LETTERS: Destroying our bodies and souls

To the Editor: For those who were fortunate enough to not see it, page three displayed two pictures of women wearing provocative and revealing outfits at a fraternity party. Yes, these women do not have the "ideal" bodies that society promotes, but they did not merit the following caption: "The real sin is trying to get away with this, ladies." The sight of this article infuriated me, as well as many of my friends. The article was meant to make fun of the famous Brother Steve, who preaches on College Green, and the editors claimed to be "saving our souls" by writing this. Not only are they not "saving our souls," but they are destroying the souls and bodies of the women on this campus. No one has the right to tell anyone what they can and cannot wear. If it isn't obvious, a large percentage of women on this campus are suffering from negative body image, disordered eating and eating disorders. For some women here at Penn, it is a fight every day to get about of bed. This isn't because they have too much work to do, but because they're afraid of what they may eat that day or when they'll fit in enough time to exercise. Articles such as the one I described above are not helping the situation. GUIDE's goal is to promote positive body image on campus and to educate women and let them know that changing their bodies does not change their lives. To all women out there: Be strong and positive and love your body; it's the only one you've got! Miriam Kiss College '01 GUIDE member Legitimizing language To the Editor: I was very surprised while reading Stephanie Cooperman's column "Linguistic relics of subjugation," (9/30/98) for the reason that she illuminates the word "n-----s" by bringing it new meaning for 1998. While this word was previously defined as ignorant and was used to represent blacks as less than human, Cooperman brings it back into text for us today. She states that, "Americans must be made to see the word as part of Ku Klux Klan rhetoric, not as a description of a portion of blacks in this country because the defining characteristics of the subgroup are vague if not entirely blurry." Is this statement supposed to mean that there are a group in the U.S. that she does classify as n-----s? She sums up the new racist use of the word to identify the lazy, non-working, illiterate blacks in this country. I was under the impression that educated, or at least sympathetic white people had laid the word n----- to rest from their vocabularies aeons ago. I do not subscribe to the idea that there are two types of blacks in this country. And I think it is a highly provincial view for a white woman to take in defining the way the black community defines itself. I also think it is hypocritical of her to say how she believes Afro-Americans should use/not use this word, which she herself brings back into context and legitimizes among white elite for the new millenium. I truly feel that it is naive of the author to sight a black comedian's performance at Def Comedy Jam and state that he doesn't know the harmful effect of this word. I feel the same way about bringing this new usage into the non-black mainstream vocabulary. Regina Guidette College '99