Adams is a fourth-year political science, policy studies and
women’s studies student.
By Jama Adams
Thumbs up to Nicole Seymour’s article “Anti-male slogans
miss the point“ (Daily Bruin, Viewpoint, Oct. 24). I am a
feminist, and constantly struggle with ways to convey the message
of true feminism to friends who have been made to understand that
feminists hate men.
Feminists care about equally valuing men and women. Putting men
down in the process of respecting women would be counterproductive
to a movement which seeks equality. That means equality for men and
women in all arenas. And this equality is at stake in this
year’s presidential election when we will pick a president
who will shape the Supreme Court for our generation.
But first I want to make some initial comments on
Seymour’s article. Seymour understands equality. She is right
to attack the pseudo-feminism as depicted in commercial products.
T-shirts now depict all kinds of slogans I object to on the grounds
of valuing equality for all human beings. How about t-shirts that
identify their wearer as “Bitch” or “Slut”?
Why in the world would someone want to proclaim that they are these
things? Personally, I never want to see those particular words
again, let alone want to emblazon them on my chest.
Still, Seymour caught me. I was walking down Bruin Walk, feeling
all great about my position as a feminist, because I do not own any
of those t-shirts, stickers or key chains with silly “girl
power”-type propaganda. But I am ashamed to admit, there have
been times in my life when I have made comments like “boys
suck” in order to comfort a friend who has been screwed over
by a guy. In fact, I’m trying to work on giving up that
right, because deep down, I know it is counterproductive. Still we
girls get used to that kind of thing.
 Illustration by CASEY CROWE/Daily Bruin But Seymour is
right: the problems women face are discrimination and inequality,
not t-shirt slogans.
Now I want to address one of the many relevant issues she
touched on in her column, one that will be extremely relevant on
election day, when you decide the fate of our country’s
constitutional laws. As Seymour stated: “”˜Women’s
rights’ are being characterized not as the rights to full
reproductive freedoms or to be able to walk the streets safely, but
the right to treat men like boys.” Treating other people
unequally is not a woman’s right. It is not anyone’s
right.
Women’s rights need to be characterized as those rights
that will make them equally powerful in what is still a patriarchal
society. And all of us of voting age, women and men, have the power
to make sure the progress continues to move forward.
Next week’s presidential election will not only determine
which (white male) candidate will be our president. (And no,
I’m not leading up to telling you that the most important
aspect of this election is which First Lady will throw the parties
at the White House). The election will also determine this
country’s progress on social issues. The most important part
of this election is that the gains of the Civil Rights Movement,
the Women’s Movement and other progressive agendas in the
past 50 years or so, are in great danger of being reversed.
The next president of the United States will not only appoint
many federal judges who will interpret past Supreme Court
decisions, but more importantly, will appoint up to four new
Supreme Court Justices.
I know most of us have forgotten what we learned in AP U.S.
Government, so let me jog your memory. The Supreme Court is one of
only three main bodies that compose our government. The Court can
overrule a presidential veto and can reject a legislative decision
by the Congress. In addition to being a check on the other two
branches, it also possesses the power to guide public opinion and
sometimes can dramatically alter society.
Case in point: Brown v. Board of Education. If not for a
“radical” Supreme Court decision in 1954, some of us
might not be here together on the same campus because of our skin
color. Now, I doubt that George W. Bush appointees to the Supreme
Court would reverse the Brown decision. I shudder to even imagine
it.
But it’s not so clear with another case, a major case
which has allowed women the freedom to participate in the public
sphere. This case has also challenged control of a woman’s
body by her partner or her pastor and has saved many women’s
lives. I am talking about the 1973 Supreme Court case Roe v. Wade,
which legalized abortion in the United States.
While I think such a discussion is warranted, I am not trying to
inflame a divisive debate on abortion. The bottom line is,
abortions will happen whether they are legal or not. Legal
abortions protect women from dying from coat hanger wounds. (I
didn’t mean to get graphic, but it’s the truth). By
making abortions illegal, you save no unborn children; you only
sentence more women to an unnecessary death.
Roe v. Wade is an example of a law that is very much in jeopardy
should Bush be elected president. The next president will appoint
between one and four justices who might overturn all kinds of
legislation that aid individual Americans in the continuing quest
for justice and equality for all people: civil rights, worker
protections, environmental laws, campaign finance reform, the
Americans with Disabilities Act ““ the list goes on.
Consider the possibility of overturning the Civil Rights Act of
1964. Women have come a long way with a little help from the
government. For the sake of (real) feminism, don’t send us
back to the predominance of closed-minded, sexist views either with
a t-shirt slogan or with an uninformed vote.
I think People For the American Way, the group most concerned
with giving everyone an equal chance, put it best: “On Nov.
7, vote as if your freedom depended on it. It does.”