Keliz125,

In answer to your question “Is there any planet on which Network's comments can be construed as acceptable for publishing in the newspaper of an academic institution?” I give you a resounding Absolutely Not! As an academic, college writing instructor, and feminist- the Network’s reaction to this issue is troubling to me on many levels.

First, the Network is, is, IS sexist. However, before I address this issue I would like to explain why their responses are irritating to me as an academic. To begin with, academics and academic publications have a responsibility to, in my opinion, set an example for their students and others by being as fair minded and non-prejudicial as possible. Referring to women as “hos” is neither. Additionally, insinuating that Ami is “foolish” because she dares to question their representation of women goes against a main objective of both academia and journalism- to question the status quo. Finally, as a writing instructor, I am offended by their response simply because it’s poor writing. “Sexy bunnies,” “fugly,” “douchers,” “tools,” and “students whose daddies didn’t love them enough” are all slang and/or clichés that are tired and indicate lazy writers who either cannot or do not want to take the time to form coherent, original arguments to support their opinions.

Now, I would like to address their sexism. Sexism remains one of the most acceptable “-isms” in our culture today. One of the reasons that this remains true is that sexist comments are still not really considered taboo. For example, when watching a sporting event recently in a public place, I was quoting some statistics about one of the teams. A guy nearby acted surprised and said something along the lines of “Wow, chicks usually don’t know anything about sports!” No one there seemed particularly bothered by this remark, and, in fact, many nodded their heads in agreement. Now, imagine a similar situation if I was an African-American in a bar talking about subject X, and this white male made the remark, “Wow, blacks don’t usually know anything about subject X!” Most people would be uncomfortable with if not outraged by the remark and he would probably be quickly labeled as a racist. Why? Because as a country we have, rightly, agreed that such remarks are unacceptable. Generally, any remarks that can be perceived as racist are not accepted in public conversation. This is not meant to in any way suggest that racism isn’t alive and well in this country, but merely to point out a major difference in the way we approach the two issues of racism and sexism. As a nation, we have still not yet agreed that sexist remarks are unacceptable in everyday conversation. For this reason, it is our duty to address such speech when we encounter it and hold those who use sexist language accountable for their actions. In other words, we absolutely have to “jump on every little thing that looks sexist” just as civil rights activists “jumped on every little thing that looked” racist because only be making sexists and racists publicly uncomfortable with their prejudice language will we progress as a society. To insinuate that we “devalue out cause” by doing so is an absurd attempt shame/bully Ami and others into remaining silent. Furthermore, to address the Network’s claim that by “making the movement look radical” we are “devaluing” it I would just like to provide a brief list of very valuable movements that were considered “radical” in their time:
• The American Revolution
• Abolitionism
• Suffrage
• Voting right for African Americans
• Civil Rights

Please feel free to use any of this is a response to the Network.

Sincerely,
Stephanie Todd
University of South Carolina

Network is "NUTTing" lame (to use network's own jargon). Too bad my peripheral vision had to be subjected to 5 days week while hittin up the crossword puzzle.

Thanks for writing about this. Just to clarify, as I am the author of the letters that are being discussed (Ami), it is not Network that referred to women as hos but someone who wrote into Network ("self-righteous ho"). I'm not saying that to back Network, just to make sure that our information is right. I don't know that it happens frequently either, as suggested by the poster. I DO know that lots of other offensive stuff is said however. I was accused of calling Network sexist, when I actually said that the conversation between Network and the writer was OFFENSIVE, and that Network's reaction just perpetuates sexist ideas. That is the problem with the column. It's basically a sounding board to say offensive things and have Network say some "funny" things back. And I agree about the comment on racism - they would never print anything blatantly racist in the column, but they don't seem to mind printing something blatantly sexist.

I would suggest reading Network's original article and the letters, as well as the comments. Here is a link to the original article by Network: http://www.mndaily.com/2009/04/07/network

Here's a link to their response to the first letter: http://www.mndaily.com/2009/04/13/network

Response to the second letter:
http://www.mndaily.com/2009/04/15/network

And the latest, which talks about it as well:
http://www.mndaily.com/2009/04/16/network

Thanks Ami for posting the originals, but I have to say, I still find Network's response offensive. Certainly, much of the offending material was written by others and reproduced on Network, but I stand by my remarks on Network's insulting reponse to critics who question the value of reporducing blatantly sexists remarks:

"Network is not, not NOT a sexist. Whether it’s sexy little co-ed bunnies, fugly women’s studies majors, CSOM douchers or those tools on the football team, you’re all equal in the eyes of Network."

