Printer-friendly version
PDF version
This is one of the “whiners” that Network referred to in their latest column.
It’s not about being just as mean to the boys, it’s about the fact that there is this oppressive system called sexism at work in our culture and that your responses to “self righteous ho” just perpetuates this system. Sexism affects both men and women.
It’s not about whining, it’s about pointing out how these systems work and keep getting perpetuated by people like Network and some of those who write in to Network. We don’t need that to happen, especially in our campus newspaper.
Ami Wazlawik
University student
Serving the University of Minnesota Community since 1900
61 Comments
To comment, please login.
Help! Help!
The Patriarchy is everywhere! Trust no one -- they too could be its secret spy! YAAAAGGGHH!!! Look at this obscure twaddle-column in the back of a student newspaper! NO! What are you, working for the Patriarchy? It's no mere ridiculous attempt to be funny! It's a secret coded message! If you look at every fifth letter in every sixth column and arrange them along the lines of the secret oppressive phallic watermark that goes on every page of newsprint, you get a message saying, Men! Go forth and rape every woman you set eyes on -- but not students, because then the Aurora Center's guaranteed a steady cash flow! We've got to go on a crusade aga -- HEEEELP!!! There's miniature privy members creeping down my spine! Thousands and thousands of them! Get them off me! Castrate the buggers before -- EEEEEEEEEEEEEeeeeeeeeeeeee.....
Respect for everyone
RealityChecker's comment speaks for itself.
Sexist language is not funny. Would you think it was funny if someone called your daughter, sister, or mother a "ho"? Of course not. Then why should anyone be referred to as one? After all, every woman is someone's daughter, sister, or mother.
There is no room in a campus newspaper for racist, sexist, or any other type of demeaning language. The Minnesota Daily should print an apology for Network's comments.
Actually, I WOULD find it
Actually, I WOULD find it pretty funny if someone called my sister a ho. She'd turn all red and shoot her mouth off. It'd be fantastically entertaining.
Give it a rest
When you call for an end to racist or sexist comments., do you mean all those comments, or just ones that demean women and/or non-whites. I'll bet you mean just women and non-whites. A good example would be the comment further down that starts with "Network = Little Boys." Are you against that? You should be. I'll make you a deal. You write the Daily a letter that is as heart felt and passionate about how you detest the blatant sexism in the comment I mentioned and then I'll write one about how wrong and evil Network is. Deal? Let me know.
Actually, I am against that,
Actually, I am against that, it is also sexist. However, considering how often I hear comments that are sexist or racist toward groups with privilege, it doesn't surprise me that I have not commented on them - they are few and far between, at least in my circles. I rarely hear sexist remarks directed at men or racist remarks directed at whites. That's not to say that they don't happen, however.
This is to be expected.
Someone is always offended by something.
Network isn't serious - anyone who takes it seriously or is offended by its comments, frankly, needs a life.
Over the years, I've found many things that have "offended" me in network - but then I realized what network was, and realized how stupid being offended by a silly column in a college rag is.
It's not about being
It's not about being offended, it's about supporting a system of opression.
I agree! I'm tired of having
I agree! I'm tired of having to pay for my drinks while the women in my life get all the free drinks they want via "Ladies' Nights." I feel oppressed.
whew, lucky for us we make a
whew, lucky for us we make a buck compared to a woman's 70 cents, am I right brother? someday...someday we'll get free drinks. let's dare to dream and make it a reality.
Once more women decide to get
Once more women decide to get into high-paying fields, like engineering, we'll have nothing to fall back on. Us guys will be stuck below the free-drink glass ceiling.
It's easy to make fun of a
It's easy to make fun of a system of oppression when you're on the privileged side of things, isn't it?
Privileged side? When was the
Privileged side? When was the last time you saw a girl move into an apartment without a guy lifting most of the heavy stuff? When was the last time you saw a girl pay for both parties on a date? How many guys do you know have gotten married and just quit their jobs to hang out at home all day?
My bf must be lucky then
My guy must be lucky then, cuz I pay for as many dates as he does. It's fair.
I'm all for that.
I'm all for that. Unfortunately, that is nowhere near the norm.
For a college campus, this is
For a college campus, this is a very uneducated discussion. All we are seeing are these knee jerk reactions by people to something they are not aware of or that is scary and new. Take a look around you and critically look at what you see. Sexism exists and patriarchy is the system that enables it. And this business with net is just one piece in the broader puzzle.
