• printer friendly
• mail this article
• iPod format
• digg

Photo

Adams is a fourth-year political science, policy studies and women’s studies student.

By Jama Adams

Thumbs up to Nicole Seymour’s article “Anti-male slogans miss the point” (Daily Bruin, Viewpoint, Oct. 24). I am a feminist, and constantly struggle with ways to convey the message of true feminism to friends who have been made to understand that feminists hate men.

Feminists care about equally valuing men and women. Putting men down in the process of respecting women would be counterproductive to a movement which seeks equality. That means equality for men and women in all arenas. And this equality is at stake in this year’s presidential election when we will pick a president who will shape the Supreme Court for our generation.

But first I want to make some initial comments on Seymour’s article. Seymour understands equality. She is right to attack the pseudo-feminism as depicted in commercial products. T-shirts now depict all kinds of slogans I object to on the grounds of valuing equality for all human beings. How about t-shirts that identify their wearer as “Bitch” or “Slut”? Why in the world would someone want to proclaim that they are these things? Personally, I never want to see those particular words again, let alone want to emblazon them on my chest.

Still, Seymour caught me. I was walking down Bruin Walk, feeling all great about my position as a feminist, because I do not own any of those t-shirts, stickers or key chains with silly “girl power”-type propaganda. But I am ashamed to admit, there have been times in my life when I have made comments like “boys suck” in order to comfort a friend who has been screwed over by a guy. In fact, I’m trying to work on giving up that right, because deep down, I know it is counterproductive. Still we girls get used to that kind of thing.

  Illustration by CASEY CROWE/Daily Bruin But Seymour is right: the problems women face are discrimination and inequality, not t-shirt slogans.

Now I want to address one of the many relevant issues she touched on in her column, one that will be extremely relevant on election day, when you decide the fate of our country’s constitutional laws. As Seymour stated: “‘Women’s rights’ are being characterized not as the rights to full reproductive freedoms or to be able to walk the streets safely, but the right to treat men like boys.” Treating other people unequally is not a woman’s right. It is not anyone’s right.

Women’s rights need to be characterized as those rights that will make them equally powerful in what is still a patriarchal society. And all of us of voting age, women and men, have the power to make sure the progress continues to move forward.

Next week’s presidential election will not only determine which (white male) candidate will be our president. (And no, I’m not leading up to telling you that the most important aspect of this election is which First Lady will throw the parties at the White House). The election will also determine this country’s progress on social issues. The most important part of this election is that the gains of the Civil Rights Movement, the Women’s Movement and other progressive agendas in the past 50 years or so, are in great danger of being reversed.

The next president of the United States will not only appoint many federal judges who will interpret past Supreme Court decisions, but more importantly, will appoint up to four new Supreme Court Justices.

I know most of us have forgotten what we learned in AP U.S. Government, so let me jog your memory. The Supreme Court is one of only three main bodies that compose our government. The Court can overrule a presidential veto and can reject a legislative decision by the Congress. In addition to being a check on the other two branches, it also possesses the power to guide public opinion and sometimes can dramatically alter society.

Case in point: Brown v. Board of Education. If not for a “radical” Supreme Court decision in 1954, some of us might not be here together on the same campus because of our skin color. Now, I doubt that George W. Bush appointees to the Supreme Court would reverse the Brown decision. I shudder to even imagine it.

But it’s not so clear with another case, a major case which has allowed women the freedom to participate in the public sphere. This case has also challenged control of a woman’s body by her partner or her pastor and has saved many women’s lives. I am talking about the 1973 Supreme Court case Roe v. Wade, which legalized abortion in the United States.

While I think such a discussion is warranted, I am not trying to inflame a divisive debate on abortion. The bottom line is, abortions will happen whether they are legal or not. Legal abortions protect women from dying from coat hanger wounds. (I didn’t mean to get graphic, but it’s the truth). By making abortions illegal, you save no unborn children; you only sentence more women to an unnecessary death.

Roe v. Wade is an example of a law that is very much in jeopardy should Bush be elected president. The next president will appoint between one and four justices who might overturn all kinds of legislation that aid individual Americans in the continuing quest for justice and equality for all people: civil rights, worker protections, environmental laws, campaign finance reform, the Americans with Disabilities Act – the list goes on.

Consider the possibility of overturning the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Women have come a long way with a little help from the government. For the sake of (real) feminism, don’t send us back to the predominance of closed-minded, sexist views either with a t-shirt slogan or with an uninformed vote.

I think People For the American Way, the group most concerned with giving everyone an equal chance, put it best: “On Nov. 7, vote as if your freedom depended on it. It does.”

Comments

Post a comment