I would like to provide a excerpt from a post at feministing.com today:
I am a student at the University of Minnesota, which has one of the greatest student newspapers in the nation. Toward the back of our newspaper there is a regular feature called "Network". It is a joke column, but one that I regularly ignore, because it is rarely witty, or thoughtful, or in any way capable of making me laugh.
One of the reasons for this is that Network frequently refers to women as "hos". Recently, a very thoughtful (and in my opinion, courageous) woman, Ami Wazlawik wrote two letters to the newspaper protesting the sexist language in this feature.
Also on the same page as Network is a romance column called Dr. Date. The author of this column has joined Ami in calling for Network to be disallowed to continue with the use of such offensive language, and won my heart. Today Dr. Date called for women at the University to join Amy in her critique of Network.
I was content to ignore Network until I saw the response printed in that section today. An excerpt follows:
"Network is not, not NOT a sexist. Whether it's sexy little co-ed bunnies, fugly women's studies majors, CSOM douchers or those tools on the football team, you're all equal in the eyes of Network."
"Network doesn't have the TIME to respond to foolish little college students whose daddies didn't love them enough."
Network followed these comments by printing a letter, which included comments like this:
"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 jumpin on every little thing that looks like sexism, you devalue your own cause by making the movement look radical."
My response:
In answer to your question “Is there any planet on which Network's comments can be construed as acceptable for publishing in the newspaper of an academic institution?” I give you a resounding Absolutely Not! As an academic, college writing instructor, and feminist- the Network’s reaction to this issue is troubling to me on many levels.
First, the Network is, is, IS sexist. However, before I address this issue I would like to explain why their responses are irritating to me as an academic. To begin with, academics and academic publications have a responsibility to, in my opinion, set an example for their students and others by being as fair minded and non-prejudicial as possible. Referring to women as “hos” is neither. Additionally, insinuating that Ami is “foolish” because she dares to question their representation of women goes against a main objective of both academia and journalism- to question the status quo. Finally, as a writing instructor, I am offended by their response simply because it’s poor writing. “Sexy bunnies,” “fugly,” “douchers,” “tools,” and “students whose daddies didn’t love them enough” are all slang and/or clichés that are tired and indicate lazy writers who either cannot or do not want to take the time to form coherent, original arguments to support their opinions.
Now, I would like to address their sexism. Sexism remains one of the most acceptable “-isms” in our culture today. One of the reasons that this remains true is that sexist comments are still not really considered taboo. For example, when watching a sporting event recently in a public place, I was quoting some statistics about one of the teams. A guy nearby acted surprised and said something along the lines of “Wow, chicks usually don’t know anything about sports!” No one there seemed particularly bothered by this remark, and, in fact, many nodded their heads in agreement. Now, imagine a similar situation if I was an African-American in a bar talking about subject X, and this white male made the remark, “Wow, blacks don’t usually know anything about subject X!” Most people would be uncomfortable with if not outraged by the remark and he would probably be quickly labeled as a racist. Why? Because as a country we have, rightly, agreed that such remarks are unacceptable. Generally, any remarks that can be perceived as racist are not accepted in public conversation. This is not meant to in any way suggest that racism isn’t alive and well in this country, but merely to point out a major difference in the way we approach the two issues of racism and sexism. As a nation, we have still not yet agreed that sexist remarks are unacceptable in everyday conversation. For this reason, it is our duty to address such speech when we encounter it and hold those who use sexist language accountable for their actions. In other words, we absolutely have to “jump on every little thing that looks sexist” just as civil rights activists “jumped on every little thing that looked” racist because only by making sexists and racists publicly uncomfortable with their prejudice language will we progress as a society. To insinuate that we “devalue out cause” by doing so is an absurd attempt shame/bully Ami and others into remaining silent. Furthermore, to address the Network’s claim that by “making the movement look radical” we are “devaluing” it I would just like to provide a brief list of very valuable movements that were considered “radical” in their time:
The American Revolution
Abolitionism
Suffrage
Voting right for African Americans
Civil Rights
Millions of young girls world-wide have endured genital mutilation as part of religious and cultural rituals; thankfully, many countries are now making this practice of "female circumcision" illegal. Uganda may be the next to join them as President Yoweri Museveni hopes to outlaw the practice. Female circumcision has already been banned in neighboring Kenya and Tanzania, but it is still widely practiced due to lax law enforcement. President Museveni is calling for strict punishment for anyone performing the act, including hanging if the girl dies during the mutilation.