Patriarchy is bad for BOTH men and women in very different ways. Yes, men are expected to make the money and pay on dates and carry heavy things. But women are lowballed and given expectations for barely more than 'be pretty'. So maybe if you want free drinks and for girls to pay on dates you should be more supportive of women and help them reach their potential. Then, be respectful and maybe some lady will buy you a drink of your own and take you out on the town.
and keep rockin, Ami!
It's clear you didn't read
It's clear you didn't read all of the comments. You may disagree with them, but there are reasonable points of view from each side of the argument.
Student Rag? Isn't the Daily
Student Rag? Isn't the Daily one of the best college newspapers in the country?
Yes, this is very true. I
Yes, this is very true. I didn't mean to put down the daily at all. It was more of a affectionate jab if anything. The Daily is probably one of the best college papers, bar none.
But, it still is a college newspaper. And with that comes some expectations of irreverence and pushing of boundaries. Also you expect that free speech will be respected.
But I guess these sorts of "letters to the editor" are expected as well... Lots of young people discovering the world around them in college... Many feel like they have to fight some sort of power to feel relevant. It's understandable.
But please, for the love of god, keep network pushing those boundaries for those of us that have a sense of humor. I'm fat. Fat people are generally oppressed and marginalized in this country. Yet, I am able to laugh at fat jokes. Hooray!
Just because Network is a
Just because Network is a "silly column in a college rag" doesn't mean that it isn't a problem...if someone says a sexist, racist, or homophobic joke, I would call them on it, even if they were ONLY joking.
Homophobic
Please drop the homophobic crap. People who are opposed to the homosexual lifestyle and/or think that homosexuality makes for great comic material are seldom to never actually afraid of homosexuals.
Homophobia, according to
Homophobia, according to Webster's dictionary, is the irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals. What term do you prefer that I use?
Network = Little boys who
Network = Little boys who can't get a boner without giggling about it.
I find this comment
I find this comment offensively sexist. RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE!!!
Heyyyy
Hey, what is that in your username? Is that a...? OH GOD WHYYYYYYYYY
you're all dumb as hell.
you're all dumb as hell. writer to the editor: you're dumb as hell network is a joke and saying those things to point out that they're ridiculous. it's called satire damn. commenters: you're dumb as hell for arguing with each other on a website and the points she's making are valid. damn
YOU ARE ALL DUMB FOR
YOU ARE ALL DUMB FOR COMMENTING HERE EXCEPT ME (because I'm pointing out how dumb it is)
I understand that Network is
I understand that Network is satire, but I don't understand why we need to give space in the Daily to those who write in and say things that are offensive or that just perpetuate stereotypes. I'm thinking that if we give them face time we're just encouraging them...though I realize that the same could be said about me responding to Network.
We need to give space to this
We need to give space to this sort of stuff because it's still better than the Daily's reporting.
Perhaps we should get rid of
Perhaps we should get rid of the freedom of speech altogether then? Does that answer your question.
It may be satire, but I don't need to live with sexism
As a woman, I live with sexism on the streets, in the classroom, at work, in stores and restaurants, and even in my home. I don't need to live with it in my college newspaper. The Minnesota Daily should have enough pride in itself not to print sexist, racist, or homophobic remarks because even as satire, they are not constructive for anyone, no matte their race, gender, or sexual orientation.
Oh, and men, if you're offended by women's critiques of sexism, stop being sexist. A simple solution.
"Oh, and men, if you're
"Oh, and men, if you're offended by women's critiques of sexism, stop being sexist. A simple solution."
I was with you until you wrote that. I've been offended by the sexist charge when a woman painted a group of us with a brush too broad. Not everyone charged as a sexist is a sexist.
Where are you living?
You deal with sexism in the streets, in the classroom, etc? I've never had a problem with it and I've spent my entire college career on campus at the U; I've lived my life not far from campus. Maybe it comes down to the individual and you're oversensitive or simply an easy target for attack.
Claiming there's sexism everywhere is neither true nor helpful. Get over the fact that you're female and don't give anyone a reason to treat you as inferior and you'll have far fewer opportunities to claim sex-based discrimination.
there's not such thing as an easy target for attack
Once you open your eyes to sexism, it is near impossible to shield yourself from the effects of it. Noticing (and fighting against) sexism is not about claiming victimhood, it's about never being given the chance to "get over the fact that you're female" - it is constantly pointed out - everywhere. If you've never had to deal with sexism in the U community, then good for you. Please know that this is a rarity and most women DO deal with this issue on an everyday basis.
