OPINION

Letters to the Editor: March 25, 2008

By Daily Princetonian Staff
Print article Email article Respond to article
Published: Tuesday, March 25th, 2008
Martindell is out of touch with reality

Regarding "Will Scharf '08 will sue Borough," (Monday, March 24, 2008):

 

Borough Councilman Martindell seems to misunderstand the relationship between the University, the Street and the Borough.  As a separate entity, the Street is not the University's responsibility in the slightest, and suggesting that Mr. Scharf's suit will make them "reexamine the Borough's relationship" with the Street and the University is a veiled threat. Martindell is looking for a handout from Princeton on the one hand, and an excuse to shut down the Street on the other.

All the eating clubs save Cottage pay taxes to the Borough for the right to have access to the ‘government services' it provides - most of which is unwanted police scrutiny. Suggesting that the University police the Street is tantamount to admitting that your government cannot do its job.  

Instead of whining about not getting enough money from the University, the Borough should just do what all other governments do when they need money - raise taxes.  Then we'll see if the people of the Borough really care enough about ‘policing' the Street to make that happen.

Michael van Landingham '08

 

Feminists shouldn't be OK with pornography

 

Regarding "Boys aren't just allowed, they're needed," (Monday, March 24, 2008):

 

In her column, Chloe Angyal '09 defined male feminists as men who "value real women - intelligent, talented women who make genuine contributions to society." Though I do not believe this is quite what constitutes a feminist, I must admit it is not a bad definition, and if one were to use  it, I would admit to being a male feminist myself. And it is for this reason that I disagree with Angyal's stance on porn.

Porn is not just bad when it distorts male and female expectations of what females are or ought to be; rather, porn is bad all the time, for the basic premise of porn is the objectification of the woman as a means to a sexual end. Human beings have great value, and Angyal is right that there is much to be appreciated beyond aesthetic measurements. There is also something substantially valuable, however, in characteristics beyond sex appeal. I have always been curious as to why feminists have never raised a larger cry against the degrading nature of porn. Feminists of Princeton: Yours is the burden to eliminate this threat to the inherent value of women.

Alexander Hwang '11

 

A growing trend at Princeton that can't be explained away

 

Regarding "Slouching toward Whitmania," (Tuesday, March 4, 2008):

 

Whitman College and Spelman halls both have prescribed functions within the Princeton housing system. Whitman was painstakingly designed as a four-year college and built accordingly to foster this new sort of community. Similarly, Spelman is designated as the central complex for independent students, who want to buy and cook their own food. As the independent numbers increased this year, it makes no sense whatsoever to limit their options. This move, then, seems to expand the four-year system to the detriment of other options.

The most significant reason for the increased demand for four-year colleges is the unbelievable disparity between the quality of their rooms and those of the other upperclass housing. If students continue to clamor for these choice dorms, what does the administration propose to do? Logically, it could offer new rooms outside of Whitman/Mathey to students of all eating creeds. Or, toeing the current party line, they could look to other top-echelon dorms - what remains of Little, Dod and Patton halls - and again declare Anschluss.

In all seriousness, the number of students affected now is irrelevant; the question is when does the expansion and the curtailment of alternative eating options end? I understand that there are reasonable arguments behind these decisions, but that does not alter the overall trend.

The Malkiel cabal asserts that it is merely trying to "add options." But in the context of President Tilghman's oft-ignored statement to The Wall Street Journal - that certain eating clubs were antithetical to Princeton tradition - these new four-year college annexations seem like the beginnings of a bid for the exact opposite.

Nic Poulos '08

 

 

Reader Comments

View all 11 comments on "Letters to the Editor: March 25, 2008".

  • 9:41 a.m. on March 26th, 2008
    Posted by Dangerous Jobs

    I think my comment was more directed at previous posts which claimed that porn was wrong because of the higher incidence of abuse, etc. But if you are the same person as "Porn Hurts People" I think that, alone, was a claim about harm or lack of safety. So I'm glad you realize that whether or not something is dangerous has little to do with whether it's moral/immoral/amoral. The rest of your stuff requires a lot more support than you can provide in this comments thread. You would need data on how porn actors really feel about their work, you would need data about the social perceptions of persons watching porn vs. those that don't watch porn. I mean, these are really empirical questions: Does porn make people have sexist attitudes in the real world? Does objectification of porn stars translate into objectification of significant others? Other more abstract questions include: If both people in a loving relationship enjoy watching porn, how is there any harm being done? Why would it be ok to objectify clothed persons in a non-XXX movie while it's somehow evil to objectify persons in a porno? etc. I don't expect you to successfully and completely deal with these issues here. But these are some unanswered questions for the anti-porn people out there.

  • 11:23 p.m. on March 25th, 2008
    Posted by @Dangerous Jobs

    Again, your claims seem to be in the context of whether or not porn should be legal. But since porn *is* legal (with some restrictions) and since immorality does not entail illegality, I'm discussing porn as an ethical matter. You've pointed out that mining, construction, and military service are dangerous jobs. But are you prepared to claim that, as a consequence of their danger, these jobs are immoral? I think not. All those jobs, despite their inherent risks, have something very positive to contribute to society. My claim is not that porn is wrong because it is dangerous; my claim rests on something entirely separate: that porn is ethically unacceptable because of the ways in which it exploits people and spreads harmful, unhealthy, and inadequate ideas about sexuality in ways that hurt our society's struggle for equality, dignity, and respect, especially for traditionally oppressed groups like women.

Post your comments >