Letters to the editor
October 19, 2010 6:23 PM
I am very confused as to your purpose of calling Meg Whitman a whore.
You say "It's offensive. It's degrading. It's sexist" -so why do you think you have the right to use it? Your justification of pulling out the definition that suits you best does not fool your readers. We understand the real sexist implication of your words.
Do not pretend for a moment that Jerry Brown or any other male politician would be given such a label.
In fact there is no male equivalent for slut or whore.
As a woman I am outraged by this piece. I am no supporter of Meg Whitman but I am now forced to defend her, as well as myself.
The use of this word and other recent attacks on the sexuality of female politicians is only a ploy.
This gendered word sends a clear message, which attempts to assert power over these women and remind them of their place. "Yes Whitman, you may not have had a sex scandal but we can still degrade and label you as we wish. Call you a whore, simply because you are a woman."
Furthermore as a student I am disappointed in my fellow peers who would write this. Seeing as San Francisco State University can be proud to say it has one of the first Women Studies Departments in the nation I am surprised to find that its academia has not filtered into our journalism department.
[X]press, you talk about accountability but you show none yourself. Anyone capable of writing such a piece should have the backbone to accompany it by their name.
And please do not insult my intelligence by saying this is only a word, and the writers do not hold sexist beliefs. Female writer or not you again patronize us with your "Sarah dear".
[X]press you don't need to use this tactic to argue to your readers why they should not vote for Whitman. Her absurd politics can speak for themselves. And just as a little reminder . . . yes women do have sex. (Dare I say even Meg Whitman!)
In response to "Construction to Begin on New Creative Arts Center":
The new Creative Arts Center will be built on top of the only park-like open space near campus. Parkmerced Playground used to be a thriving park with basketball, tennis, and handball courts as well as baseball fields. The park was originally created as mitigation for the construction of Park Merced, to provide open space in which residents could relax and play. Having this access to parks is essential for personal and community health.
However, SFSU now proposes to pave and build over this park without providing any mitigation for its loss. Students and Park Merced residents need a healthy, green place in which they can relax, barbeque, toss a frisbee, kick a hacky sack, shoot some hoops, make new friends, and develop a sense of community.
I would expect SFSU to provide an equivalent space to do so on or adjacent to campus and am shocked that the Master Plan was approved with this omission.
The plan should be reconsidered, as much of its justification is to create a better connection to and sense of connection with the community. The loss of Parkmerced Playground would do the opposite.
POST A COMMENT
|BACK TO TOP|| |
Copyright © 2008 [X]press | Journalism Department - San Francisco State University