OCR Text |
Show editorial Editor in chief: Taylor S. Fielding Phone: 626-7121 i3& OuYftPlC fAorto : ''"$5Q,ooo m cash? j f WMSTMSWNJT Faster 1 1 T Hisher Yt --ic 1 N Stronger N&M When all else fails, try the hard way "It's an old joke that the book, 'All that Men Understand About Women' is a thin volume, and that the pages are perfectly blank." So say Anne Moir and David Jessel, authors of "Brain Sex" (Carol Publishing, New York, 1991). The book is anathema to many feminists, claiming to establish through scientific research what most Americans only dare admit jokingly-that men and women are fundamentally different. Maybe the only reason comedians get away with it is because people can pretend it's all for fun. But if we didn't believe it, we wouldn't laugh. Of course, the jokes are getting worn-out and dusty. The first few stand-up acts about how men and women shop (men don't shop, goes the refrain) were such a refreshing break from political correctness, people couldn't help laughing. After all, that's what we pay comedians to do say things people secretly believe but don't dare voice in a polite society. But "Brain Sex" crosses the line into the academic world, rife as it is with political landmines. It seeks biological explanations for general behavior patterns, attempting to solve the riddle of the seemingly innate trait. For example, according to the book, women are supposed to be more naturally "holistic." They actually have more sensory cones in the eyes, hence superior peripheral vision. The hypothalamus (the junction between brain hemispheres) is larger, and we're told this allows more efficient communication between the halves of the head. What we call right- and left-brained tendencies would then be less pronounced in most women, who would tend to see the interrelated-ness of details and events. Most men, though, would tend to be "compartmentalized." Many social scientists grow pale and indignant at the suggestion that men and women, for any reason at all, are different in any way but the L J Preston McConkie The Ponderous Pundit plumbing and external decorations. They insist all other differences are the result of social conditioning. The fact is, I'm a product of a traditional upbringing in a very pro-feminist society, and I've taken my cues for what's right and wrong from many sources. I cling to traditions like opening doors and pulling out chairs for the persons I still consider to be members of the "fairer sex." I've cried (is that unmanly? I don't know.) at the injustice of seeing women in a combat zone, and wished my country didn't see them as merely as good as men. At the same time, I've tried to develop (with questionable success) the kind of sensitive, caring nature that women have demanded for decades, and I've willingly stepped into second place in a number of romantic relationships. But there have always been men willing to take second place. Yes, contemporary accounts of life in the nineteenth century show men and women almost always assumed certain roles. But if you read six volumes of "Little House" books by Laura Ingalls Wilder, you'll see as many henpecked men as submissive women; as many shrews as tyrants. Laura herself refused to be married in a ceremony that said she must obey her husband. All my life, popular culture taught me a lie: that women are good and men are bad. I learned to despise myself for being a man, and that the only road to acceptability was to put myself and my gender down. I see it all the time, especially in church meetings, where. groups of men - even when there aren't any women around - will talk about how superior women are, and how lowly men are. I finally decided it was a cop-out. You see, men like women (I'm not going to address the exceptions, just the rule). More than anything, men want the approval of women. At the same time, the old standard of manliness the sole breadwinner who provided, protected and presided was quite a task to live up to. It's easier to send a woman to work and congratulate yourself for respecting her independence. It's easier to say women are morally superior, and therefore demand nothing of yourself."My wife's the one who gets me out the door in the morning," I heard one man say. "She's the one who reminds me to get to my church meetings. She harasses me until I get my home-teaching done. She's the one who worked me through school." But was this the "emancipation" women have envisioned to have men become dependent on them, both materially and emotionally? I, too, had a false sense of what it meant to treat a woman well. When I dated, I thought to myself, "Women are better than men. I do something wrong, she's sure to tell me." Wrong. "Women are better than men. So if I let her take charge of the relationship, she'll treat me nicely, I won't hurt her feelings and she'll know I respect her." Wrong. Women can be overbearing, inconsiderate, self-centered, poor listeners, etc. in their own special way, of course. But