In response to ‘Unconstitutional on its face’ Feb. 18, 2008

Posted by Jon Tingley on Feb 18, 2008 at 07:21 AM:
Is this surprising at all? The SA is a joke. The only reason people pay attention to them anymore is because we ask the question, “what could they possibly do next?" The SA is certainly bordering on a hate-mongering institution and has absolutely no connection to the students it represents and STEALS money from.
When will UWM students catch a break?

Posted by Ross Corbett on Feb 18, 2008 at 10:33 PM:
We have the right of free speech in this country so the people in power can't control what other people say, the hardest part of free speech is putting up with the things that people say that you do not agree with, the SA obviously does not get that and they need a wake up call, I find it sick that they are trying to hinder anyones free speech on campus.

Posted by Allyson K. Wartick on Feb 19, 2008 at 07:56 AM:
I don't agree with censorship, however, I couldn't agree more with Senator Kristopeit's stance on this by sponsoring the bill and then voting against it.

Where do you draw the line between personal attacks and just defacing an organization in general? You may say that there is no line, because the people in the organization are the ones who give it a bad name, but then shouldn't they be branded more specifically than just targeting the organization at large?

Shouldn't a problem be rooted out at the source and not just attacked blindly as a whole? Perhaps there are issues that people want to take up with specific MEMBERS of SA, but just because you have policy issues with those individuals does not mean that the organization as a whole should be so defamed.

I agree with Tyler wholly that free speech is the most important and needs to be protected here, but also think about how badly SA is represented to the campus as well. People like to blame SA at large, rather than targeting the specific problem most of the time. Why would anyone want to get involved with an organization like SA, when all they hear about it are the negatives? Surely students don't want to be a part of something that is looked upon with such disdain by our University's main newspaper.

Target the people, not the organization. We need people in our student government, and we need students to be interested and want to get involved. You will never change this organization if all you do is continue to convince people that it is an evil at large.

In response to ‘Sedition Act shot down at SA meeting’ Feb. 18, 2008

Posted by Your Valentine on Feb 18, 2008 at 11:42 AM:

Dear UWM Post writers,

Thank you for covering the misdeeds of the SA; thank you for trying to hold them accountable to their constituents.

Don't let them bully you the way they try to bully the student body.

Ignore the irrational, reactionary venom that they spew. Keep up the good work.

Like Woodward and Bernstein, your deeds are commendable.

Posted by Dumbfounded on Feb 20, 2008 at 07:37 PM:

Clearly SA has missed the idea of an INDEPENDENT Election Commissioner. If SA was so concerned about students trusting the elections, maybe it should try, I don't know, appointing someone who isn't one of their good buddies? Just a thought.

In response to ‘Beware, the feminists’ Feb. 18, 2008

Posted by A feminist on Feb 18, 2008 at 09:30 AM:

You are so privileged that many feminists came before you to open the doors that you apparently want to slam in others' faces. Your condemnation of all feminism has ever accomplished is odd coming from a college educated woman. You might want to think about leaving UWM since the original founders of Milwaukee Downer College was a feminist set on educating women. If you graduate from here then your name will forever be attached to a feminist institution. Are you planning on voting tomorrow? If so, you can thank those evil feminists Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony (they clearly are the worst of the worst).

Are you planning on working from the home after you graduate? If so, you are in a position that gives you a choice that few women have either because they aren't dependent on a man's salary or that isn't enough to pay the bills. You accuse feminists of hating men so I wonder how you account for feminist men? Don't kid yourself that they don't exist. It appears as though you are the one spewing hate and condescension. You assume that you and your fellow conservatives are the only ones able to think critically. You assume that many feminists do not have male partners because we hate them so much. Your rhetoric shows that you are the one incapable of thinking critically.

Posted by Allyson K. Wartick on Feb 19, 2008 at 10:28 AM:

I have no problem staying home and being a housewife if my husband wants to bring in a salary that's gonna alleviate me from working and provide the right kind of environment for me to raise a family in.

I don't like how feminists rage against women who want to be stay at home moms. The more I work in an office, the more competitive that I get into politics and activism, and the more I look at having a career and where it’s going, the more I'd rather stay home and do something else. However, I don't think I should be punished or looked down on for that. There are a lot of women who have to make difficult decisions and try to strike a balance when it comes to having a career vs. having a full home life.

Wanting to stay home doesn't make me any less of a feminist, and I'm really kind of tired of hearing that you can't be a feminist if you hold to more conservative and/or traditional values.

It's not that I don't appreciate women who have "paved the way" or "opened doors" it's just that I can accept the fact that women will never completely replace men; they’re not men! There were things to fight for back then, like voting rights and stuff, but is it imperative that we have a female president? No. Will it happen eventually? I'm sure it will. Things happen over time. I'm sure there were women at the time of the revolution who wanted to be able to vote and participate in the new democracy, but did they think it was going to happen immediately? Probably not. What did they do about it? They moved on with their lives at the time and focused on doing what they did well and advancing themselves by gaining the respect of others around them.

The thing I don't like about the feminist movement is that it has turned into an intolerant, haughty, and spiteful movement that makes no effort to include feminists like myself, who would promote success through effort and achievement, rather than favoritism like affirmative action or labeling something as “sexist” and making a huge scene out of something that really is nothing. I’m not holding women back, I just don’t understand why we apparently have to be rude, controversial, and ultimately obnoxious to get ahead anywhere, or to be truly considered as “feminists”.

What does Code Pink really do for the feminist movement other than make people hate feminists more? What does Cindy Sheehan do for us to advance us as women other than convince people that she’s an anti-American and ungrateful slob of a woman? What does Speaker Pelosi truly do for us other than divide congress even further and implement PC and biodegradable cafeteria food on the hill? (Oh I forgot she’s a master of dirty looks during the state of the union) What is Hillary really doing to help us as women? I’m tired of hearing the gender card, and I’m tired of receiving a bad rap for women because of what so many feminists who get the spotlight have to say.

> Comments