear in the child and that might not be deemed so beautiful by society.
The children produced from these models' eggs also will be negatively effected. Imagine what they will think when they learn that they were purchased in hopes that they would satisfy their parents' warped
vision of classical beauty. If they are beautiful, they are taught that this beauty is what should matter most in life. If they don't fulfill their parents' desire for beauty, then it is probable that they will perceive themselves as failures.
This sale of beauty also takes away the chances of other children, who weren't created solely for beauty, to be adopted. Children already in need of parents will be shunned in favor of these "golden eggs."
Harris' sale of beauty should be seen for what it is, a promotion of false values and ideals to be endorsed only by the most materialistic of society.
Heather Herrman for the editorial board
Student activism Web site to open
The creators of the Sapiens Project, a Web forum scheduled to open in mid-November, encompass student activism at its peak.
Three University of Kansas students have taken the initiative to launch a Web site dedicated to informing and encouraging involvement on a wide range of issues.
Coachers Peter Markatos, Wichita senior; Matt Gregg, Newton senior; and Aaron Major, Kansan columnist and Deerfield, N.H., senior, are paying for the project out of their own pockets and time banks.
Markatos said the Sapiens Project was about awareness. The goal is to encourage visitors to the Web site to learn, think and act.
Learning will occur through being well and diversely informed. The site plans to remain neutral and non-partisan, while presenting issues from more than one perspective. For example, an article from The New York Times will be paired with an article from an alternative news source such as The Nation.
Activist Web site encourages community to learn, think and act to make a difference.
Next comes thinking, and thinking comes through discussion. Although there are many discussion sites on the Web, the Sapiens Project plans to provide something different — a perspective combining global and local issues special to the University and Lawrence audience.
with names of lawmakers and opinion leaders they can contact and also will give suggestions for other ways to get involved with issues that raise concern.
Overall, the proposed site remains true to its title. The word "sapiens" is derived from the Latin root *supere*, which means to be wise. The Sapiens Project promotes intellectualism through its goals of learning, thinking and acting.
Finally, the project takes learning and thinking one step further by encouraging activism. The site will provide users
Students, faculty and the community should take advantage of this new Web forum as soon as it is launched and use it to inform themselves, express their views and then do something to make a difference.
The Sapiens Project creators are doing their part to make a difference by taking an active role to inform and involve others in the world around them.
Katrina Hull for the editorial board
Kansan staff
News editors
Chad Bettes ... Editorial
Seth Hoffman ... Associate editorial
Carl Kaminski ... News
Juan H. Heath ... Online
Chris Fickett ... Sports
Brad Hallier ... Associate sports
Nadia Mustafa ... Campus
Heather Woodward ... Campus
Steph Brewer ... Features
Dan Curry ... Associate features
Matt Daugherty ... Photo
Kristi Elliott ... Design, graphics
T.J. Johnson ... Wire
Melody Ard ... Special sections
Advertising managers
Becky LaBranch . . . Special sections
Thad Crane . . . Campus
Will Baxter . . . Regional
Jon Schlitt . . . National
Danny Pumpelly . . Online sales
Micah Kafitz . . . Marketing
Emily Knowles . . Production
Jenny Weaver . . Production
Matt Thomas . . . Creative
Kelly Heffernan . Classified
Juliana Moreira . Zone
Chad Hale . Zone
Brad Bolyard . Zone
Amy Miller . Zone
Broaden your mind: Today's quote
"Moral indignation is jealousy with a halo."
How to submit letters and guest columns
Letters: Should be double-spaced typed and fewer than 200 words. Letters must include the author's signature, name, address and telephone number plus class and hometown if a University student. Faculty or staff must identify their positions
Guest columns: Should be double spaced typed with fewer than 700 words. The writer must be willing to be photographed for the column to run.
All letters and guest columns should be submitted to the *Kansas newsroom*, 111 Stuaffer-Flint Hall. The *Kansas* reserves the right to edit, cut to length or reject all submissions. For any questions, call Chad Bottle, at Seth Hoffman at 864-4924
H. G. Wells
If you have general questions or comments, e-mail the page staff (opinion@kansan.com) or call 864-4924
(nion@kansan.com) or call 864-4924
Perspective
Allowing men in march takes focus off women
Almas
Sayeed
guest columnist
opinion@kasan.com
Think fall is a really beautiful time of year, especially when the leaves become an amazing combination of orange and yellow and everyone is wrapped in warm clothes, anticipating the arrival of Thanksgiving break. I think it is also a time to give thought to what it means to be safe, secure and comfortable.
For millions of women throughout this country and the world, the beauty of the season and the comfort of personal security are overshadowed by violence within the home. It is staggering to think that in this country alone, a woman is beaten or killed in incidents of domestic violence every 15 seconds. Fifty percent of women in this country have been victim of domestic violence, which means that in any classroom on this campus you your neighbor
teacher or professor could be a domestic violence survivor. And this statistic does not even include rates of domestic violence within gay, lesbian and transgendered communities.
More importantly, women's mobility and freedom is often restricted because of fear of attack and lack of safety. Men marching against violence alongside women may give the illusion of unity and safety, but it does not reflect the social reality that women are at a much higher risk of attack than men. There was a time when men could march in Lawrence and the result was that their voices drowned out those of the women. They would often lead the march without women and would repeat chants such as "People Unite, Take Back the Night," instead of "Womyn Unite, Take Back the Night." It was overpowering and prevented women's participation. This is a large part of the reason men no longer march.
To increase awareness about the issue and recognize the stories of survivors, the country recognizes October as Domestic Violence Awareness Month. There have been a number of events this month to recognize the issue, and today will be the culmination of the month's activities: the Womyn Take Back the Night march, rally and speak-out.
