Letters
Big disappointment
I am extremely disappointed in
the Cultural Forum’s and the
French Departments poor plan
ning to accomodate the crowd of
people who wanted to see
Eugene Ionesco. Why didn't he
appear in a larger facility than the
"WACO Cinema? Why not the
EMU Ballroom?
I have been told that the Univer
sity doesn't own the kind of projec
tor necessary to show Ionesco s
film, and I do appreciate WACO
letting us use their theatre, but
why not show the film in one place
and have Ionesco speak in
another, where more people could
hear him? The second showing of
the movie was of no consolation
since it would not be followed by
the talk with Ionesco.
There should have been no
problem in estimating that the
WACO Cinema wouldn’t hold
enough people, especially con
sidering how much advertising
was done. The French,
literature, and film classes were
specifically notified; there was ad
vertising in the Emerald; and all of
the area high schools were in
vited.
The Cultural Forum, who prides
itself on professionally handling
such events, did a very unprofes
sional job. There was no indica
tion in the promotion that seating
would be limited to 250. Why were
the area high schools invited
when it should have been obvious
to ‘‘professionals’’ that people
would be turned away? It’s nice to
invite the high schools, but these
events should be for the students
who pay through incidental fees
and for the University community.
If there will be room for others
without turning away the Univer
sity community, then fine, invite
others. But not unless there is
extra room.
I suggest that in the future, if for
some obscure reason, a small
facility will be used that:
1. ) reserve tickets should be given
away before the show. This would
relieve the last-minute problem of
not getting in and it would give an
indication of interest so that other,
satisfactory arrangements could
be made.
2. ) Off-campus groups not be in
vited unless all of the interested
University community can be ac
comodated.
3. ) There should be some indica
tion in the promotion of such an
event that seating will be limited.
I hope that in the future, better
planning will be made to accom
modate all who want to see a
speaker, especially one of the sta
ture of Mr. Ionesco. It does little
good to bring someone like him
here unless everyone has a
chance to see him.
Nancy Pubuar
Senior, Journalism
Indignity
I will be leaving this campus this
week and wish to make public
some of my experiences with the
Emerald and its staff.
I am a South African who is
strongly opposed to the South Af
rican government and its hideous
policy of Apartheid. As such, my
sentiments have been of interest
to the Emerald and I have twice
been interviewed by reporters
from that newspaper. In both in
stances I was prepared to give up
several hours of my time (at con
siderable personal inconveni
ence, on the second occasion)
and went out of my way to arrange
a time that was convenient for
the reporter.
However, I have also been the
coach of the University rugby
team during my stay here. On
three occasions this term I have
sought to publish team results and
W* "K- ; A
“Eat your heart out Travolta!”
news briefs on the progress of the
club. In each of these instances
my experience of the sports staff
of the Emerald has been highly
frustrating — to grossly under
state the emotion felt! They either
made promises that they never
kept, or they set up appointments
at which they failed to appear.
Thursday I rushed through a lunch
invitation in order to keep a “prom
ised” appointment with the assis
tant sports editor, only to find a
scribbled note on his desk inform
ing me that he had a class test
that time!
The issue here is an important
ethical one. It appears that when
the Emerald needs the individual it
relates to that individual with re
spect and decency. When, how
ever, the individual seeks the as
sistance of the Emerald for the oc
casional publication of club sports
news, that individual is treated as
an object of no value. The indi
vidual is a nuisance and is sub
jected to deceit and indignity.
Ken Oovey
2182 Patterson Str.
Editor’s note: According to
Sandy Vaughn, director of the
University's Club Sports Pro
gram, Emerald coverage of club
sports “has been better than ever,
and I attribute it to Nick Dawson
(Emerald assistant sports editor).
He has done an excellent job of
finding out what is currently of in
terest to the students. We have
had a good response from Nick in
this office."
Lapersontable
The ridiculous personipulation
of words by the Emerald is caus
ing my persondibles to tighten.
The latest personifestation is the
use of the term “Shawoman" in
your article of March 7 on psychic
healing I presume your writer
presumes that “shaman” comes
from a Tungusian stem “sha-”
(“healer”) and a Tungusian suffix
“-man” (“-man," it’s remarkable
that the Tungusian and the En
glish are identical). I must adaper
sontly insist that such folk
pseudo-etymologies and trans
formations only serve to bring any
movement for consciousness
about sex-based content in lan
guage into extreme disrepute. I
hope the personagement of the
paper will take my repnpersond to
heart and in the future correct
such lapersonstabie excesses.
Robert Ackerperson
1789 Columbia, Eugene
Another view from the left on Feminism
Submitted by
Barbara Pope of the
New American movement
It is important to respond to the opinion written in
"celebration” of International Women’s Day by Ismet
Guchn with Monica Lozano, Cameron Kelly and Cheryl
Stroll {GLKS). This article put forth the proposition that the
feminist movement “is a new strategy of the capitalist
class to direct women away from class struggle.” It is
important to remind Emerald readers that this is not the
only socialist interpretation of the feminist movement.