women don't want to do all the work in relationships. They appreciate a man who has a brain. They appreciate a man who has interests of his own, ideas about what to do, and (occasionally) something to say about himself. They also want a good listener, someone who's interested in their ideas, etc. But how easy is it for two people with an equal amount of gumption to get along? Not easy at all. But I know this: nothing else works. Rare word threatens academic freedom At the University of Wisconsin, a misunderstanding over a word is threat ening academic freedom for the entire school. The word behind all the controversy is "niggardly." The word is an adjective and means miserly or cheap. It has no linguistic relation to the racial slur directed toward blacks. Amelia Rideau, a student at the university first heard the word in a class when professor Standish Henning was quoting from works by English poet Geoffery Chaucer, according to a College Press Exchange article. She said she discussed the word with Henning after class. Henning explained the definition of the word and told her he never meant to offend her. However, the next class period, Henning used the word again and defined it for the class. The discussion reportedly upset Rideau so much she left the room in tears. Rideau told the Associated Press, "I'm the only person of color in that classroom. Obviously this man doesn't respect my feelings." This event begs the question, does Henning really not respect Rideau 's feelings, or is there another explanation to the course of events? Consider the following: following his meeting with Rideau, Henning realized other students may make the same mistake of associating the word "niggardly" with the racial slur. In an effort to define a rare and uncommon word, Henning's attempts to enlighten students offended an overly sensitive student fmmt&m The "fallout" which may result in this incident is frighten- ing. The UW-Madison faculty senate is considering a proposal which would discipline professors who make offensive remarks, regardless of the professor's intent Rideau told members of the senate she prefers this code in comparison to one which "would require proof that a professor intentionally set out to demean or offend a student." Adoption of the first policy could set a dangerous precedent, which could manifest itself on other campuses across the country. The policy is too broad, vague and does not account for academic freedom and study. A policy of that sort could have far-reaching repercussions. English departments would have to discontinue courses dealing with American literature, since the use of the black racial slur in works by Mark Twain, Harper Lee and Harriett Beecher Stowe could offend students. Sociology, criminal justice, anthropology, history and other courses would have to be eliminated because they might delve into areas of racism, hate crimes, rap music, "life and culture in the inner city," as well as American history because of both racial slurs and slang spoken by professors in context of lectures or discussions could offend students. Use of racial slurs, slang or other remarks by professors to attack a particular student or a student's race, gender, sexual orientation and other characteristics is wrong. However, university students are adults, therefore they should be able to discriminate between "offensive words" used in context of personal attacks versus academic lectures and discussions. By Taylor S. Fielding editor in chief-ITie Signpost m U.z:m vill Recipient of the UPA General Excellence aw ard Editor in chief Taylor S. Fielding 6267121 Managing editor Tyler A. Holt 6267614 News editor Kari Lynn Harland 626-7655 Campus affairs editor Leo T. Dirr 626-7659 Lifestyles editor Linda Loveland 626-7624 Sports editor Joey Haws 626-7983 Copy editor Angie Welling 626-7507 A&E editor Debra Jandreau 626-7621 Graphics editor Anne Gukeisen 626-6358 Photo editor Zachary Williams 626-7661 Advertising mngr. Rebekah Woods 626-6359 Online editor Deanne Chaston 626-7105 Secretary Georgia Edwards 626-7974 Adviser Dr. Sheree Josephson 626-6164 Publisher Dr. Kalhy Edwards 626-6559 Signpost FAX 626-7401 77k? Signpost is published Monday, Wednesday and Friday during fall and winter semesters. Subscription is $9 a semester. The Signpost is a student publication, written, edited and drafted by Weber State University students. Student fees fund the printing of this publication. Opinions or positions voiced are not necessarily endorsed by the university. The Signpost welcomes letters to the editor. Letters must include name, address, telephone number, relationship to staff and the writer's signature. The Signpostnserves the right to edit for reasons of space and libel and also reserves the right to refuse to prim any letter. Letters should not exceed 350 words. Bring letters to the editorial office inUB267,ormailto: rie&'gnpoj,WeberStaieUniversity,Ogden,Utah 84408-21 10. Aim Taylor S. Fielding. |