Email This StoryLetters to the Editor
Feb. 17, 1999Women's movement grants
freedom to wear sports bras
As a student who has attended this university for three years, I have never read such nonsense in my life about young women jogging in sports tops (bras) and how it hurts the 'movement.' Oh come on!
After reading this disappointing letter to the editor, many thoughts came to mind about Jim Hawkins and my safety. I do know that in this society you are judged by the way you present yourself, but this is ridiculous! As a jogger, I enjoy a good run on the bear trail. When it's extremely warm outside I wear shorts and a sports bra!
It feels great to run among the elements of nature, feeling the wind blowing against my skin and the sun giving me a great tone. Wearing gear such as Hawkins suggests is degrading, whereas sports bras allow more movement of my upper body, and therefore more freedom. Anyone who has a problem with the way I do things needs to worry about their own lives.
But, Hawkins, my real concern is you. What does a sports bra have to do with my love for Jesus Christ and my ability to share that love?
We are heading toward a new millenium and it is sad to know that there are individuals who think as you do. Why should I care if someone looks at me and wonders about my love for Jesus just because I decided to jog in a sports bra; it is none of their business. If I decide to visit a nude beach, is my love any less? I don't think so!
Also, Hawkins, I think you need some psychological assistance to help get you straight. It seems as though you take a lot of time looking at young women, coming up with reasons why they should cover themselves up for your benefit!
I fear the thought of knowing there are young men with opinions such as yours. As a young woman who loves to jog on the trail, in a sport bra and shorts, I would be afraid to step out the door. And the reason why there was a movement in the first place, was because of the women who were feed up with men like you!
Zakiyah Zuwehna
Music '00
Blaming women for clothes
choice excuses male faults
Of course. Why didn't I put two and two together earlier and see the obvious correlation between women wearing sports bras to jog and the fact that men, in general, regard women as merely sex objects? Whew, I for one sure am glad it's not the fault of the male gender. You women should be ashamed of yourselves forcing us men to view you as sex objects. It can't have anything to do with the notion that men should actually control themselves and judge a book not by its cover.
I propose that women from now on jog wearing parkas. And when you go to the beach there better not be one bikini or thong being worn either. You should restrain yourselves to wearing those classy swimsuits of the 1930s.
If women take more responsibility for the way men think, then men won't have to think the way we think. It makes perfect sense to me, just ask Jim Hawkins.
Lee Bailiff
Economics/International Business '99
Criticisms unwarranted, miss
basis behind true argument
I'm writing in response to Marcus Johnson's critique of my letter. I've read it several times and still fail to see how he is responding to the point I made. I did not say that I thought women are repulsive or abhorrent, that they will destroy women's rights (that was The Lariat's title) so they must wear sweat suits. If I had said this, I'd agree that I was being outrageously hilarious.
But since I merely said that wearing a sports bra tends to make guys see them as objects because of the specific sexual connotation bras have in our society (which T-Shirts do not have), I fail to see how Johnson has responded to my argument in any real way. He still has not proven that guys do not think of women as objects when they wear clothing that highlights sexual aspects of their body over other characteristics. He has merely made my argument into something I did not say.
I think Meredith Curry, on the other hand, offers a very useful critique of my letter. She is right to say that men should not blame women for rape or the problems of patriarchy. My letter did not intend to blame women for forcing men to see them as objects, but suggested that in light of the cultural norms for women's clothing, wearing a bra highlights sexual aspects which have typically been historically exploited by men. In emphasizing such aspects they do not overcome this exploitation.
I don't think it is right or good that women are seen as objects because of the immorality in men's hearts (which men are absolutely responsible for). I just think that until a fundamental change has come, women would do more to help the women's movement to focus men's attention on intellectual or spiritual aspects of their character. They are not resonsible if they wear a sport bra and are seen as an object (that is the guy's fault), but they would do more for the cause women's equality to avoid this option.
Jim Hawkins
Philosophy '00
Opinion must not be stifled
because of disagreements
Who is this Dr. Dick Ellis (Letters, Feb. 11) to decide that Chris Allen is insufficiently familiar with Senate proceedings to publish his opinion about the impeachment of President Clinton? Precisely what credential does Ellis believe one needs before having an opinion to the contrary? To support his assertion that Allen's opinion is invalid, Ellis cites various authorities, such as Sen. Robert Byrd, former Sen. Sam Nunn and former Mayor Ed Koch of New York. Is this assortment of expert opinions supposed to trump Allen's? If Allen assembles supportive quotes from Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan, former Sen. Dale Bumpers and former Mayor David Dinkins of New York, would that qualify him to express an opinion consistent with his authorities?
It is perfectly reasonable, honorable and defensible for any observer to conclude that the impeachemt process we've witnessed was partisan, vain and unjustified by the circumstances. It is equally reasonable, honorable and defensible to conclude that the process was non- or bi-partisan, worthwhile and justified. Different interpretations of the same events are the essence of partisan politics. But I reject Ellis' suggestion that to articulate an opinion with which he disagrees is inevitably either the work of someone pandering to partisan professors or the work of a degenerate. Such an undemocratic assertion in inconsistent with the very Constitution that I'm sure Ellis believes the impeachment process is meant to guard.
William E. Loges Ph.D.
Assistant Professor of Communication
Copyright © 1999 The Lariat
Comments or Questions can be sent to The Lariat
More News ...
