Student says outrage unjustified:
Letter to the Editor
Keith Pfeffer
Issue date: 3/29/07 Section: Opinion
- Page 1 of 2 next >
In attempting to respond to the recent outrage that has been caused by the "Hottest ____" section of the back page of the Torch (namely this week's issue, which was supposed to identify Wittenberg's Hottest Ho/Hooker/Hussy), I at first searched for a method to convey my opinion in a manner that would be both acceptable for publication and portray my true feelings toward the situation. However, I found that these two opposing goals could only be accomplished by one inquiry, admittedly lacking academic or intellectual quality-"are you kidding me?"
If I am correct in my observations, the Torch staff has received multiple e-mails from staff and students alike that have criticized their decision to include this section in the April Fool's issue of the campus newspaper, titled the "Flame." Numerous feminist opinions have surfaced, criticizing the choice of wording by the Torch staff, stating that these terms are "degrading," and could possibly hinder feminine advancement on Wittenberg's campus, or in society as a whole. My opinion, as well as that of many other people with whom I have discussed this issue on campus, is one that lacks sufficient words in order to truly justify our beliefs.
According to the opinion of one respondent, the individual chosen for the "Hottest Ho" could possibly be scarred from this experience, and have a negative reputation attached to him/her self both on and off campus. I have two responses to this proposition: First, the individual chosen would have had to grant consent to the Torch staff, knowing that he/she would appear as this week's "Hottest Ho"; and secondly, for those feminists who claim that this individual would be degraded by having this label-this person, in order to receive this 'claim to fame' in the first place, has most likely degraded him/her self on numerous occasions, more than likely on quite a few Friday and Saturday nights following a stumbling walk home in the rain from McMurray's. Consequently, I really have no sympathy for that excuse.
If I am correct in my observations, the Torch staff has received multiple e-mails from staff and students alike that have criticized their decision to include this section in the April Fool's issue of the campus newspaper, titled the "Flame." Numerous feminist opinions have surfaced, criticizing the choice of wording by the Torch staff, stating that these terms are "degrading," and could possibly hinder feminine advancement on Wittenberg's campus, or in society as a whole. My opinion, as well as that of many other people with whom I have discussed this issue on campus, is one that lacks sufficient words in order to truly justify our beliefs.
According to the opinion of one respondent, the individual chosen for the "Hottest Ho" could possibly be scarred from this experience, and have a negative reputation attached to him/her self both on and off campus. I have two responses to this proposition: First, the individual chosen would have had to grant consent to the Torch staff, knowing that he/she would appear as this week's "Hottest Ho"; and secondly, for those feminists who claim that this individual would be degraded by having this label-this person, in order to receive this 'claim to fame' in the first place, has most likely degraded him/her self on numerous occasions, more than likely on quite a few Friday and Saturday nights following a stumbling walk home in the rain from McMurray's. Consequently, I really have no sympathy for that excuse.
Viewing Comments 1 - 1 of 1
jon
posted 3/31/07 @ 7:06 PM EST
GET ER DONE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Post a Comment