Guilfordian
Volume LXIV, No. 10
ERA and child care endorsed
Poll reveals variety of opinions
By Kathy Neckerman
Staff Writer
"I'm for equal pay for work
ers, but I'm not a women's
libber. I like having doors
opened for me." I remember
that from my high school days.
Women wanted equal rights,
and men were willing to grant
them, but many people didn't
want more fundamental chang
es in male and female roles.
Does that pattern exist at
Guilford? Most of the 39 people
who returned the opinion poll
were positive on equal rights
and careers for women. How
ever, responses were mixed on
other questions such as non
sexist language, or inherent
differences between men and
women.
For instance, two questions
upon which students agreed
were about women in business.
Respondents overwhelmingly
rejected the ideas that a man
should be favored for a job on
the assumption that he would
remain with the company
r m ITmfwM Eft
'
_.. jjV ~- tf Jra^E
The Quaker room in Guilford's library was the site of much of the
research for "Women of Guilford County."
Women of Guilford' published
The Greensboro Commission
on the Status of Women an
nounces the publication of
Women o( Guilford County,
North Carolina. A Study of
Women's Contributions from
1740-1979.
The project began as a bicen
tennial project under the joint
sponsorship of the Status of
Women Commission and the
Carolina Chapter of the Nation
al Conference of Christians and
Jews. Author Paula Jordan and
researcher Kathy Manning,
both specialists in local history,
did much of their research in
Guilford's Quaker collection in
the library.
The book is a first of its kind.
It is a major record of women's
work and contributions at the
longer, and that women are
biologically unable to withstand
the pressures of the business
world.
The ERA was endorsed by
most respondents, although (or
perhaps because) the majority
doubted that the amendment
would substantially change the
Silent majority. . . .
alive and comatose
lives of people in this country.
Also receiving approval by
most were funding for abor
tions for poor women, child care
for all working parents, and
overwhelmingly, women's act
ive participation in religious
procedures Apparently John
Paul It's stance against the
ordination of female priests is
vigorously opposed.
Non-sexist language was the
most controversial question.
Most men and a few women
disapprove of phrases such as
"chairperson" or "he/she" de-
community level. Set in the
contest of Guilford County his
tory, the material is presented
as an historical review with
biographical sketches. Of the
350 women mentioned in the
survey, 41 are Quaker.
The concluding chapter out
lines the leadership roles of
women living and working
today in Guilford County.
The book provides a useful
starting point for those interest
ed in future research into the
role of women at a local
community level, but is intend
ed for the general and the local
reader.
Copies are now available for
sale in the Guilford College
bookstore.
Guilford College, Greensboro, N.C. 27410
signed to eliminate sex bias in
language usage.
The question elicited strong
negative comments, including
one statement which call non
sexist language "ignorant",
"repulsive" and "demeaning to
the English language". How
ever, a less vocal half of the
respondents agreed that non
sexist language is worth a little
Kathy Neckerman
Editorial
Something rotten in Tehran
By Beth Eakes
Layout Editor
There is something rotten in
Tehran. It smells of forgotten
idealism, blind fanaticism, rev
olutionary "justice" and stup
idity.
Persia has a very long history
of despotism and has not yet
transcended it. Liberty, self
determination and freedom
from religious tyranny are all
Western values. That is why
Khomeini hates the West.
People have called him crazy;
he is crazy like a fox. The
promised paradise on earth has
not yet come to Iran (It's not
even close), and it will not come
simply because the dead are
avenged and someone else
holds the Shah's money bags.
Komeini is throwing a smoke
screen before the eyes of the
Iranian people by channelling
revolutionary energy toward
hatred of the West and away
from the defects of their own
government.
The Shah is worth more to
Khomeini alive and in exile than
dead in Tehran. If the United
States had complied by sending
the Shah back in chains with his
money beside him, Khomeini
inconvenience or awkwardness.
Also controversial was the
issue of inherent differences
between men and women. 17
respondents said they exist,
while 21 disagreed.
Interestingly enough, belief
in the absence of inherent
differences between the sexes
was not necessary for support of
women's or men's liberation
movements. Most respondents
approved of both the men's
movement and the Women's
Center, while only two were
certain that neither were impor
tant. Several people mentioned
a men's center or men's studies
program.
Do these results represent
fairly the opinions of all stu
dents at Guilford? People with
whom I disscussed the survey
speculated that those sympa
thetic to women's issues would
be more likely to return their
questionaires. The results,
which show responses favorable
to the women's movement
certainly support, though they
would have been truly dismay
ed.
But the U.S. cannot and will
not do that. Saudi Arabia's oil
we need. Iran's we do not -- not
if it is mixed with blood.
But what should be done?
While it may be a painful
necessity for President Carter to
practice restraint until the im
mediate problem of the Ameri
can hostages is resolved, the
Iranians must not be allowed to
get away with their insult. The
United States will have to do
something.
Carter's decision to end U.S.
purchases of Iranian oil obvi
ously was something. But it
satisfied hardly anybody. Iran
probably would have cut off its
oil shipments anyway. Since
Iran will have no problem
selling all the oil it wants to, the
Carter action is not punitive and
therefore, not satisfying.
People seem to want more.
But what? A bombing raid when
the hostages are no longer in
jeopardy hardly makes sense.
What purpose would it serve?
Even if the hostages should
be slaughtered, what would be
November 28, 1979
can not prove, this idea.
The fact that only 39 people
out of over 1000 students an
swered and returned the survey
shows that the silent majority is
alive and comatose at Guilford.
I have no rebukes, only ques
tions for those who answered
and those who didn't.
The fact that I happen to like
the opinions of most of the vocal
minority doesn't allay my con
cern about this pattern. What
happens to governments of, for,
and by the people if opinions
are expressed and decisions are
made by only a few?
In addition, sex roles are not
unavoidable matter as laws and
social customs change. Is the
small response to the opinion
poll an indication that many
people fell threatened by these
issues which will affect their
lives in fundamental ways? This
also bodes ill for our society.
The Women's Center will not
have been futile if it has
stimulated questions in your
mind and dialogue with others.
the point of military action?
Enough to kill sixty Iranians?
Ten times that many? The
Ayatollah himself?
In the first place, it is by no
means clear that the Ayatollah
is in control of events in his own
country. In the second place,
there is the problem of deciding
on an action that satisfies both
our desire for venegeance and
our desire to think of ourselves
as decent, law-governed
people.
It goes without saying that we
cannot satisfy their quest for
justice, (as they see it) by
handing over the Shah, whom
they see as a bloody criminal
What is harder to accept is
that it simply may not be
possible to devise any retalia
tory move that would satisfy our
own sense of insult and outrage
while at the same time perserv
ing our sense of American
decency.
We can bring our people
home and send their's packing.
We can tell Iran to keep their
oil. But not much else. That
empty feeling of unrequited
insult will be with us a long
time.