"Network doesn’t have the TIME to respond to foolish little college students whose daddies didn’t love them enough"

"Not only does Network's discussion have next to nothing to do with gender as I have proven, but the fact that someone would use it as a staging ground actually works against the movement for the elimination of sexism! By jumping on every little thing that looks like sexism, you devalue your own cause by making the movement look radical. While sexism clearly still exists, to try to make Network’s comments out to be sexist is juvenile. "

"Lastly! Since it is not sexist as I've demonstrated, it is clearly not hate speech, and is therefore completely within Network's rights of free speech, just as you have the right to be offended by it, even if your feeling of being offended is illegitimately founded."

All of these remarks were written by Network and are meant to intimidate and embarass those who question their decision to print sexist remarks by others.

Yea, I get ya. Just wanted to clarify and point out that there are other people writing in who share these ideas...which may be even worse.

I agree. It's too bad that Network is reproducing them as humorous and joining in their sexism, rather than reproducing them as examples of ignorance and chastising their sexism.

I look at it this way: Sure, you can call any insulting language you want 'satirical' or 'just a joke.' But if a female columnist wrote an article insulting a bunch of male students and then responded to critical letters by calling them 'whiny momma's boys,' I'm pretty sure people would be up in arms. It's pretty obvious to me that people only try to pull the 'joke' excuse when there is a very clear power imbalance (men insulting women, cisgender people insulting trans folks, whites insulting racial minorities, etc). Basically, I'm pretty confident that 'satire' is usually code for 'sexism/racism/pick-your-ism.'

Keliz125, Thank you for posting this.

Ami, Well done and a thanks you. I receive a Friday joke e-mail from a work colleague who is a graphic artist. People send him jokes he makes drawings to go with them, or he posts "funny" videos. He used to frequently post those "funny" videos where people fall, crash into things etc. I wrote to him and told him how upsetting I found those and asked for a disclaimer so I wouldn't inadvertently see these things. I'm not sure how he took it as there are no disclaimers but also no longer these types of videos. This week one of the jokes was - a man comes home from drinking and drops two aspirins in his sleeping wife's mouth. She says "Why did you do that I don't have a headache?" to which the man replies - "That's just what I wanted to hear." Given what happened this week in Afganistan, the comments made by Sarah Palin's sec. of state nomination and the general offensiveness of the joke I started to write a reply and then changed my mind. After reading your calm bravery I am now going to write him. Thanks again for your inspiration.

Apparently, I am an "insecure little girl" who is "spouting." Yep, good ol freedom of speech...too bad if I wrote in calling Network an insecure little girl, they probably wouldn't print it.

Okay folks, here's the plan. I'm sick of Network silencing any sort of criticism and not even commenting on letters that support Network, despite their flaws or inaccuracies. I'm wondering if anyone would be interested in writing letters to the editors of the Daily to state why Network needs to change or get out. I'm scanning through old columns to find more things...if you're interested let me know. I want this to be big and I would appreciate your help, especially if you're affiliated with the U at all.

Network columns:

4/07/09 - the column that the original letter was written about
http://www.mndaily.com/2009/04/07/network

4/13/09 - calls us whiners for pointing out sexism
http://www.mndaily.com/2009/04/13/network

4/15/09 - "Network is not sexist" - other crap
http://www.mndaily.com/2009/04/15/network

3/30/09 - slutty girls need to keep their panties on
http://www.mndaily.com/2009/03/30/network

3/24/09 - Network comments on misogyny, kind of saying it's wrong, but then calls women the weaker, softer gender
http://www.mndaily.com/2009/03/24/network

3/23/09 - calls a woman a dumb whore

3/08/2009 - calls a girl who sleeps around a whore...again

I think that's good for now. Feel free to write letters to the Daily and cite these if you like.