editorial
Feminist: nof oil males are lchauvenist pigs'
He is stark mad, whoever says
That he hath been in love an hour. . .
Who will believe me if I swear
That I have had the plague a year?
John Donne
It's Valentine's Day, and if the radio contests for
boxes of candy haven't gotten the message across,
then surely the empty greeting card racks across town
will make the point. At this very moment, frantic
husbands and boyfriends are standing wallet to wallet
in each of Lincoln's flower shops ready to fight for
the last red rose or yellow rose-or wilted carnation.
And, by this time, every single person on campus
should be feeling somehow left out of all this, as if
the fluttering of little heartbeats have left them in the
lurch. A card 'o Mom and a pink cupcake complete
their festivities.
It is, however, an excellent opportunity to ponder
all those heavy topics, such as Love and Heavy
Breathing, and it is an equally good chance for what
might otherwise be considered a man-hating feminist
omy struthers
to expound on one of her favorite topics-her man.
That a feminist should feel only disgust at the
mention of that three-letter word is a fallacy that
accompanies the usual stereotype. And while I have
met many a man who merits only that reaction, I
must say I have found at least one who is everything
our old friend the male chauvinist pig is not.
One might ask, What does a feminist look for in a
man? Then let me tell you what I have discovered. A
man who admits he is usually as broke as I am,
instead of insisting on paying for everything. A man
who opens car doors for me only when they're frozen
shut. A man who is as comfortable in a conversation
about children or cooking as he is in a conversation
about sports or cars. And a man who has a sense of
humor about the whole thing, who doesn't let me
take myself too seriously.
So this is for all those men who have remained
gentle in a locker room that labels them hen-pecked,
and can listen to jokes about chicks without believing
a word of it.
Happy Valentine's Day, Larry.
Dear editor:
The editorial "MUN session was not fun and games
for Indians" expressed a fine sentiment regarding the
status of Indians in their native land, one that I
personally concur with. It is unfortunate, however,
that you chose to express it at the expense of
Nebraska Model United Nations. The editorial implies
that NMUN delegates were embarrassed to hear Mr.
Black Elk speak, happy to see him finish and willing
to ingore his appeal to their consciences as
representatives of the nations of the world.
First, his presentation was the most courteously
received by any of the four-day conference, including
that of Sam Jaffe and the two U.N. diplomats. Frank
Black Elk received from all, and there were hundreds
of delegates present, a standing ovation. The
assassination attempt, coming unfortunately directly
after the speech, was in no way planned or expected
by the staff, and an apology was made from the chair
on behalf of the assembly.
Perhaps the worst and most damaging
misrepresentation in the editorial concerned what was
interpreted as the reluctance of the conference to act
on the resolution proposed. Let me explain to your
readers a fact already known, but ignored, by you.
The consideration of any NMUN resolution involves
some advance preparation. The official deadline for
submission of resolutions was midnight, Feb. 2. 1 did
not hear from Mr. Black Elk until Feb. 6, and his
resolution, together with a request to suspend the
rules, was not presented to me until three hours
before our scheduled adjournment on Saturday.
To summarize: the staff arid delegates to NMUN
1975 bent over backwards to give this man a chance
to present his case. Only Mr. Black Elk's own lack of
interest precluded us from taking action on his
request. If Albers condemns the delegates for not
abandoning the business at hand to deal with this
resolution during the final moments of NMUN, he
condemns himself for not speaking out from his own
position as a delegate. He was there.
The fact that he was there also inclines me to
believe he deliberately distorted the facts of this
matter to facilitate the writing of another angry,
self-righteous, inaccurate editorial his specialty.
Dean Kirby
Secretary -General
Knives lethal
Dear editor:
In response to Chip Treen's letter "Police
professionalism?" (Daily Nebraskan, Feb. 12), let me
say that it is easy to sit back and criticize when you
are not the one being attacked.
Mr. Treen's statement "but only a knife was,
involved" leads me to ask if he feels a knife is not a
lethal weapon. A gun only kills faster and from a
greater distance.
The point is that this incident occurred in a
narrow hallway not a parking lot or lobby and four
men cannot move around in that confined space fast
enough to overpower someone moving in for a kill.
Would it have been better that the man had killed
Det. Buckner and then been overpowered?
Questioning the death of a human is natural and
necessary but before passing judgment look at both
sides. What would you do if you or a friend had just
been stabbed, knocked to the floor, your attacker
was making a second lunge and all that was available
to you was a pistol?
