OCR Text |
Show COKIE &. STEVEN ROBERTS COMMENTARY • -~~ LETTERS The Rodin show reflects a male gaz~ . , • .L ...... A warning bell sounds for the GOP Republicans are thrilled with their for years. In 1994, they howled in showing in this week's elections and protest when she was picked by they should be. With the economy Speaker Newt Gingrich to give the booming, and consumer confidence .party's response to Bill Clinton's brimming, voters are in a mood to State of the Union address-and did a keep what they've got. That's good top-notch job. news for a party that will defend To the Republican right, majorities in both houses of Whitman's sins are not limited to Congress next year. hot-button social issues. Like Colin But the results in New Jersey, Powell, she does not share their antiwhere Republican Gov. Christie government hostility. She favors Whitman barely managed a second smaller government but not no term, should sound a warning bell for government, and she understands the GOP. Any party that allows itself that even if voters hate taxes, they to be bullied by hard-edged like the services that tues buy. That's a lesson some Republicans ideologues cannot win consistently. At its core, this is a cautious, refuse to learn. That the selfmoderate country, and if the proclaimed "revolutionaries" who Republicans forget that they are captured Congress after the 1994 election were so headed for trouble. The Democrats convinced of their own proved that rule when righteousness that they they nominated four closed down the orthodox liberals for government rather president over a span than compromise with the president. The of 20 years. Every single one of themresult: a political Hubert Humphrey, disaster for the GOP. The biggest danger of G eorge McGovern, Walter Mondale, litmus test politics is Michael Dukakisthe way it alienates the lost badly. The only female vote. The more successful Democrat vulnerable a voter during that period was feels, the more likely Jimmy Carter, a L.;;..;....;......:;;.;;;;...:....:.......;..;;...;..;;;...;.;.;;...., he or she is to vote middle-of-the road Southerner who Democratic. And women, as a group, had the good luck to run in the wake still have lower incomes, fewer of Watergate. benefits and less security. Even Now Republicans are in danger of women who don't feel threatened McGovemism in reverse. Right-wing personally often take care of activists seem bent on imposing someone who is-a child, a parent, or litmus tests on party candidates, an both. For these reasons women are more approach that could badly damage the GOP with mainstream voters, likely than men to favor government particularly women. action in areas like health, education Look what happened to Whitman. and the environment-what we call By all odds she should have won the "mommy issues" that directly easily. Seven out of 10 New Jersey affect their families. One example: voters said the state's economy was male Republicans love t~e idea of in good shape, and incumbents all abolishing the Department of over the country cruised to victory. Education, but to women voters, says Yet the governor barely survived the pollster, "this is a non-starter." Whitman almost won the women's against Democrat Jim McGreevey, vote in New Jersey. Another an obscure state legislator. As always, local issues played a moderate Republican, New York role: Voters resented higher property mayor Rudy Giuliani, actually led taxes and auto insurance rates. But a among female voters. major factor in Whitman's nearThe lesson here is that the death experience was the opposition Republican Party has to be a "big of conservative purists within her tent" in deeds, not just in words. If own party . For example, the the true believers are allowed to Christian Coalition sent out more dictate party nominees and positions, than one million pamphlets the gende.r canyon will only get condemning Whitman's views on wider. If the GOP really wants to abortion and gay rights. resolve its problems with women, it Their immediate beef was should be embracing moderates like Whitman's decision to veto a bill Christie Whitman, not condemning banning certain late-term abortions them as heretics. (a veto we don't agree with, by the way). But the Hamas wing of the Cokie and Steven Roberts are GOP has been furious with Whitman nationally syndicated columnists. • As a practicing artist and associate professor of art for more than twenty years, I feel the need to respond to the Rodin show currently on display at the Brigham Young Museum of Art. The editing of the Rodin exhibit at the BYU Museum has nothing to do with the official stance of "maintaining the integrity of the exhibit and protecting the public from concentrating on inappropriate works." It is plain and simply the product of what men consider to be appropriate viewing material. The most striking thing to me and the other female artists and educators with whom I visited the show last weekend, was the