The Student News Site of University of Arizona

The Daily Wildcat

88° Tucson, AZ

The Daily Wildcat

The Daily Wildcat

 

    Mailbag

    Women can be successful and happy

    I found Lillie Kilburn’s Friday Arizona Daily Wildcat column (“”More than one kind of happy ending””) true, but it missed the mark. Did the columnist notice that “”The Devil Wears Prada”” exhibits the stereotypical woman of success who is a ruthless, soul-selling person? In actuality, the heroine chooses not to be successful and therefore be a good little girl who conforms to our patriarchal society. It isn’t all about rich and poor, but about women who decide to be successful must be horrible people. Why did Martha Stewart go to prison? Because the good ol’ boys wanted to teach a successful woman a lesson. It is the same message sent by this movie – to show young women not to be successful at something you love because you will ultimately end up alone, without children, ruthless and bitter about the life you choose. Why should we listen to the media, girls? Why not show the world we can be brilliant, fabulous, happy and successful?

    Tiffany Bellan
    international studies senior


    Anti-Proposition 204 letter was inaccurate

    It needs to be clarified that there are 16,000 sows in Arizona, and that 13,500 of them are at Pigs for Farmer John, the pig farm in Snowflake, which is the only farm in Arizona that uses gestation crates (www.aziof.com/News/News.asp).

    It has been openly stated by proponents of Proposition 204 that there are no veal crates in Arizona and only one farm that uses gestation crates (but then again, they have the majority of Arizona’s sows); this is no news to voters. In a letter Friday, it was stated by Patrick Bray that pigs at the Snowflake farm live in “”humane”” conditions. Bray is, not surprisingly, an agricultural economics and management major. This is a moot point – the use of gestation crates is still unethical. More so, if one has seen the video and pictures of the farm in Snowflake, it just doesn’t look at all like he described. These images can be seen at www.yesonproposition204.com, both in the new video found on the main page and under the tab “”Campaign Materials”” in the PowerPoint presentation. Again, these pictures were taken in Arizona.

    Bray pointed out that the Humane Society euthanizes animals, when most people already know this is done because there is not enough room in shelters for the many animals that need homes. “”No-kill”” shelters throughout our country are filled up; people must spay and neuter their pets so that in time this unfortunate necessity goes away. Bray is trying to illustrate that the Humane Society is hypocritical, but is missing that the animal shelter community is trying to move away from this by advocating spaying and neutering, whereas advocates for the pork industry point fingers without recognizing their own unethical practices that should be reformed.

    Farm Sanctuary is just one of many in the spectrum of support for Proposition 204, and it is ridiculous to think that the small request to enlarge pig and veal calf enclosures will lead to the downfall of the agricultural industry or force everyone to go vegan. The animals’ welfare aside, there are environmental and tourism concerns that come with the possibility of more factory farms moving into our state – I read recently that realtors in Snowflake detour as far away as possible from the hog farm when showing to perspective buyers. This is something to think about when regarding the future of Arizona.

    Colleen Dugan
    computer science senior


    Lyrics on student radio an affront to all women

    I walked out of the Administration building into the center of campus Thursday slightly before 12:30 when it hit me. I stepped down the final stair toward the center of the UA Mall when I passed three guys under a small tent (campus radio) with DJ equipment playing music. I acknowledged their presence as I entered the building, minutes prior, trying not to pay attention to the music. As I quickly strolled by, I was shot in the back. A harsh cacophony of sound was blaring from the speakers, with sexually degrading lyrics too explicit to name here, but suffice it to say they involved a part of the male anatomy being forced upon a woman’s jaw. It was repeated again and again and then went on to refer to women’s body parts in the most objectifying fashion imaginable. I fell to the ground from the DJ’s shot, floored by the inappropriate and graphic lyrics.

    Frankly, it is not surprising that the largely corporate-controlled music industry is still producing such material, but the fact that a song with such misogynist lyrics was being played in the center of an institution for higher education is a slap in the face to any woman, and any man, for that matter, who supports women’s equality. I am appalled and find this vulgarity demoralizing and disempowering. Each time those lyrics are broadcast, it shoots directly into the integrity and decency of woman. To hear it at a university that supports critical engagement with this kind of mainstream media is revolting. Too many people have become entirely complacent and choose to ignore the implicit message of such music. Women and men alike must speak out against the tacit violence supported by such lyrics and the objectification of women as existing for men’s sexual pleasure, especially on campus radio.

    Marianne Butler
    natural resources graduate student

    More to Discover
    Activate Search