Eric Seberg
Literary snob
Dear editor:
"Jota-Tay stiffened as the Pegian monster
lumbered into view. Crouching, he raised his ray gun
and fired. ZRRGLRMAPF! The beast fell to the earth
with a thud." Who would dare to deny the beauty,
relevance and socially redemptive value of science
fiction writing such as this?
Bruce Nelson tried, but in my opinion he did little
more than establish himself among the ranks of
unyielding literary snobs. His unprovoked slandering
of such a major part of our culture was typical of the
all-knowing pseudo-intellectual pretense so often
adopted by some when trying to be as grossly
subjective as possible.
The only point to his credit was his ability to
make foundationless assumptions and to twist quotes
so that they appear to mean what he wants them to
(which should prove to be very useful in his future
journalistic escapades). Granted he is entitled to his
own views, but I'd hate to see innocent,
impressionable readers adversely influenced by such a
close-minded stance that just happened to be in the
public eye.
Even "hack" examples of writing (such as given at
the beginning of this letter) will stimulate thoughts of
the future and will prevent our imaginations from
stagnating. But I fear any trace of imagination left in
Mr. Nelson's padlocked mind vanished long ago.
Jim Fullerton
Striking blindly
Dear editor:
Let me, if I may, mercilessly borrow a few of your
noble cynic's (that's Bruce!) words: Among the many s
fads, fanatasies and fanaticisms which flicker through
the negligibly intelligent mind of Bruce Nelson is a
craving to strike out blindly against all he cannot see.
Actually, I do not believe that Bruce Nelson wrote
that meaningless attack on science fiction. In fact, I
am not sure that Bruce Nelson even exists. We have
all heard about and probably discounted the theory
that a roomful of monkeys sitting at typewriters
could, if given enough time, someday produce
something intelligible and important, like
Shakespeare's Hamlet (which Nelson so desperately
seeks to convince us he's read). Well, friends, the
monkeys have achieved a near success since we now
have proof that one of them has produced something
that obeys the rules of grammar and punctuation. But
alas, it seems they need more time. Their product (or
could it really be Nelson's?) is neither intelligible nor
important.
Hey Bruce, whatcha Dune behind that typewriter?
When you try to make it in the world of literary
comment and criticism, you are truly a Stranger in a
Strange Land. Grok?
Ladd Petersen
Narrowminded Nook
Dear editor:
My first suggestion to Bruce Nelson would be to
change his column heading to Narrowminded Nook.
My second suggestion would be that he await a revival
of The Abbot and Costello Show as it would provide
a better setting for his literary opinions. With his
shabby 6th grade argumentative style, Nelson has for
the third time in succession confused cynicism with
pseudo-intellectual Archie Bunkerism. Nelson's
categorical dismissal of the entire science fiction
genre reeks of the same "lack of objectivity" he
sneeringly attributes to science fiction readers.
I will readily grant the existence of a great deal of
junk in science fiction, but what area of literature is
free of its share of trash? The English playwright Ben
Johnson once suggested that Shakespeare cranked out
some of his plays in much the same fashion as Donald
Wolheim. You might also note that many of
Shakespeare's contemporaries regarded his plays in
much the same manner that we do soap operas.
Nelson, I doubt that you have read or written
enough to say that all science fiction writers are
illiterate, and I would consider anyone presumptious
enough to make such a gross generalization as being
truly negligibly intelligent. Your cheap use of
out-of-context quotation only further evidences your
lack of a sense of journalistic responsibility.
If you look for trash in literature, you find it. If,
however, you are intelligent enough to spend your
time pursuing the quality material, you will find it. I
believe the English Dept. teaches quality science
fiction. You, sir, have your mind locked on the trash.
Perhaps it is fitting.
Arthur S. Alexander
John Clark
John Kamp
AEE Qw ALF
CPAEAFPl 1HZ 4EP-0
OF THIS COMtC STRIP
WHERE EYTCYSODY TALKS
wrmojr woao baUdons?
i k -Sir
applies to Uon Whe&ler
YES, THAT'S ME.
WE COWlErTY OM 1WB
topical issues of the
day with a satirical
TWlST- WYCRE tU?
MHM IMHlHr II1 I "Ik IIMillWilllfc"lf'l,i f
I'M KB. ACHE Of
"THE ACHE COSTUfAE fc&ttAL
company. I've cone to
REPOSSESS YOU ZlP-A-TONE
HOUSTACHE AND FALSE IHO$.
o ;
DRAT
NOW I'LL HAVE
ID GO AC TO W
OLD COMIC STKW.
A:
1DUGH
LUCK,
CAPH
. j
J-ii
page 4
daily nebraskan
friday, february 14, 1975
