The University News (Irving, Tex.), Vol. 34, No. 18, Ed. 1 Wednesday, March 2, 2005 Page: 12 of 16
sixteen pages : ill.View a full description of this newspaper.
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
12 March 2, 2005 The University News
Commentary
Modern feminists family-oriented, help women
by Kathleen Fedornak
Guest Columnist
Burning bras, unshaven legs,
and anti-family speeches are not
fundamental components of
modern feminism, as those who
stereotype claim. Thinking that
modern feminists are women
who "masculinize themselves"
and who "see their femininity
as something to be subdued and
squelched," as Margaret Ballard
wrote in her Feb. 16 University
News commentary, is evidence of
the over-generalized judgments
that much of the closed-minded
population makes.
In reality, most modern femi-
nists honor the sanctity of mar-
riage—some even get married
themselves. And the majority of
feminists are family-orientated,
rather than attacking the estab-
lishment.
For instance, Nancy Tuana, a
self-proclaimed "feminist" and
associate professor at Pennsylvania
State University, has taught classes
titled Science, Technology, and Gen-
der, and Feminist Epistemologies,
but is also a mother to two boys.
How can Tuana, a modern
feminist, claim that she spends her
"free time hiking (and) camping"
with her boys? After all, Ballard
wrote, don't modern feminists
"think that working outside the
of the nuclear family, by working
with administrators to develop
family leave policies. And Tuana
is not the exception to the rule of
feminism.
Feminists cannot be catego-
rized sirnplistically, for women of
all different sectors of the world
A modern feminist is defined as anyone
who believes in the core feminist theory—that
men and women should be equal politically,
economically and socially.
home is the absolute best and
most fulfilling occupation," and
that sacrificing the traditional
nuclear family "for the sake of
making women more masculine"
is ideal? If feminists are as Bal-
lard describes them, would not
Tuana abhor any nuclear family
activities?
Antithetically, Tuana has actu-
ally petitioned to further the rights
believe in modern feminist ideas.
A modern feminist is defined as
anyone who believes in the core
feminist theory—that men and
women should be equal politi-
cally, economically, and socially.
When Ballard claims that
'women have come far in the
past 100 years," and that "the
feminist movement has gone too
far and now hurts women," she
implies that women now possess
all the rights that they need and
are wasting their time attempting
any future societal advances.
Maybe Ballard has never ex-
perienced the glass ceiling herself
(which still exists), but when
one hears one's otherwise intel-
ligent UD peers say they
"do not believe women
are capable of holding
the office of U.S. Presi-
dent," and that they
would "never vote for a
female President, merely
because of her gender
and regardless of her ob-
jective qualifications,"
one cannot help but thinking that
women still have far to go.
Anyone would be called a
"racist" if he or she said that "an
African American is not capable
of holding the presidential office;"
however, a number of American
citizens and UD students find
no problem with saying the same
about a woman.
How can one argue that femi-
nists are going too far when
women still do not possess the
same rights as other citizens in
the minds of many supposedly
educated persons?
While Ballard's view may ring
true for various radical feminists,
one cannot generalize beliefs of
several sub-groups to represent
the entire modern feminist phi-
losophy, as she claimed.
After all, myopic-minded per-
sons might call all pro-lifers
"abortion-clinic bombers" because
of a few radicals; however, that
clearly cannot be generalized to
the entire pro-life philosophy and
movement.
Working to develop adequate
sexual harassment guidelines and
lobbying for a women's studies
major, as Tuana and other modern
feminists do, cannot be consid-
ered anti-feminine or harmful to
women, as Ballard argues.
If women do not rally to pro-
tect their constitutional rights,
as suffragettes did in the 1920s,
who will?
Laptop use in classroom distracting AIDS sufferers deserve
kindness from others
by Mignon Sass
Guest Columnist
In response to Adrianna Lac-
arra's letter on Feb. 23, where she
argues that laptops in the class-
room are not disruptive but even
beneficial to her learning experi-
ence, I respectfully disagree.
Lacarra's argument is poor on
several counts.
She finds it dif- 1
ficult to imag-
ine a professor
distracted by
the clicking of a
keyboard; per-
haps she is right,
but what about
a classroom full
of people using
keyboards?
I have taught
at a school where
all students drag
their laptops
around from
class to
class;
let me
ally is distracting to sit by a person
who is typing on one. Obviously,
when it's just one person using a
laptop, if you are sitting on the
other side of the room, you can't
hear its noise, but for the unlucky
few surrounding it, the story is a
different one.
