Letters to the editor

Girls can bare it all

To the Editor:

In the Nov. 2 issue, an opinion piece ran about the so-called "Bare it all" trend of Halloween. I feel that in this article, the generalities and exaggerations were downright offensive. As a female who took part in Halloween festivities, I would in no way compare our campus to "Girls Gone Wild," nor would I say that every girl on campus took the same "steps" to prepare for Halloween (I don't recall seeing anybody's thong).

I'm not denying that many females do choose to show some skin on Halloween and that a rare few do go overboard, but who's to say they can't or shouldn't? It is highly possible that girls feel that the only day that they can dress "sexy" or be a little provocative is Halloween, simply because it's more socially acceptable. Rather than assume they're doing it for the attention or to "punish" guys, maybe it just gives them a chance to feel good about themselves.

There are also many of us who don't "shed [our] morals for visibility perks." To many, Halloween is nothing more than a fun opportunity to dress up with friends. Why are our morals called into question if our midriff is showing? Before accusing every female of "dressing as slutty as fashionably possible," recognize that there is a difference between being slutty and showing a little skin.

Hilary ToneCommunication and Spanish '07

'Sissy' not offensive

To the Editor:

I am writing this letter in response to Roey Rahmil's piece entitled "Words can mean more than intent." I found the article to be careless and oblivious to the needs of the Santa Clara community and to one freshman senator in particular.

Linda Garber should be ashamed to suggest that Jacob Lyssy, by using his campaign slogan, should have been conscious of the fact that the word "sissy" conjures up images of homosexuals being beaten with baseball bats. Garber has the luxury of hiding behind the walls of the women and gender studies department. She may cast condemnations of individuals at will, whilst dismissing any returning criticism as sexist, homophobic or "uneducated" as Rahmil would suggest. Political correctness cannot be allowed to override context.

Worse still is the condemnation of a freshman student for using a word of which the relevancy of its etymological history is absurd. For those keeping score, the definition of "sissy" is "a timid or cowardly person." To use a "slippery-slope" argument that leads the reader from a word that rhymes with the candidate's name, to misogyny and homophobia is pure journalistic irresponsibility.

Political correctness is nothing more than censorship, a topic that Rahmil and Garber I'm sure are very publicly against... when it serves their purpose. This shift towards "warm fuzzy" words and hypersensitivity toward meanings is transforming our society into one that cannot fend for itself. I'm sure that if President Bush looked "deeper" at the intent of the diatribes leveled at him, as I'm sure Garber and Rahmil have participated in, he might, dare I say, have his feelings hurt.

I have a message for the author and Garber who cast judgments on the "uneducated masses": By subtly accusing a freshman student of being a "careless," "oblivious," misogynistic homophobe, you are in fact practicing the very thing you preach against. Despite Rahmil's denial of the latter allegations, perhaps he might want to look to what he actually meant. Roey Rahmil and Linda Garber both owe Jake Lyssy a very public apology.

Grant CassinghamPolitical Science '07