Column: Rise of the Girly Men

1. If you truly cared about the issue, and the people who are offended, you’d be at this town hall meeting right now as I am.

2. to freedom of speech:

   Unfortunately the UC Davis campus has often taken the stance that they don’t consider the first amendment very important. A few years ago a statement was issued that our “Rules of Community” supersedes the bill of rights!

   Now I hate anyone who openly spews hate speech (Neo-nazis, Fred Phelps, KKK groups to name a few) and I might think the world would be better off without them in it, but I would fight for their right to do it. Sadly it seems that a majority on this campus would rather have a paternalistic world where people can decide to censor unpopular ideas. What a sad, uninteresting and dangerous world that would be. .

3. PS the only reason they don’t mark you down is: 1) They are as pretentious as you or 2) They don’t want to be the subject to a similar witchhunt.

   Women is only ruled by the male dominant “men” if you want to believe it is. You could just as easily see the word “men” as a simplistic form of women since men are often jokingly referred to as neanderthals.

   Now go petition to change semester to ovester hahahahaha

4. People are offended because they have way too much time on their hands, as do you clearly. Going on a public witch hunt for this girl is pointless.

   I’m half tempted to show up and scream “THAT’S IGNORANT” everytime someone speaks about “heterosexist”

   And no, she wasn’t writing about gays. She clearly didn’t care if gay men run around in skirts screaming Paris Hilton’s name or are lumberjacks. What she was writing about were straight men who know more about eyebrow waxing than she does.

   You are clearly out of touch with the heterosexual community if you don’t realize that a lot of straight women prefer what she would call “manly” men. She simply attempted to express that view.

   But go, have your public witch hunt. I will meanwhile carry on with my science degree doing something USEFUL for the world. ))That’s Ignorant!!!!!11!1!((

5. there’s a lot of typo mistakes on my last comment. i tried to correct them, but apparently, it is not showing up.

6. I do not consider your article on, “Rise of the y Men” to be offensive at all nor do I consider it a so-called % speech.” Tiffany made it very clear in the beginning of her article that she was not homophobic. Nether am I. I have gay friends too.

   My question is to those who call her article a % speech” is, whatever happen to freedom of speech? I mean, she simply stated the obvious, about a social trend of men becoming more feminine. In the end, she took her stance on where she stood in this social trend of the rise of y men, and that’s simply her stance. Is not one allowed to state his opinion or is not one allowed to take sides? Is there not more than one political system? Are there not more one choice to be made throughout ones’ life? I think it is, extremely, unfair that people would cause this huge unnecessary stir unfairly. I think her article was not a % speech.” Neither do I think her article was a form of “oppression.”

   What I am curious to know is, what the LGBT community thinks of their reaction to your article. I mean, obviously, the LGBT community did not react your article really well and now are having a town-hall meeting to discuss, “journalistic ethics” and to”raise awareness about the relationship between speech, prejudice, and oppression.” I mean, is voicing ones’ stance on a particular topic with reason really a % speech, prejudice, and oppression” and a violation of “journalistic ethics?” I mean, based on the LGBT accusations on your article for voicing your opinion on an issue, couldn’t one accuse the LGBT of being “prejudice and oppressi[ve]” for not wanting any one to oppose their view a lifestyle?

   I mean, is it just me or has any one noticed that if any one who isn’t supportive of the LGBT lifestyle is automatically accused of being “oppressive” and % rs.” I think any one can conclude without going into a serious debate that there is a difference between having an opinion or taking a stance is quite different than being oppressive and being prejudiced. Furthermore, whatever happened to freedom of speech?

   I’m not saying I support speech or oppression. I’m just saying everyone should have the freedom to have a safe and open dialogue in public without so much unnecessary stir. Furthermore, it is quite unfair to judge something as a % speech” or call it a form of written “oppression” when something is not.

7. BeingPCisOverrated,

   You must be mistaken. I am attacking her ideas, and not her. I make no judgment as to what kind of person she is. She’s entitled to her voice and her beliefs. I didn’t say she was a bigot, nor did I say she was “evil”. The ideals she perpetuates are the very foundation of what creates the queerphobia, and xenophobia so commonly found in society today. You’re still not understanding the magnitude of her writing and how she offends people of color, the queer community, certain groups of men, Asian identified individuals, and many more. She can say as much as she likes that she did not direct her words to the queer community and to gay men. But you should read up and see how the statements she made about having gay friends, and the assumptions she makes about queer people and their sexuality. It is utterly offensive. If you feel that the article was not offensive, you tell me why people from so many UCD communities are upset at the moment? Why are we having a town hall meeting regarding this article today in the King’s Lounge at 6pm?

8. I think one question that really needs to be addressed is, at what point does outrage over a single column become excessive and self-serving? Where do we draw the line between reasonable objections and being unreasonably oversensitive? Would the people who are so upset right now accept a sensitively written column that came to the conclusion that men should be masculine? Would that not be worthy of being printed in a newspaper? On another note, I am shocked that most of these people who seem so interested in “awareness” were more interested in attacking the writer than actually pointing her to resources that might help her see their point of view better.

9. The columnist, Tiffany Lew, is entitled to her opinion. This was published as an “opinion article” in an electronic format, since a physically-printed version of The Aggie is not available on Fridays. Few readers (as compared to on other weekdays) encountered this column. Now, however, due to outrage in some social sectors, the column and its fallout will live on to exemplify oversensitive (and probably misguided) reader reactions. I believe Ms. Lew meant no specific harm. Though perhaps a little more naive than a media writer should be, she merely thought to introduce the reader to some of her personal opinions (in an entertaining manner, she hoped). Perhaps an exercise in the hypothetical can soothe some nerves and smooth down feathers: Imagine that the column was replaced for one authored by the Aggie’s talented openly-gay humor columnist Mario Lugo. Imagine that the topic was heterosexual manly men and their inherent boorishness and lack of style. Would the article have been printed? Would the article have been regarded as homosexist?

10. She offends people in the queer community…whom she specifically excludes from her rant on annoyance with men who exude “prissy” personality traits she doesn’t find attractive. OH NOES!!!111

    Why isn’t it ignorant and discriminatory of YOU when you treat people who prefer so called “heteronormative, heterosexist views” as bigots or evil? I support having an open mind but when a group actively acts like the alternative is wrong simply because it is a biological norm…well long story short: if you are gonna preach openmindedness at me while telling me my views are wrong SCREW OFF.

Comments are closed.