Letters

Not all men favor Gore, Bush It’s a shame
when bigots try to psychoanalyze their targets whom they actually
know nothing about. Take, for example, Gloria Steinem. In a visit
to UCLA, Steinem said the reason most of Ralph Nader’s
supporters are male is that men “do not suffer as much if
Bush were in the White House” (“Steinem urges
students to vote,” Daily Bruin, News, Oct. 20). Men have
as much reason as women to avoid Bush, since many men favor
abortion rights and directly benefit from their partners’
ability to have one. In fact, men in particular have every reason
to fear Bush, since men vastly outnumber women in homelessness,
incarceration, job casualties and early deaths. In addition, it is
men who will be drafted into combat when the republicans wage their
next males-per-gallon war over oil. The problem is that Gore
isn’t much different. Both are supported by big money and
corporate lobbying. Well, there is one big difference: Gore uses
gender-based rhetoric to draw support from big feminism, man-haters
and chivalrous men alike just by belching the word
“women.” For example, rather than adequately addressing
the needs of homeless people (85 percent of whom are male), Gore
and Lieberman spend much of their time attacking “deadbeat
dads,” most of whom are themselves homeless or poor. In fact,
last week’s Census Bureau report verified that custodial
mothers received 60 percent of what was due to them while custodial
fathers received only 48 percent (http://orlandosentinel.com/automagic/columnists/2000-10-18/OPEDparker18101800.html;
Sanford Braver, “Divorced Dads.”). The reason the Gore
ticket attacks deadbeat “dads” and not
“parents” is because gender anger helps divert
attention from what they’d rather not discuss: democracy,
homelessness, poverty and the prison/military industrial complex.
Voting for Nader sends a message to Democrats that they better stop
the rhetoric and start taking these issues seriously. And that, Ms.
Steinem, is why I am voting for Nader.

Marc Angelucci Law student

Stereotypes not part of solution

I always find it sad when people push their beliefs through
unfair stereotypes of others, as Bethelwel Wilson did
(“Affirmative
action minimizes society’s differences,” Daily
Bruin, Viewpoint, Oct. 18). The first instance is when Wilson
declares “historical atrocities … have cemented certain
groups in irrevocably impoverished social and economic
conditions.” Check your history and the world today ““
Asian immigrants were the most discriminated-against in California,
yet right now the percentage of incoming freshmen who are Asian is
much higher then the percentage in the general California
population. Whites (who are now a minority in the state) are
underrepresented minorities now. That isn’t very strong
cement. Wilson also talks of “a student who wakes up at 4
o’clock every morning to attend a good high school 30 miles
away, lives a precarious existence in a single-mother household,
and survives violent episodes.” Wilson assumes that this is
how non-whites live while whites are rich over-privileged brats.
The description could as easily apply to a white person as to
anyone who lives such a life, regardless of race. Wouldn’t a
white kid growing up in such a situation be discriminated against
because he’s white? Should we fight discrimination by
actually enforcing it? Poverty and background vary greatly for
people of any race. We should not push alleged solutions like
affirmative action because of stereotypes.

Daniel B. Rego UCLA Alumnus, Class of 2000