How dare you suggest that anyone be forced to "get over" their identity. This is who we are; we are not apologizing.
Of course there's such a thing as an easy target.
.If your attitude is "Oh, woe, is me; the world is and always will be against me because of what's between my legs!" you'll be much easier to bully than someone whose attitude is "I'm a girl. What of it? If you don't like it, fuck off!"
No one said you had to apologize for your identity. You just need to accept the consequences of your actions. If you act like a whiney and helpless child, that's how you'll probably be treated. If you act in a way that demands respect, you'll gain respect. It's really not that difficult a concept.
Hear hear
Bluntly put; quit being a bitch if you don't want to be viewed as one.
She does have a point. If
She does have a point. If people are offended that we're critiquing sexism, they are probably getting some sort of privilege out of the sexism that they don't want to admit to or lose. Sexism hurts men and women, as I said in the article; therefore men and women should be concerned about fighting it. If men object to critiques of sexism, I tend to think that they don't want to lose the privilege that they have as men in a sexist society. I don't quite understand what you mean...did you take it to mean that all men are sexist?
Sexism also benefits men and
Sexism also benefits men and women. Think of all the women that have cried their way out of tickets or all of the men that have gotten exercise lifting heavy boxes! Sexism isn't bad, if you're an optimist!
Hi, I assuming you are
Hi, I assuming you are directing the question to me...I posted above saying I agreed with the commenter until she said "if we're offended, stop being sexist" (I paraphrase).
I guess it is the critiques that generalize that offend me. I've heard on occasion that "all men are sexist", or in the example I referred to above, I overheard someone say that "all men in IT (information technology, not the U college) are sexist". Each of those statements are, in my opinion, untrue and offensive to me. I guess I would include your statement that we live in a sexist society, too, as offensive. Granted, as a male I am not as sensitive to sexism as a female probably is, and I am willing to admit that it is probably more prevalent than I realize. Having said that, I think to say society is sexist is a stretch. Certainly a large number of people are sexist, but is it a majority? Is it institutionalized? I don't have answers to these questions. The only thing I can speak to is that the vast, vast majority of people in my family, my friends, my colleagues, etc. have never exhibited any kind of sexist behavior.
Maybe I am misunderstanding what you mean by critiquing sexism. But I will say that I do get (mildly) offended when generalizing statements are made. Well, on second thought, let me drop the word mildly. I just reread what you wrote, and you seem to assume that I don't want to lose the privilege that I have as a man in a sexist society. What privilege? And before you say that I just don't see it, could you pls try to consider that perhaps males don't have some kind of general "privilege" being men in this society? If you differ, fine, but please state examples. Frankly, I just don't see it.
Okay, so I will provide a few
Okay, so I will provide a few examples of male privilege, and I know some people will disagree with me and be upset but this is what I see. Women in the U.S. get paid 77 cents for every dollar that men do, even when working in the same jobs. This leads to less money and benefits for women overall. Here's a graphic from the NY times that illustrates this point: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2009/03/01/business/20090301_WageGap....
This can also cause problems when couples get divorced - if women make less than men, it can be harder for some to recover from the loss of a second income, especially if there are children that need to be cared for. Here's an interesting link to an article on women and poverty: http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2008/10/women_poverty.html
Women make up approximately 50 percent of the U.S. population, but they only make up 17 percent of the U.S. Congress. Women are underrepresented in positions of political power in a lot of places other than the U.S. as well. With couples, when both men and women work full time, women still do more of the housework and child care than men do. And I'm not making this up either. If you want me to cite where I got this information from, let me know.
"77 cents to the Dollar" claim is incorrect
If you look at an average salary for women compared to an average salary for men, you get your desired $0.77 versus $1 and a perceived wage gap.
If you look at equal levels of education, equal job responsibilities in identical fields, with equal numbers of hours worked and equal level of experience, you'll find that women are not paid less than men.
In some fields (like engineering) women actually out-earn men.
http://www.fastcompany.com/blog/linda-tischler/design-times/where-girls-are
My claim was not incorrect,
My claim was not incorrect, it was referring to average salaries.
Thanks for the link, Ami.
