Pelletier missing the point

After reading "The Freedom to be 'Oppressed' by a Man', I was troubled that although the author requests that the feminist movement give her respect for her choice to become a homemaker, she does not seem to reciprocate respect for the encouragement of young women to think outside of tradition and to consider a career.

The article suggests that because the box is "already full of men" and because the working world can be frustrating and lonely, the problem must be that women are not 'designed' for the workplace, that they are infringing on territory that should stay male dominated, that they should stay in the more comfortable box.

Conformity is almost always comfortable and breaking through prejudices is almost always frustrating and lonely, so these are scarcely reasons why we should believe that women are not designed for a career.

Collegiate education was also once seen as the 'wrong box' for women. The women who founded colleges and first fought to became degree holders, doctors and accountants often felt out of place and uncomfortable in an environment that was already full of men. But as a result of their efforts, in 2003, 56 percent of all college students were women who had made their new box fit.

The attitude that women are "just not designed that way" is the attitude taken by my Baptist high school, and I have seen firsthand how this has led to a deplorable lack of support for young women who wish to pursue math, sciences, or a life in industry or academia.

When one believes that women aren't designed for the workplace or that it is a privilege only for those who are "strong, competent, and talented. who know exactly what they want out of life", that belief is passed onto one's daughters and students, and intelligent girls who might have dreamed of great discoveries and successful careers are told that those things aren't for them.

The tragedy is not that they went on to become homemakers or elementary school teachers, but that they were never encouraged to consider any other way of life and to make a choice from knowledge rather than ignorance.

Women should certainly have the choice to be homemakers, but the operative word there is 'choice'- a choice that would never have been possible without first breaking from tradition.

Respectfully,

Molly Ison

Class of 2003

Pelletier clearly out of line

I'm non-confrontational. In fact I rarely get upset over anything. However, when I read Sharon Pelletier's article, "The Freedom to Be 'Oppressed' by a Man," I was angered. In the article she made three illogical conclusions from a poorly built argument. First, she stated that the man's box which women have been placed is "cold and lonely."

Throughout this article she continued to stereotype men as being heartless jerks. Don't get me wrong, not every guy is prince charming, but to blatantly assume that the husband of a housewife will be "a breadwinner who leaves his dirty laundry on the floor, gets muddy footprints in the kitchen after a hunting trip, and forgets to take out the trash," gives men absolutely no credit.

Secondly, Sharon suggests that because some women don't know what they want to do after college they are denying the fact that all they really want is "bitty round babies." This suggestion is ridiculous. Just because I am nervous or "freaked out" about life after college, doesn't mean that I should put a $100,000 education behind a toilet plunger and dirty diapers.

Finally, Sharon implied that oppression is a good thing. I am a history major at Hillsdale and after three years of studying history from a liberal arts perspective, I have yet to see where harshness and authoritarianism against anyone has caused them to be a vibrant individual. Despite what my letter may sound, I am not a feminist. I believe that trying to juggle a "world-changing career" and family is not realistic.

Someday, I hope to meet a quality guy who respects me as a woman and have kids and be a stay at home mom. But I did not attend college searching for a "Mrs." Degree, and I hope to always be striving to accomplish things not only before I'm married, but afterwards as well. A man worth marrying is one that will provide for and protect a woman, and see her for her God-given worth. It is by respect and love that good relationships are formed, not one person oppressing the other. If you want a man that oppresses you, is a slob, and walks on you like you're a doormat, maybe you should go look for him in a garbage dump or a Nazi regime because that is probably where you will find him.

Sincerely,

Eva Pierce

Junior