There are a number of reasons that women should march on their own. Firstly, I am compelled by the argument that this is Womyn Take Back the Night, not People Take Back the Night. Though men may be outspoken about their aversion toward domestic violence, this does not undermine the simple fact that women are the victims of attacks and domestic violence 95 percent of the time.
excludes men, that it squashes men's ability to speak out against domestic violence and that not all Womyn Take Back the Night marches in the country disallow men's participation. Though these arguments are understandable, I would argue against men's inclusion.
The march is a public protest against violence perpetrated against women and children. The spirit of the march is captured in the women's circle, intended to validate and recognize the experiences of women who are survivors or who have been affected by domestic violence. Afterward, women march down Massachusetts Street to voice their rage, disgust and dismay at the idea that there are so many women and children affected by domestic violence and that we live in a social structure that continues to tolerate it.
Yet there are many things men can do to participate in Womyn Take Back the Night. Pre-march activities include time for non-profit organizations in Lawrence to share and distribute information, a rally that will include a number of local artists and speakers and the very important men's circle, which will occur simultaneously to the women's circle. Men are encouraged to attend all these activities.
Since the beginning of my involvement with Lawrence's Womyn Take Back the Night, I have heard the argument that the march unjustly
The circle is a forum for men to discuss their own issues related to domestic violence, share their survivor stories and validate each other's experiences. It is an important time for men to discuss, share and critically evaluate what it means to be male in a society that often condones men's violence against women.
Sayeed is a Wichita junior in philosophy, international studies and women's studies. She is an organizer of Womyn Take Back the Night.
Men should be allowed in march against violence
T onight, a cross section of Lawrence citizens and University of Kansas students
Tonight, a cross section of Lawrence citizens and University of Kansas students will be taking a stand against violence. Womyn Take Back the Night is a national march to protest the violence that American society promotes and perpetrates, especially against women and children. But half of the people who ought to be there won't be participating in the march on Massachusetts Street.
Men are not allowed to march with women in Lawrence (although they are allowed to do so in other cities) and have not been since the march's
inception. Almas Sayeed, one of the Lawrence march's organizers, said that at age 18 boys are no longer permitted. Once they are past that age, they would not be permitted to march unless accompanied by their mothers. This begs the question: what if the hypothetical 19-year-old whose mother died as a result of domestic violence wanted to come? Would he still be forbidden to march?
Jennifer Roush guest columnist opinion@kansan.com
Males who wish to protest are relegated to a "men's circle” where they are encouraged to talk with one another about domestic violence and child abuse. Many of these men talk about the abuse they received at the hands of their parents. But they cannot talk publicly about this abuse. They cannot take to the streets with their wives and daughters and sisters.
Why?
Because they are men. They possess male genitalia, which makes them potential rapists and abusers of women and children. This is sexism in its purest form. Remember, the first definition of the word "sexism" is discrimination based on gender. It is not solely discrimination against women.
If men were to stage a march against violence and excluded women solely because of their gender, there would be indignant letters and editorials in newspapers across the nation calling for women's inclusion. Women, after all, are directly affected by child abuse and domestic violence
But so are men — men who come from violent families, men who struggle with anger and depression every day of their lives, men who love and marry women who have survived child abuse or domestic violence.
Why am I making such a big deal out of something so small? Because I speak as a survivor of child sexual abuse who is married to a survivor of child abuse and domestic violence. I would be allowed, even encouraged, to bring my three-year-old son with me if I chose to participate in the march, but my husband would not be permitted to show his support by joining us. This is wrong, and it sends the wrong message to men who may not understand the anger and desire for independence that lies behind the exclusion.
However, what many men hear is not the desire for independence. What they hear is the rejection. Men hear the women they know and love talking about a problem that, as men, they are forbidden to help solve. This is exquisitely unfair to the psychies of men. One does not give a problem to a man that one does not want solved in some way or another. It just isn't in most men's natures to listen without doing.
One does not change society by actively ignoring and excluding half of that society's members. I understand that the point of the march is for women to assert their right to walk the streets at night without being victimized. I sympathize completely. This cry for independence and rejection of the help of men is similar to my three-year-old's desire to do everything for himself.
As President Clinton has been so fond of saying, we haven't got a person to waste. Division of the sexes is no way to conquer domestic violence and child abuse. It is wasteful and mean-spirited to deny men the opportunity to speak — arm in arm with women — against violence.
Roush is a Lawrence senior in journalism and a member of the Kansan editorial board.
Feedback God can create life
Many people mistakenly believe that if you believe in creation, you don't accept many scientific findings or theories. This isn't accurate. Please remember that within the scientific community itself that many theories (not just evolution) are debated on a regular basis. If one researcher disagrees with another, they don't typically resort to name calling, or choose to completely ignore the other person's value in society.
I believe that the Chief Scientist (God) has the ability to create life, although I can't personally understand how something can be made from
nothing. If I refuse to believe that a Supreme Being can truly create any form of life, however simple, I may be missing out on some important revelations, and I'm not speaking of just the spiritual.
A challenge I would like offer many people is this; If God has any power at all, if He can create something as simple as a single-celled creature, or even a grain of sand, shouldn't we acknowledge that our current time-table of life, or the belief in evolution be completely off? Why? If God can create anything, once this element or object is material, it will appear to be an "aged" specimen, even though it just "appeared." This would be
true whether it is a tree (win numerous "time" rings in its center), or an animal. You don't have to accept it, but if we choose to only believe what we completely understand, the computer I'm using to write this letter does not exist, since I don't understand how such a small "chip" can hold so much information. It is unwise to refuse to believe in something just because you don't "understand" Evolution is popular, mainly because people can "understand" the explanations it offers. Just because you can fully "understand" and idea or theory, doesn't make it fact.
Pat Mayo
Lawrence resident!