PerspectivesPerspectivesPerspectivesPerspectivesPerspectivesPerspectlvesPerspectivesPerspectivesPersp
Rape Poem an Unfa
Natasha Colburn
Guest Writer
Between Henry Hood's letter calling
affirmative action "racist," and John
Toivonen calling the issue of concern over
his poem "definitely a case of censorship,"
The Guilfordian last published left me
thoroughly disgusted. Because lam better
versed in feminism than in issues sur
rounding racism such as affirmative ac
tion, I will respond to the latter and pray
someone else will answer Henry Hood's
ravings. Please keep in mind that the two
articles are not unrelated. "Reverse ra
cism" and "reverse sexism" ("If a woman's
name had been on the poem, it would
probably have been OK," said Toivonen)
are both conceptually inconsistent terms
often used by those afraid of losing power
(i.e. white people, men, etc.) in order to
twist and distort the idea of "working for
equality" to work for them. I think both
Hood and Toivonen are —in different
ways—exploiting and distorting the ideas
they claim to be supporting.
After seeing Toivonen triumphantly
waving his "banned books" signs and
buttons the day after the Publications Board
meeting in which his poem was discussed,
I assume him to be identifying himself
with those artists whose work has been
banned or censored by the government.
He seems to think his to be a struggle for
Tritsch Letter Justified
To the Editor:
In her eagerness to point out an "inaccurate portrait,"
Carol Crane makes misleading assumptions about Dana
Tritsch and her letter from Guadalajara. I have laid in the
sun on the beach at Puerto Vallarta and I see poverty on the
streets of Guadalajara every day—these things exist how
ever they may be construed.
But Crane suggests that these images areTritsch's essen
tial vision of Mexico, aridiculous assumption. Anyone who
has been to Mexico knows there are so many facets to this
country, one cannot help but absorb the atmosphere of
Puerto Vallarta, Barrade Navidad, Guanuato, Uruapan... all
strikingly different from one another. And one letter cannot
possibly capture the essence of all these places. But then
Tritsch's intention was not to give any broad description of
her Mexican experience.
She has simply taken an experience in Puerto Vallarta (a
trip included in program tuition), and a confrontation with
poverty in Guadalajara and juxtaposed them, creating a
stark contrast between the luxury and wealth one finds as a
tourist in Puerto Vallarta, and the hunger and desperation
you encounter on a daily basis as a student living in
Guadalajara. The difference between Guadalajara and
Puerto Vallarta is that the poverty is masked in the latter.
If one goes to Puerto Vallarta and falls prey to the mask
of luxury, reality will certainly slip through the cracks when
you walk down the streets of Guadalajara and see dis
traught, helpless souls who sink into the crack between the
ground and the wall until they become only apparitions
which haunt us with pangs of hunger and desperation.
Tritsch illustrates this contrast well in her letter. She is not,
as Crane suggests, a victim of ignorant stereotypes. Nor
ir Glamorization of Serious Issue
artists' rights. But censorship, the process
by which a government keeps information
or ideas from the people, is not equitable
with the informal process of selection by
which a community like Guilford decides
what it wants to publish for itself.
Censorship is a tool used by those in
power to keep a minority or dissenting
group silenced: to keep the oppressed
oppressed. Toivonen, who is white, male,
and co-editor of the Piper, has chosen to
ignore the fervent requests to leave his
poem in or out of the magazine—even
though he implies that his is a sort of
feminist poem. Then he shouts censor
ship, as if his constitutional rights were in
jeopardy.
The concept of censorship is out of place
in this situation. The three women in
volved are not the government, nor are
they in socially dominant positions of
power; besides, there was no intention of
forcing Toivonen to withdraw his poem. It
was made very clear that their goal was to
talk to Toivonen and explain that it of
fended them and why; hopefully, he, being
a self-proclaimed feminist, would listen to
women and be respectful to them when
writing about a women's problem—rape.
He did not listen, instead he became defen
sive and stubborn. This is not about the
First Amendment; this is about pride and
hypocrisy.
In order to justify his closed ears,
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
does she avoid questions of social justice and political ideology.
Regardless of what questions we ask, what energy we expend
to deep-reaching issues, we must also be able to relate to people
on a simple emotional basis as Tritsch has shown in her letter.
Does Crane mean to say that because Tritsch feels compassion
for a little girl she's not conscious of such issues—or was she
referring to only herself? Perhaps instead of giving away her
popcorn, Tritsch should have asked the Mexican girl the politi
cal ramifications of PRI and the social consequences of her
poverty.