Thanks for the link, Ami. The statistics you quote from the NY Times offer a few reasons for the gender pay gap, one of which is discrimination. But there are others, such as men being more experienced and also tending to log more hours. I agree that the pay gap is an inequality, and perhaps the most major of those women face, but it's not as simple as saying the entire issue is due to sexism. As I stated above, it is these generalities that I take issue with.
You brought up politicians. I cannot argue that there are many more men than women in elected and appointed positions. On the other hand, how do you explain that fact when historically, women have had a better voter turnout than men? (Sources below.) I would think with more women than men voting, that it'd be difficult for sexism to cause that inequality in politics. Possibly the primaries and political parties tend to favor men. That would point to bias, although I have no evidence of that. Another explanation could be that less women run, in which case sexism has nothing to do with it. Again, I have no evidence of this either. :) I am just trying to make the point that inequalities between males and females are due to many different factors, now always sexism. In fact, I'd wager that a good number of gender inequalities have *nothing* to do with sexism, and can be explained by other factors.
I don't mean to ignore the points you've brought up. Your points are valid, and I do not want to give the impression that I have all the answers. And I am not naive enough to claim that sexism doesn't exist. But earlier you made a very strong claim that our society is sexist. That is a broad, far-reaching claim. Respectfully, it is a claim you can't back up with evidence. You are hitting everyone over the head with the sexism stick, which is unfair to the great number of people in our society that are not chauvinistic in the least.
---
http://www.civicyouth.org/PopUps/FactSheets/FS_04_gender_vote.pdf (civicyouth.org PDF)
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/polls.main (CNN.com exit poll results)
Oops, typo. I meant to agree
Oops, typo. I meant to agree that there are many more men than women in political positions.
Here's the definition of
Here's the definition of sexism that I generally use: prejudice or discrimination based on sex, or behavior, conditions, or attitudes that foster stereotypes of social roles based on sex. Saying that a society is sexist does not imply that everyone in the society is sexist. When I use society, I am referring to a community, nation, or broad grouping of people having common traditions, institutions, and collective activities and interests, such as the U.S. as a whole, not necessarily individuals within that society. It implies that our society reinforces and perpetuates ideas about men and women that are harmful based on the fact that people are one sex or the other. You state that the entire wage gap is not due to sexism, but I would argue that at least part of it is due to discrimination based on sex, which is part of the definition of sexism. Perhaps women are voting more because we didn't get to vote legally until 1920...Women may vote more, but they don't necessarily always have a woman to vote for. I'm done commenting for today, but I appreciate the thoughtful discussion and that you didn't simply dismiss what I have to say.
"Saying that a society is
"Saying that a society is sexist does not imply that everyone in the society is sexist."
I disagree. We are part of a sexist system. We are also all part of racist system. To me that means that all of us, women, men, and children, need to think about the ways in which we personally reap benefits from racism and sexism. If you want to start reading and thinking about issues of power, privilege, and identity, I suggest reading the short essay "Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack" by Peggy McIntosh. You can find it online with a quick search.
As a white woman, I have had a relatively easy time noticing sexism at work in this culture. However, I've had a harder time seeing racism-- that doesn't mean racism doesn't exist. It means that I'm benefiting from it and that to preserve my nice little view of the world, it's easier and better if I fail to see it.
Similarly, it's really no surprise to me that men, white men especially, prefer to joke about sexism as if it isn't really something that exists and affects both themselves and the women in their lives.
Maybe the women in your lives don't think they are affected by sexism. Or maybe they tell you they aren't affected because they know it pleases you to hear that sexism isn't real. Maybe jokes don't seem like a big deal to you. Maybe you could admit that there's still a lot for you to learn. I'm a white person thinking about and working on my racism. It's not easy, but it's necessary. Why? Because I learned that just because I can't see something doesn't mean it's not there.
Yes, we reap benefits from
Yes, we reap benefits from these systems, but I do not think that means that we are all racist, sexist, etc. I agree with everything else that you wrote. And I have that article but have not read it yet. I'll have to dig it out...
"Similarly, it's really no
"Similarly, it's really no surprise to me that men, white men especially, prefer to joke about sexism as if it isn't really something that exists and affects both themselves and the women in their lives."
Do you think all men prefer to joke about sexism? Or do you mean some men?
which men...
Anonymous, I mean those men who are responding in these comments as if calling attention to sexism is really raining on their parade. That's who I mean.
