Dear Editor,

I believe Lori Ann_ eckbert’s point regarding he MARY BROWN adver- isement to be well taken. that the ad is sexist is ob- ious. What I fail to un- © erstand is why you, as ed-_ or of the newspaper, need’ seek, confirmation on:this atter-from:OUP “and: thes iiversity community? Af- r last year’s public out- y about sexism in the em I would think that iblic opinion at UPEI to p rather clear. Surely e learned something from at fiasco.

As editor, you have the pbwer of discretion over hat is printed in the em. Following Ms Heck-

ert’s letter you invited aders to comment on the 1 in question. Of the

ree responses to your re-

her concerned itself. with tnan beings as ‘“noth- k but a special kind of mmodity”, and the third alt with the issue; Sex- m in the Gem. I real-

Editor,

I wish to respond to the nonymous letters which ttacked Ms... Heckbert ce her request to have ary Brown’s “legs” ad- rtisment pulled from the ges of THE GEM. Not only is it immature > personally attack some- 1e expressing an. opinion 5 d ‘then’ refiise to. Aipn 1€° s- own” “hame, “but”

Jina to see peo- le support’ sexist adver- ising — although anony- lously. Could it be that fhese people are a little em- - arrassed to admit to hold- lg sexist views in today’s Ociety.

It is obvious that Mary - Brown’s is using sex to ell chicken and objectify- ng women in the’ process. — Yes, I would be just as’ of- ‘ended to see Bob Brown bbjectified in such a man- €r. Sooner or later com-

hest, one. response, was | com Ve

ment tee figs a4 rt’s state of mint an-

ize that everyone is entitled to their own opinion. Per- sonal prerogative is but a component that makes ev- ery person a unique indi-

‘vidual sharing in a larger

societal whole. As such, the

_MARY BROWN as does, in

fact, reduce our exchange value by making reference. to an anatomical part of “over half of the world’s pop- ulation, women. Ms Heck- bert’s article did not deal with verbal sexism at all, but printed sexism. This individual believes that any form of sexism is of great consequence to our _ lives that is only propagated by advertisemetns like the one referred to here.

I question your judge- ment, Mr Editor, for failing to recognise an issue that was well documented last year and for printing a let- ter that was more a per- sonal attack on Ms Heck- bert than a response to the issue. mend Lori Ann Heckbert for having the courage to publically express her views by signing her name to her

ticle. en Paul Peacock

UPEI student

EE ESN TTT AT

panies will realize that the majority of people do not wish to see ANY PERSON degraded and will halt sex- ist advertising. Perhaps THE GEM’s refusal to run Mary Brown's ad would ‘help to enlighten same of

« these companies.

I would encourage any- one who feels offended by

| ‘this: advertisement, or any prs bebhery to express their feel-

“ings. DO NOT LET YOUR SILENCE IMPLY ACCEP- TANCE.

Chanda K. Stevenson

In. closing, T camry 9}

Mr. Editor

In regards to a let- ter submitted 2 weeks ago about the “torture de- vices” and the “bored se- curity guard”, I would like to make a few comments. First, the display at the AVC is a history of vet medicine tools. Ms. Man- derson, have you ever been in a dentist’s office? He has

many ‘torture’ looking de- vices. Have you ever seen the dentist display at the heritage foundation. They look more like torture but are smaller than those at the AVC. Many animals probably owe their lives to the devices at the AVC. Even at the doctor's office there are many weird look- ing devices.

Second, sure the secu-

rity guard probably gets bored; but he is also help- ful for lost students in the AVC. If you’ say, “Hi,” or, “Good morning,” he always smiles and replies back: compared to some people on campus who on a sunny day can warm up to -10 degrees celcius.

Animal Lover

Dear Mr. Webber,

I have three complaints to lodge against the letter written by “Carla, with a k” in the October 16 issue of the Gem.

First, Carla unneces- sarily insults Ms. Mander- son by refering to her as “a fellow ‘student’ (and I use that term lightly).” This

- is a blatant ad hominem on

Tat

6 :

C3c3 oc

y sella

iti tt

RONS

Carla's part and denigrates Ms. Manderson’s academic abilities to the point of in- sulting her.

Secondly, Carla refers to “Ms. Maderson’s bla- tant attack on the integrity of the Security Guard...” Jill simply mentioned that the guard was “bored look- ing.” I challenge Carla to illustrate the logical con- nection between Jill’s triv-

ial and irrelevant comment and the blatant attack on the unnamed guard she is accused with.

Thirdly, if Carla is go- ing to insult Jill Manderson and create such ridiculous red herrings, she should have the integrity to sign her real name to her letters.

Mark Jordan. .

UPSTAIRS

Suk kek kk Coit

MONDAY

TUESDAY

WEDNESDAY.

THURSDAY FRIDAY

‘SUNDAY

LET Titi.

He 24

WE OFFER MORE 7 DAYS A WEEK

SELECTION CONNECTION

let our computer find your perfect date

Student Night half price night Rock to the Hits of the past

9-10 9” pizza and all the beverage on tap you can drink five dollars

CARIBBEAN NIGHT CHANCE TO WIN 8 DAYS IN MONTEGO BAY JAMAICA

other giveaways and prizes

Gong Show featuring

SHORTCUT HAPPY HOUR 4-8

free food

CHEM FREE

dance ta the top 40