OPINION & EDITORIAL
Elizabeth Waters dormitory not sexist
Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.
Also by Brandon Krajewski:
Related Stories:
- Elizabeth Waters proves socially backward (March 1, 2005)
- Score one for state credibility (October 30, 2007)
- Sexual violence not just female issue (April 6, 2006)
- Gender segregated public schools sexist (March 10, 2005)
- Gender-based schools combat sexism (April 18, 2007)
by Brandon Krajewski
Thursday, March 17, 2005
Of all the definitions of sexism I’ve come across, not a single one involves an all-female residence hall at its core. Sexism is discriminatory or abusive behavior toward members of the opposite sex, tending to work to the detriment of women. And, contrary to Mr. VerStandig’s belief, sexism has not been “delightfully laid to rest during the 20th century.” Yes, cases of sexism have waned over the past 30 years, but many women are still pressed up against that glass ceiling; the ceiling that Gloria Steinem was truly trying to “unmask.”
One of the major points VerStandig misunderstands is that living at Elizabeth Waters is a choice. These students are not herded into the dorm like cattle, but they chose to live in an area that does not have any permanent male residents. And what’s wrong with that? These residents are not “assigned a veritable chastity belt” by University Housing (which VerStandig seems so intent on tearing off) but request one that they can lock and throw away the key themselves. Let me ask you a question, Mac: what is it that you feel men are missing out on between the hours of 2 a.m. and 9 a.m.? Is that when their libido is at full power, or does it bother men that they cannot add a notch for those 49 women to their bedposts?
While VerStandig makes the amusing point that penises are deprived of the beautiful overlook on 1200 Observatory Dr., most of the women living at Liz Waters don’t request the panoramic view for their vaginal health. Nor are they looking for a haven to avoid the “dangerous and predatory male species” from burrowing for their feminine treasures. Rather, they choose to live in a supportive, all-female environment; an environment VerStandig mistakenly believes is “promoting a notion of female inferiority.” Women are on a different plane than men, pre-suffrage argument or not. This is not to say women are weak and need protection, but in general, beyond the (what I think would be obvious) physical characteristics, women and men are different.
I’m going to go out on a limb here and guess there are more women who are interested in living with only women than men “wishing to avoid the fairer sex” by living with only other men. Since I obviously need clarification on your issues, Mr. VerStandig, let me ask you another question: Do you honestly believe men need their own form of same-sex housing? Would Elizabeth Waters’ existence be justified if we were to erect housing exclusively for 482 men, or do you have a grudge against women choosing to live independently of the male half of our species?
The keyword, again, is “choice.” While VerStandig believes Elizabeth Waters is “wretched” and exists solely for the “promotion of prudery,” I can only ask myself, “What’s wrong with a little wretched prudery?”
So what if 482 females choose not to live with men? These women aren’t being ushered into this housing situation against their will; they sign up for it. This doesn’t mean they hate men or don’t want to be exposed to the “real world.” They just choose to live in an environment where they have complete control. And isn’t that what the fight against sexism is really about, to not have one’s choices be repressed by the opposite sex?
The only predator Elizabeth Waters is trying to keep out is you, Mr. VerStandig. You seem to believe if sex is going to happen in that anti-male, seven-hour block of time, why shouldn’t you be able to live down the hall so you can make the magic last a few more hours? That is exactly the type of chauvinistic idea that Betty Friedan was really rallying against and from which Elizabeth Waters protects its residents.
Brandon Krajewski is a student at the University of Wisconsin. Comments can be directed to oped@badgerherald.com.
Anonymous (March 17, 2005 @ 7:15am):
The point of this article, as always from the left, is:
If it exclusively benefits women or minorities, it's not discriminatory.
If it even appears to exclusively benefit white men, it's discriminatory - end of discussion.
Brandon, if you support all-female dorms subsidized with public funds, then I certainly hope you support the right of a private golf course to be all-male. Otherwise you're a hyporcite.
Anonymous (March 17, 2005 @ 8:20am):
If it excludes solely on the basis of gender, it is by definition sexist. We can argue whether public policy supports that sexist exclusion, but the fact remains that it is sexist.
Anonymous (March 17, 2005 @ 8:28am):
"I can only ask myself, "What's wrong with a little wretched prudery?""
Does the above statement make any sense?
This entire article reads like the end of a South Park episode where a misguided Cartman recites all he has learned. I'm just waiting for the piano music to kick in.
"but in general, beyond the (what I think would be obvious) physical characteristics, women and men are different."