There is another position, the socialist-feminist position.
The major difference between GLKS and the socialist
feminist position is that socialist-feminists can distinguish
among the issues raised by feminism and analyze their
effect on all women. GLKS dismiss feminist issues almost
entirely — until after the revolution. We’ve heard that one
befo p0
A fundamental issue not presented in their article is the
fact that male dominance is a system and ideology that
preceded capitalism and now has a life of its own.
Capitalism, of course, has shaped male dominance “in its
own image" and in some important ways — particularly
the sexual division of labor — strengthened it. But rape,
woman-hating, and the reaction against women’s control
over their own bodies, cannot be totally explained by a
strict class analysis. Such attacks against women’s equal
ity and autonomy have existed and still exist outside the
capitalist system.
What distinguishes socialist-feminists from many other
feminists is our attempt to integrate a sex and economic
analysis of women’s oppression. We recognize that dis
crimination and the denigration of women as sex objects
are experienced differently by different classes and
races. Even violence against women — an abuse that
brutally cuts across class and race lines—may be treated
differently by our present institutions according to
whether a women is rich or poor, black or white.
Since the integrated analysis is new, socialist
feminists do not have all the ready answers of some
traditional Marxists. At this point we are often adding to a
feminist analysis by asking Marxist questions. This can be
illustrated by looking at two prominent feminist issues —
education and advertising. Feminists have made lauda
ble strides in pointing out and fighting against sexism and
racism in public school texts and in attacking sexist and
racist behaviors of educators. Feminists have also made
clear to the American people how advertising degrades
us all. Socialist-feminists agree with the above goals.
We ask, however, not only how racism, sexism and
stereotyping can be abolished from the schools, but also:
Whom do the schools serve? We recognize and criticize
the class nature of education, which produces “liberal”
professionals and technicians, on the one hand, and dis
ciplined workers, on the other — and what is worse,
perpetuates illiteracy among those who seem “expenda
ble" to the system.
We are not only concerned about the denigrating
image of women in advertising (be it the drudge house
wife, the sex object or the endlessly cooptable “new free
woman”), but we are concerned also about the products
advertised. How much does advertising add to the cost of
these products? Who labors to produce them? Who pro
fits from their production? Under what conditions are they
produced? And — not the least of all—who decides what
is going to be produced in the first place? We fully recog
nize that true democracy means control over our work,
over production, as well as control over our personal lives
and sexuality.
But we also recognize the deeply radical nature of
the feminist demands for the abolition of male privilege
and the transformation of familial and intimate life. Although
these goals are far from being met, they have already had
a great effect on the ideas and practice (both personal
and organizational) of many women and some men, and
will continue to do so.
Abortion, the demand to control our bodies, is one of
the fundamental and potentially radical issues of
feminism. We make a clear distinction between birth con
trol (a woman’s right to make decisions about her own
reproductive capacity) and population control (steriliza
tion or reproduction forced upon women by the state, by a
movement, by poverty and ignorance). We actively sup
port the first and fight against the second. We know, too
that attacks on women’s right to full birth control are often
disguised attacks on women’s right fully to enjoy and
control their own sexuality. Since one of the material
conditions of oppression has been women's inability to
control their own bodies, we see the right to birth control
and abortion essential precondititns for female equality.
The ERA is an issue of a different order. It is not high
on the list of most socialist-feminists’ priorities, because
we realize that true equality will only come with a change
in the economic system. But to fight against it is to miss its
symbolic importance within the context of America in the
1970’s. The defeat o the ERA will be a defeat of feminism
and a victory of the so-called “new Right.” As such the
ERA (which will bring more rights to both men and women)
is worthy of at least minimal support.
Indeed, the Right has not missed the deeply radical
nature of many feminist demands. This is why there is a
highly financed and growing effort to defeat the ERA and
to take away women's right to have an abortion.
On the other hand, many feminists have moved left
ward as they realized that they will not gain equality until
there are fundamental changes in the economic system.
This drift to the left has not yielded the "correct line' or a
deep understanding of the Albanian situation, but it is a
hopeful sign for socialists, who, to be honest about it,
need all the hope we can get. Even the government
sponsored International Women’s Year conference came
out for full employment and national health insurance.
Why, as GKLS do, join forces with the Right on
feminist issues? Our job is to understand the growing
conservative attacks on women’s rights, and the
threatened feelings that provoke these attacks, not to join
them. Socialists-feminists know that under a system of
aliented labor often the nuclear family is the only place
where some workers find personal happiness — or at least
think they should find personal happiness. Instead of
simply denigrating the family, why not actively support
the present progressive alternatives like the rights of gays
and women to full economic, political and sexual equality.
Alternative lifestyles can help break down the stereotypes
of sex roles and “personal happiness.” More importantly,
socialist-feminists, who are continually concerned with
breaking down the distinction between private and public
life, must also show that happiness can be gained outside
the family — in political, community and cultural organiza
tions, in the real control of work places and production and
political life.