As to her argument that we
iBookG4
assure
you, the
noise is, indeed, a distraction,
not to mention the dehumanizing
feeling of lecturing to a room full
of people staring at their computer
screens, which is distracting in a
different sort of way.
Ah, but what about Lacarra, as
the singular example of student-
with-laptop-as-a-distraction? Her
comparison of clicking noises on
the keyboard to occasional coughs,
gum smacking (admittedly irritat-
ing), and nail biting is a specious
one because note-taking on the
computer is a constant noise, not
an occasional one, and YES, it re-
typewriters into the classroom to
take notes on. Preposterous, you
say? Of course. Let us remember
that the: "respectable employer"
also cares about your people skills,
your ability to work with others
and consider their needs. (I think
the current lingo for that is "team-
player.") What will Lacarra say
in her next job
interview? I'm
a great typist? I
can take notes
like a stenogra-
pher? The kind
of computer lit-
eracy one exer-
cises by using
a laptop in the
classroom is
no greater than
what one uses
in the computer
lab to write a
paper.
In conclu-
sion, I
J would
like to
* I
Dust in the Corner
Johanna Holmes
www.apple.com
are living "in a technology-driven
world" and employers "expect
at least some computer literacy
and/or typing skills," this, too, is
specious. The question she ought
to be asking is not, what drives the
world, but rather, what drives the
community here where she has
chosen to get an education.
Acquisition of good typing
skills is not an adequate reason
for bringing your machine into
the classroom; if Lacarra's line of
thinking were really correct, then
people throughout the last centu-
ry should have been bringing their
point
out that
all of the reasons Lacarra gives
to defend herself are not reasons
that support the common good.
If Lacarra wants to take better
notes and stop doodling, she can
discipline herself to do so without
inflicting her method upon the
community of the classroom.
"Welcome to the 21® cen-
tury," Lacarra condescendingly
concludes. Obviously, I am no
Luddite (after all, I'm using a
computer right now), but if
Lacarra's words are illustrative of
the attitude of the 21st century, I
want: no part of it.
It has been speculated that a
resistant strain of AIDS is emerg-
ing in New York City. I gener-
ally don't follow medical news
headlines, but this particular story
grabbed my attention. It is not
because anyone I know and love
has this disease; rather,
this story brought
me back to a boy
whom I knew for
a few moments.
When I met
this boy five
years ago, I was
volunteering in a
pediatric clinic in an
inner-city hospital just
outside of Boston. He
was five years old and had
a beautiful smile. He was
the kind of kid almost de-
signed to be tickled. I don't even
remember his name, and I can't
even guess as to whether or not
he's still alive. And he had AIDS.
His whole family did.
The family was heavily gloved,
gowned, and masked to minimize
any risk they had of catching a
disease when I met them. Look-
ing at society's attitude toward this
disease, I see the same barriers set
up that distance us from the suf-
fering in our midst. The people
of this world have an obligation
to target this disease and work to
eliminate it.
The famous children's book
The Velveteen Rabbit says that
"love makes you real." AIDS
became real to me, not just as
another horrible disease that can
kill people, but physically when I
saw that little boy and could not
help but love him. Human af-
fection is contagious and I
certainly acquired it from
him that day.
He deserves more than
quilts with too many
names on
them hanging
as a reminder
that AIDS kills.
He, and other peo-
ple afflicted with this
horrible disease, deserve
more than pity. They de-
serve our loving friendship
and need it so desperately. They
are no less deserving of life and
love and all that accompanies it
than any of us.
As Christ reached out to the
lepers, so must His disciples here
on earth reach out to the lepers
of our day. The walls, masks,
and gloves on our souls must be
removed as we reach out from
the simplest, deepest part of our
humanity so that when we stand
before the throne of Heaven and
are asked "what did you do for
me?" we can answer firmly "I
loved and loved well."
Upcoming Pages
Here’s what’s next.
Search Inside
This issue can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Newspaper.
Dickens, Jodi. The University News (Irving, Tex.), Vol. 34, No. 18, Ed. 1 Wednesday, March 2, 2005, newspaper, March 2, 2005; Irving, Texas. (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth201403/m1/12/: accessed August 15, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, https://texashistory.unt.edu.; crediting University of Dallas.