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

Monday, July 22, 1996

Feminists out to make men pay

I would like to offer my heartfelt condolences to the three members of the Zeta Beta Tau fraternity, who have been falsely accused of rape. I wish them sympathy and the strength and courage to put this episode aside and to get on with their lives now that the charges have not been pursued by the district attorney. My sincere apologies for the one-sided, female-biased media coverage and for the greedy, man-hating feminists who used these gentlemen as a springboard for their nasty, male-bashing agenda.

Also, my disgust for the woman who made these false accusations, causing a lifetime of humiliation and ostracization to the three innocent Zeta Beta Tau (ZBT) members. These individuals (male) had their names, ages, arrest photos and social and academic affiliations spread across national media to their detriment. All while the accuser's (female) identity has been held confidential, to her advantage. This serves to illustrate yet another anti-male double standard in our society.

The three ZBT members have fallen prey to a pro-female legal system, officially sanctioned by nasty, blood-sucking, money-hungry feminists who will stop at nothing to milk every last ounce of dignity from a poor defenseless man. Feminists take great pride in dismissing their personal failures and shortcomings as the fault of men, but they take all the credit for worldly successes, attributing it to the doings of women. "Fair" or "equal" is never enough for the feminists.

Feminists and women in general want all the rights, but never the responsibilities, associated with their hysterical demands. A good example right here in the United States is the selective service system, which only requires men to sign up for the draft. How many times do you see feminists protesting the exclusion of women in the draft? Are they not just as capable of fighting wars? Certainly greedy feminists would have you believe that they can do anything men can do.

Rather than risk their lives fighting for their country like men (responsibility = bad), pushy feminists have a much more selfish agenda (rights = good). The following example illustrates the point. Feminists never complain that family law dramatically favors women. Feminists glorify a woman who profits at the expense of a man in divorce. One way married women do just this is via three forms of legalized extortion, known as alimony, community property and divorce settlements. Most divorce petitions are filed by wives against their husbands, spurred on by these economic incentives.

As men, we must protect ourselves from the "make 'em pay" mentality of feminists. Familiarize yourself with subjects like asset protection, prenuptial agreements and what to do if you are falsely accused of sexual harassment or rape. Don't ever let a divisive, vicious feminist empty your wallet or rob you of your dignity.

Sam Shabot

Business Administration

Santa Monica College

Creative Feminism too vague, based on revenge

Dear Jessica Morgan,

I have five problems with you, Jessica Morgan. First, your argument (which doesn't have much of a premise) reminds me what my philosophy professor called the categorical imperative. Using your feminism to get what you want when you want. It, however, has a consequence, which is at the expense of others. Would you flirt with a man to get a job or a material object, and then dump him because that is what you want? Even if he was the most gentle and kind man? True, getting into a bar is another story, but I don't think you have applied your categorical imperative to other areas. I understand you used the word "consider" as opposed to "advocate" when proposing Creative Feminism, but you have not told your readers exactly when it should be considered. It's too vague. Second, I wonder how you would address the converse. What if men used their masculinity to get what they want? Is that okay? Such a society of both sexes using categorical imperatives would not be a pretty place. Third, your idea of revenge of women against men leads to a two-wrongs-make-a-right attitude. The long and continuing history of sexism does not give the right for women to do the same towards men. (Did someone manipulate you in the past, Jessica?) Fourth, "It sounds low and unfair and hypocritical. But it works ... " ­ just because something works doesn't mean it is true or that we should use it. Fifth, your argument with the cockroach is petty. It is no wonder that there is division among feminists of color and feminists that are white and well off. Class and race have divided feminists for several reasons and one of which is that women like you, Jessica, are worried about who should kill bugs, while feminists of color worry about issues, like sexual harassment and the glass ceiling.

Finally, I will end by saying that I will look elsewhere for women other than you to lead feminism into the next century and hopefully a more logical one too.

P.S. I plan to remember your name and picture in order NOT to be manipulated or used by you.

John Foxworthy

Third-year

Economics/International Studies

Can't cars and bikes just all get along?

I would like to gently remind everyone, drivers and bikers both, that under California law a bicycle is a "vehicle," and (with certain specific exceptions) a rider has all the privileges and responsibilities of a car driver.

If you don't believe me, look it up: It's in the California Vehicle Code, section 21200. Just point your web browser at http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/calaw.html.

The fact that the public does not seem to be aware of this has been brought home to me since I began commuting to UCLA from Palms by bike. A great many drivers seem to take offense when I use the left turn lanes. Drivers, I have as much right to them as you do: See the California Vehicle Code 21202(a)(2).

Today one driver even told me I should be on the sidewalk. No, that's exactly where I shouldn't be. More on this below.

Fellow bikers, we have to shape up too. We enjoy the privileges of drivers, and we need to accept the responsibilities as well. So, stop at stop signs, yield to pedestrians, signal your turns, don't ride against traffic, and stay off the sidewalks.

As to this last point: Surprisingly, I was unable to find a code specifically banning us from sidewalks. Nevertheless it's clear that it's not really where we belong. For example, California Vehicle Code 555 defines a sidewalk as "that portion of a highway ... set apart ... for pedestrian travel."

If we can all keep these simple principles in mind, we can make travel in Los Angeles safer and more pleasant for all of us.

Mike Oliver

Graduate student

Mathematics

Comments

Post a comment