Ami, I see what you're saying. I wonder if I'm defining racism and sexism differently than you. I think that's it.
I'm not just talking about overt sexist or racist comments. I'm talking about my own complicity in the collective narrative that sexism and racism are no longer a big problem in our society. I see the perpetuation of that fallacy as my own individual sexism and racism, as well as a structural and societal feature. I don't think we can escape sexism/racism unless we all can acknowledge that we're not beyond it and until we all start to take actions rooted in that awareness. I think we'd all be better off if we could just admit: Even though I'm not saying blatantly sexist and racist things, I do act in ways that are sexist and racist and I want to change. In my opinion, there's no need for me to act guiltily or defensively about it, I just acknowledge it. I have participated and do participate in racism and sexism. Even as a woman, I act in ways that are sexist against women. I think that if we don't take responsibility as individuals for this type of sexism and racism, then no one will work for change-- because who can take responsibility for society as a whole? Absolutely no one.
Thank you for clarifying.
Thank you for clarifying. Hopefully you can see why I misunderstood your comment.
Knowledge is power
Ami, did you actually read what Networks original article (4/07/09), a response from Self-Righteous Ho, or are you just saying you're offended by the fact that...he likes hookers? Let me spell out what happened...
Self-righteous ho worte in and expressed her opinion on:
1. Having her ass pimp slapped
2. How soulja boy was "hating" on ho's (a term used for women who sleep around often with many different partners) rather than all women
3. How ho's were "holding the world together"
You then proceeded to object (in your 4/12/09 letter to the editor) to:
1. How women in the SEX INDUSTRY were discussed
2. How Network referred to WOMEN (You said IN GENERAL) as pretty little hookers and strippers
3. How women in the sex industry, who sell their bodies and sexuality for money, should not be seen for just thier bodies and sexuality.
So, I will address your objections:
1. Women who choose to work in the sex industry are committing what society generally accepts as a "moral crime," by selling sex to random strangers for money or drugs. Society sees all people, male and female, who engage in this practice (including the strangers who purchase them) as moral criminals, and discuss them as such. Because society sees these acts as immoral, it doesn't matter that women make up the majority of the sex industry, only the fact that it's immoral according to society. Thus, you see that this is a moral issue, not a gender one.
2. Network was talking strictly about female prostitutes, and made no comment about how all women were prostitutes or should be treated as such. Simply, he was saying that he merely liked hookers, and wanted some as a gift. This is not sexist because prostitutes are SELLING their bodies and sex, so since it is a business for them, their service can be treated as an object, much in the same way we see a birthday clown's services as a gift. Again, Network made no reference at any point in his discussion with self righteous ho to women in general as hookers, prostitutes, or ho's. Perhaps you misread.
3. Lastly, I think the way I stated it speaks for itself. Do you, when you walk in for a haircut, consciously think of your stylist as an object? No, but you do treat him or her as a stylist! (assuming you don't know him or her) You discuss little things, like how your day is going, what the weather is like, etc. Why? Because it is a business transaction, and while you recognize that the stylist is a person, and merits treatment as such, you still treat the entire relationship as one that is strictly business. I would imagine that most readers do not leave their hair appointments with a newly scheduled time to hang out with their now-former stylist. When the nature of the business is sex, and involves a moral crime as such, you cannot demand that the business be seen more than just a business without accepting that it's not a business, and since you already mentioned the sex industry, you've acknowledged that it is indeed a business. Secondly, since it's a "moral crime," you cannot demand that the transaction not be generally despised and discussed with a certain distaste unless you are claiming that the crime is in fact not immoral at all. Either way, it is not grounds for a debate about sexism.
To be honest, I'm very dissappointed that someone would try to use this as grounds for a debate on gender. Not only does Network's discussion have next to nothing to do with gender as I have proven, but the fact that someone would use it as a staging ground actually works against the movement for the elimination of sexism! By jumping on every little thing that looks like sexism, you devalue your own cause by making the movement look radical. While sexism clearly still exists, to try to make Networks comments out to be sexist is juvenile. I would suggest that you reread the article again, and actually LISTEN to what Network is saying instead of stopping at "Ass slapped" and writing a letter.
Lastly! Since it is not sexist as I've demonstrated, it is clearly not hate speech, and is therefore completely within Network's rights of Free Speech, just as you have the right to be offended by it, even if your feeling of being offended is illegitimately founded.
My name is Laharl
and knowledge is power