blatant gender bias reflected in the selection of the works placed on exhibit by the all-male museum review committee. The media, I feel, has mistakenly focused on the censorship of nudity which is definitely not the issue here, unless of course we are talking about the nude male. There are plenty of nudes, nine in fact in the exhibit and they are all female. (The only non-female nude is a eunuch which it seems one can't count as either gender. ) This disproportionate female nakedness is nothing new in the history of art, nor is its meaning. A generation ago, Sir Kenneth Clark argued that "the female nude in art reinforces the principal power differential that defines the functions of a gender hierarchy . Female nakedness is not expressive of feminine feelings but a sign of the female's submission to the art owners feeling or demands." It is evident that having one sex shown naked while not 11 exposing" the other reflects a power inequity. It is also interesting to note that while a clothed male figure with a "prominent genital area" is panned as offensive, the upper torso of an undraped female sculpture that reminds one of the prow ornament of a ship is placed on display. The issue here is also not about inappropriate messages. Two male nudes were removed from the exhibit supposedly because of problems with the messages that they communicated; John the Baptist because he was represented as a nude prophet and Balzac because his hands were positioned suggestively. I have little sympathy for this argument since the museum's reviewing body displayed no similar concerns with two nude females included in the show. In "She Who Once Was the Helmet Makers Beautiful Wife", a ravaged nude figure of an elderly woman is used to represent the sin of vanity. In this figure Rodin uses the woman's defiant taut left hand as a metaphor for evil or the dark side of the human spirit. The other female nude in the show carrying a strong moral message is identified in the museums informational statement as "Hand of the Devil Holding a Woman." Upon further reading we learn that Rodin was representing "the spirit of evil or the one that commits the crime" and by placing the woman in the devil's left hand Rodin may have been reflecting his "volatile relationship" with women. Volatile does not however adequately address the historically documented way Rodin dominated and used his mistresses throughout his life. As the mother of three daughters I personally find the use of women, by a notoriously abusive womanizer, to symbolize the sin of vanity or as an instrument of the devil more troubling than a nude John the Baptist or a Balzac with his hands in front of his genitals. I did not write to embarrass or hurt anyone associated with the show; I do not think the decisions that were made on what to include or exclude in the Rodin exhibit reflect any conscious decisions by BYU authorities to associate women with sin or to dominate or demean them. Unfortunately those decisions are the inevitable consequence of a patriarchal attitude and no amount of camouflage verbiage from the museum can hide that fact . It is a position that is hopelessly out of date-even at BYU. Arlene Braithwaite The stupid streak comes shining through_ • On April 14, Glenn Halterman informed us in his commentary that his psychic told him to watch out for a "stupid streak" that was coming his way. Over the last week or two, I have seen signs of this "stupid streak" in Mr. Haltennan's commentaries, and admonish him to use great caution in the future. As an example of how this "stupid streak" is emerging, let's take a closer look at his poetic attempt at justifying his stance on several issues in the Oct. 9, issue of the fournal. He states: "Consider for a moment, now, the scene we'd have at hand If no one got their ire up and no one took a stand. Think of the injustices to never be made right If those who cared about a cause chose not to rise and fight." This is fair enough, and Mr. Halterman proceeds to relate the causes of the Patriots, the suffragettes, Rosa Parks and the VFW. But what are the "causes" that Mr. Halterman has "taken a stand" on? What are the "injustices" he wants to "make right"? Recently he has taken a particularly strong stand on the Waukeenyans half-time performances, criticizing their dress, makeup and so on. Where would we be without Mr. Halterman taking a stand on this issue? I think you'll agree that this ranks right up there with women's suffrage. (The beginnings of a "stupid streak"?) Mr. Halterman continues: "Words are oft interpreted to skew my actual bent" Here, I do feel sorry for Mr. Halterman. It is not his fault if he is unable to find the right combination of words to convey his views successfully. What Mr. Halterman appears to be saying is that you should take anything he says seriously, unless it offends you, in which case you should take it as a joke. You can t have it both ways, Mr. Halterman. Robert Sidford • .J j |