Editor:
I was surprised today when I read one of the articles in the Renegade Rip regarding what a woman’s place is.
When a friend of mine first read me the title of the article, my first impression is that it had to have been written by a man because they so obviously lack the insight of what being a woman is like. Then when I found out that it had in fact been written by a woman, I thought, “It has to be sarcasm.” How nice it is to know that sexism is alive and well not just in our society, but also in our school newspaper.
I think what offended me most is that your writer said that she wanted to base her opinion on science and then failed miserably to support her argument with anything but opinion. Not one time did she cite a source, and the only fact ever presented in the entire article was that women have hormones! Somehow this disqualifies a woman for the office of presidency, Fahel writes.
What your author failed to realize or address is that not only do women have hormones that can make us irritable and cranky, but men do too. In fact, the testosterone in men actually makes them more prone to aggression than women, which is why men are more physical, too. Men also have their?own time of the month even though it’s not as physically obvious.?
I believe she also mentioned our hormonal imbalances at that special time of the month or in menopause. The only conclusion I can come to is that your writer must have extreme PMS during her time of the month for her to write this un-researched crap. Yes, some women do have trouble controlling their emotions during that time, but only a very small portion of women get emotionally out of hand?and that should not, under any circumstances, be applied to the whole despite the fact that the media portrays women as fragile, weak, and emotionally unstable.
While I do agree that maybe Hillary Clinton would not be the best candidate for the office of presidency, I would personally like to see that position held by a woman sometime in my lifetime.
I think your writer needs to take a look at women’s history and be a little more grateful toward the women who provided us with the right to vote, or the ones who fought to stay in the workplace even after the war. They were the ones who fought for our gender’s equality so we would have the right to choose whether or not we wanted to stay home and raise the family as stay-at-home moms, or if we wanted to go out and compete in the world of men with equal opportunities.?Yes, being a stay-at-home mom is a very important position, but it should not be the only position that women excel in. I’d like to think that as a gender, we’re much smarter than that.
I think the line that most upset me was if women were going to become even more active in the workplace, “then who is going to raise our future presidents”? For one thing, marriage is a partnership in which the responsibilities should be equally shared not split up amongst the two. Raising the children should not be primarily either parent’s job, but one they do together. So to answer this question: Both parents should be raising their “future president” in the best way that they can. Or in taking the extreme opposite of the writer’s opinion, let the men raise their?own because how can a woman possibly teach a boy one day to be a man, how he should be a man??
In the future, I hope you encourage your writers to do a little more research instead of?just writing the first thought that comes into their minds.
This is the first article I’ve ever read in which the author was sexist against her own gender.
Erin M. Macaulay?
BC student
Editor:
It must have been difficult for Lily Fahel to wade through her emotions enough to actually write this piece.
In fact, there are tears streaming down my cheeks as I construct this rebuttal. Not, however, out of my super sensitive emotional construct, but from the disgrace I feel for womankind when one of our own would, or even could, say such things. I am truly disappointed that this type of stereotyping is occurring right here at BC.
Hillary Clinton has little or nothing to do with my irritation. What I do question is how Miss Fahel ever managed to write for any newspaper when this is traditionally a “man’s job.”
Lets think of other men’s jobs. leader of England? No, that’s a woman. Heading up the nonprofit giant P.E.T.A.? Sorry, woman again. How about the president of Sri Lanka? You guessed it. a woman! Closer to home? The chancellor of the KCCD is a woman; she used to be the president of BC.
So, I ask, does Miss Fahel really appreciate the opportunities she has been given by strong, capable, and balanced women that came long before her? Does she appreciate that I would rather get my daily news from any open-minded and reliable source, and so would every other real woman here in the Tutoring Center and indeed across the world?
Juliet Fox
BC student
Editor:
For over a week I have read and re-read Lily Fahel’s sad opinion piece, “Women Need to Re-think Their Place.”
For over a week, young women on our campus have been stopping by my office to vent their frustration about the article and while I, as the “breadwinner” in my family can completely identify with their frustration I think that they have the same problem Ms. Fahel has.
No one is thinking about what the men, as individuals who live in our society want and need in order to live happy and fulfilled lives in our society.
?Ms. Fahel attempts to limit the role of men by negating their emotions and assuming that only women are equipped to nurture. This limits opportunities for creative, emotional and nurturing men like my husband by narrowing the scope of what a “real man” can do in the world.
?Ms. Fahel’s sad, sexist commentary is, in the end, more harmful to men than it is to women.
?
Helen Acosta
Professor, Communication
Bakersfield College
Editor:
Since high school, I can recall the often dissentious relationship between ASB, SGA as it is called at the college level, and campus clubs and organizations. As an ASB officer for three of my four years in high school as well as a representative to my local school districts’ board of trustees, I was often caught in the crossfire of discussion and disagreement. Upon entering college here at BC, I was surprised to see that SGA still lacks respect for campus organizations. The organization as a whole seems to crave division between themselves and particular campus groups.
A campus organization that I chose to become involved with, InterVarsity Christian Fellowship (IVCF), has held their meetings Monday-Thursday at virtually the same time(s) for some time. This group has become a vital and well-respected organization on campus, both by students and staff. During this past week, a group of students, including myself, made our way to the SGA Executive Board Room for our Tuesday prayer meeting and were surprised to see that there was an SGA board meeting in progress. Now, please enlighten me, why would SGA schedule a meeting during the same time they know IVCF meets? Again, on Thursday in the same week, I made my way again to the SGA Board Room to meet for our scheduled 10 a.m. Bible study. There was another meeting taking place. I proceeded to go into the SGA Office to ask where IVCF would be holding their meeting as we clearly could not meet in the board room. I was told that “they [IVCF] would not be holding a meeting today because they did not have a place to meet because of a prior scheduled event.”
My advice to SGA: Learn to respect the campus organizations you control while honoring prior commitments and reservations. Is this not supposed to be the “Year of Unity?” Maybe our SGA “leaders” should get their act together before suggesting campus-wide unity.
Steven C. Vogel
Journalism