Letters

Monday, July 22, 1996

Feminists out to make men pay

I would like to offer my heartfelt condolences to the three
members of the Zeta Beta Tau fraternity, who have been falsely
accused of rape. I wish them sympathy and the strength and courage
to put this episode aside and to get on with their lives now that
the charges have not been pursued by the district attorney. My
sincere apologies for the one-sided, female-biased media coverage
and for the greedy, man-hating feminists who used these gentlemen
as a springboard for their nasty, male-bashing agenda.

Also, my disgust for the woman who made these false accusations,
causing a lifetime of humiliation and ostracization to the three
innocent Zeta Beta Tau (ZBT) members. These individuals (male) had
their names, ages, arrest photos and social and academic
affiliations spread across national media to their detriment. All
while the accuser’s (female) identity has been held confidential,
to her advantage. This serves to illustrate yet another anti-male
double standard in our society.

The three ZBT members have fallen prey to a pro-female legal
system, officially sanctioned by nasty, blood-sucking, money-hungry
feminists who will stop at nothing to milk every last ounce of
dignity from a poor defenseless man. Feminists take great pride in
dismissing their personal failures and shortcomings as the fault of
men, but they take all the credit for worldly successes,
attributing it to the doings of women. "Fair" or "equal" is never
enough for the feminists.

Feminists and women in general want all the rights, but never
the responsibilities, associated with their hysterical demands. A
good example right here in the United States is the selective
service system, which only requires men to sign up for the draft.
How many times do you see feminists protesting the exclusion of
women in the draft? Are they not just as capable of fighting wars?
Certainly greedy feminists would have you believe that they can do
anything men can do.

Rather than risk their lives fighting for their country like men
(responsibility = bad), pushy feminists have a much more selfish
agenda (rights = good). The following example illustrates the
point. Feminists never complain that family law dramatically favors
women. Feminists glorify a woman who profits at the expense of a
man in divorce. One way married women do just this is via three
forms of legalized extortion, known as alimony, community property
and divorce settlements. Most divorce petitions are filed by wives
against their husbands, spurred on by these economic
incentives.

As men, we must protect ourselves from the "make ’em pay"
mentality of feminists. Familiarize yourself with subjects like
asset protection, prenuptial agreements and what to do if you are
falsely accused of sexual harassment or rape. Don’t ever let a
divisive, vicious feminist empty your wallet or rob you of your
dignity.

Sam Shabot

Business Administration

Santa Monica College

Creative Feminism too vague, based on revenge

Dear Jessica Morgan,

I have five problems with you, Jessica Morgan. First, your
argument (which doesn’t have much of a premise) reminds me what my
philosophy professor called the categorical imperative. Using your
feminism to get what you want when you want. It, however, has a
consequence, which is at the expense of others. Would you flirt
with a man to get a job or a material object, and then dump him
because that is what you want? Even if he was the most gentle and
kind man? True, getting into a bar is another story, but I don’t
think you have applied your categorical imperative to other areas.
I understand you used the word "consider" as opposed to "advocate"
when proposing Creative Feminism, but you have not told your
readers exactly when it should be considered. It’s too vague.
Second, I wonder how you would address the converse. What if men
used their masculinity to get what they want? Is that okay? Such a
society of both sexes using categorical imperatives would not be a
pretty place. Third, your idea of revenge of women against men
leads to a two-wrongs-make-a-right attitude. The long and
continuing history of sexism does not give the right for women to
do the same towards men. (Did someone manipulate you in the past,
Jessica?) Fourth, "It sounds low and unfair and hypocritical. But
it works … " ­ just because something works doesn’t mean it
is true or that we should use it. Fifth, your argument with the
cockroach is petty. It is no wonder that there is division among
feminists of color and feminists that are white and well off. Class
and race have divided feminists for several reasons and one of
which is that women like you, Jessica, are worried about who should
kill bugs, while feminists of color worry about issues, like sexual
harassment and the glass ceiling.

Finally, I will end by saying that I will look elsewhere for
women other than you to lead feminism into the next century and
hopefully a more logical one too.

P.S. I plan to remember your name and picture in order NOT to be
manipulated or used by you.

John Foxworthy

Third-year

Economics/International Studies

Can’t cars and bikes just all get along?

I would like to gently remind everyone, drivers and bikers both,
that under California law a bicycle is a "vehicle," and (with
certain specific exceptions) a rider has all the privileges and
responsibilities of a car driver.

If you don’t believe me, look it up: It’s in the California
Vehicle Code, section 21200. Just point your web browser at
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/calaw.html.

The fact that the public does not seem to be aware of this has
been brought home to me since I began commuting to UCLA from Palms
by bike. A great many drivers seem to take offense when I use the
left turn lanes. Drivers, I have as much right to them as you do:
See the California Vehicle Code 21202(a)(2).

Today one driver even told me I should be on the sidewalk. No,
that’s exactly where I shouldn’t be. More on this below.

Fellow bikers, we have to shape up too. We enjoy the privileges
of drivers, and we need to accept the responsibilities as well. So,
stop at stop signs, yield to pedestrians, signal your turns, don’t
ride against traffic, and stay off the sidewalks.

As to this last point: Surprisingly, I was unable to find a code
specifically banning us from sidewalks. Nevertheless it’s clear
that it’s not really where we belong. For example, California
Vehicle Code 555 defines a sidewalk as "that portion of a highway
… set apart … for pedestrian travel."

If we can all keep these simple principles in mind, we can make
travel in Los Angeles safer and more pleasant for all of us.

Mike Oliver

Graduate student

Mathematics