Two days in a row I have been bombarded with useless drivel, first by the "friends" article, and now this crap. Funny that a man is debating another man about an all women's dorm.
"Would Elizabeth Waters' existence be justified if we were to erect housing exclusively for 482 men?"
Ha
Anonymous (March 17, 2005 @ 11:54am):
In defense of Mr. Krajewski, at least sexism is a relevent issue and promotes thinking about the subject, as opposed to Ms. Zuckerman's pointless babble about friends.
Anonymous (March 17, 2005 @ 3:25pm):
Thanks for all your comments everyone. Let me just clear a few things up. I wasn't saying that any living arrangement exclusively for white men is discriminatory (I'm a white male myself), but that the article I was responding to was a little radical. My point, from the left or not, is that why all of a sudden do we need to make a big deal about Elizabeth Waters? As for that third comment, I'm not sure what to say. I don't see the point you're making. South Park? Drivel? I'm not sure how to respond. And I'm not sure there's anything wrong with a man debating another man about something, regardless of the issue. In general, I just wanted to humerously point out that Mac VerStandig should be careful about tossing ideas aside, like sexism, because it makes him sound irrelevant. And by the way, I have no problems with an all-male golf course.
Anonymous (March 17, 2005 @ 3:41pm):
"And I'm not sure there's anything wrong with a man debating another man about something, regardless of the issue. "
Well I can see you need to spend some time at the re-education camp run by the All Men are Pigs School of Thought.
Anonymous (March 17, 2005 @ 3:56pm):
Obviously you haven't seen South Park, then you might know what he is talking about. If you need it explained to you, you don't get it.
As far as humor in the Herald goes, leave that to Deters and Fayyad.
Anonymous (March 17, 2005 @ 4:16pm):
"Sexism is discriminatory or abusive behavior toward members of the opposite sex, tending to work to the detriment of women."
get rid of the tending to work to the detriment of women part and I would agree with you.
This article is an example of how the left has completely lost touch with reality. It is not discrimination if it helps what I consider a "disadvantaged" group. And you wonder why you keep losing elections to people who are idiots. Look at yourself and you will find the true idiot.
Anonymous (March 18, 2005 @ 1:46am):
Thanks for the article. It is nice having an ally who actually understands more than what meets the eye.
Anonymous (March 18, 2005 @ 11:28am):
That's just it, Brandon, Ya tried ta fuck 'im like a bitch. Ya tried ta fuck 'im and Marsellus Wallace don't like ta be fucked by anybody except Missus Wallace!
You ever read the Bible, Brandon? There's a passage I got memorized, seems appropriate for this situation: Ezekiel 25:17. 'The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the inequities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men...'
Anonymous (March 18, 2005 @ 2:16pm):
...AND YOU WILL KNOW MY NAME IS LORD WHEN I LAY MY VENGEANCE UPON YOU!!!
BANG!!! BANG!!! POW!!!
Anonymous (March 19, 2005 @ 9:12pm):
Thank you Brandon. You, unlike many people, get it.
Anonymous (March 20, 2005 @ 4:43am):
Problem is I don't get it. I can't even remember the last time I got it. I dunno, maybe I was stoned at the time. My roommates probably remember it, maybe even caught it on video. But they ain't talkin'. Fuckers!
Anonymous (March 21, 2005 @ 10:04am):
Will the feminists rise in support? Nah, only liberals are worthy. Imagine the outcry if a woman was fired for being a Democrat.
***
Matt Drudge reports that Michelle Zipp has been fired as editor of Playgirl magazine for being a Republican. He quotes an e-mail from Zipp:
After your coverage of my article about coming out and voting Republican, I did receive many letters of support from fellow Republican voters, but it was not without repercussions. Criticism from the liberal left ensued. A few days after the onslaught of liberal backlash, I was released from my duties at Playgirl magazine.
After underlings expressed their disinterest of working for an outed Republican editor, I have a strong suspicion that my position was no longer valued by Playgirl executives. I also received a phone call from a leading official from Playgirl magazine, in which he stated with a laugh, "I wouldn't have hired you if I knew you were a Republican."
I just wanted to let you know of the fear the liberal left has about a woman with power possessing Republican views.
Playgirl is within its rights, of course, but we wonder if any of the liberals who've been defending Ward Churchill's "free speech" will speak up for Zipp. We're not holding our breath.
Anonymous (March 22, 2005 @ 3:13pm):
I wonder how long it will be before liberals start showing up with AK-47's and shoot everyone who disagrees with them. And would that make them any better?
Anonymous (March 28, 2005 @ 11:23am):
well-put dear sir.