As for the last paragraph. Crane should follow her own
advice, and challenge herself to find the truth in Tritsch's letter.
Often when we read things, we see what we want to and not what
is actually written. Though I agree with Crane's last statement,
Tritsch did not in any way equate "cultural exchange" with a
lower drinking age and a favorable exchange rate. We must
challenge ourselves to find the truth in what we read.
Victor Johnson
Employment Still Biased
To the Editor:
Henry Hood's letter in the last Guilfordian (November 19)
revealed some common misconceptions about the issue of
affirmative action. Hood's description of the "injustice" of
affirmative action makes the blaring assumption that minorities
are presently living within a just system. He equates affirmative
action with preferential treatment, failing to recognize the
enormous privilege whites have in relation to people of color.
The statement that affirmative action "encourages blacks to
rely in past oppression" implies that oppression of blacks no
longer exists, and therefore assumes that whites in power are
Toivonen explained that those who ob
jected to his poem just didn't understand it,
they misinterpreted it, they're just "a small
group of people who don't know what you
(as an artist) are doing." I find this attitude
insulting, patronizing and absolutely with
out reason. The poem itself is not so
complex: neither are the objectors so
simple. These are three intelligent women
who are well-read and highly aware of
sexual imagery and all its implications,
who have thoroughly contemplated this
issue, and who have discussed matters
with Toivonen, the entire Pub Board, and
a number of others. How can anyone
dismiss their objections as "a misinterpre
tation of the poem?"
The women involved understand that
Toivonen'spoem was supposed to be"anti
rape," but they also understand, as he does
not, that it ended up glamorizing (and
therefore trivializing) rape—something he
surely did not mean to do. In other words,
it isn't the three women who've misinter
preted the poem, rather it is Toivonen who
has apparently misinterpreted—or at least
misrepresented—the meaning of rape.
It was also suggested by Toivonen that
the imagery of his poem was simply too
strong and powerful for some to handle;
this claim simply doesn't hold up. The
people concerned about this poem are
thoroughly aware of the violence and power
of rape. Some have studied it, some have
THE GUILFORD IAN December 3, 1990 ~
experienced it, and all (women) live with
the probability of at some time encounter
ing a rapisL The images we hold in our
heads and the memories we hold in our
bodies are far more powerful than
Toivonen's puny mosquito motif. The
complaint is that the imagery is too roman
tic or sentimental, not that it's too strong.
After all is said and done, the real out
rage is not toward John Toivonen's poem,
nor is it towards those in charge of the
Piper. The problem I see is that in this
conflict there has been no recognition of a
basis responsibility which should be held
in the forefront of our decision-making. It
is the responsibility of a community to
listen to those who have been genuinely
offended within the community. This
responsibility is doubled when those hurt
are of an oppressed and socially-degraded
class; it is tripled when the offense is made
in the name of empowering or helping
these very people.
John Toivonen claims his offense is
unintentional but does nothing to amend it.
Women students have reasoned; over and
over they have explained their insight and
concern; and finally, in order to dissociate
their names and energies from an endorse
ment of the poem, they have resigned their
positions on the Piper staff. Why are their
testimonies not trusted? Why are they not
treated as the valid and valuable communi
cation that they arc?
only there because they are harder working and more intelli
gent. The creation of affirmative action in part came out of
the understanding that selection for employment is biased.
Carol Joy Crane
Elia Mavronikolas
No Equating Situations
To the Editor:
Henry Hood's letter to The Guilfordian was convoluted as
full of errors in logic. Hood's point was unclear. Is the
"racism" Hood is talking about the affirmative action that
supposedly hurts blacks? Or the blacks-voting-for-blacks
that supposedly hurts whites? Who is Hood looking out for?
I want to make a simple point: there is no equating blacks
(and whites) working for the advancement of the black race
race with whites (and blacks?) working for the advancement
of the white race.
Eliza Blake
The Guilfordian welcomes all readers to submit letters to
the editor. Letters should be legible, preferably typed and
double-spaced. They must be signed, dated and include the
author's phone number and address. Please include a sug
gested title. Anonymous letters will not bepublished. Letters
should be limited to 300 words and be of general reader
interest. Letters and editorials do not necessarily represent
the views of the newspaper or its editors.
The Guilfordian and its staff reserve the right to edit for
length, clarity and taste, and to withhold letters. Letters
should be mailed to P.O. Box 17717 or delivered to the
Publications Suite, second floor Founders Hall, by 5 p.m.
Thursday.
3