To the editors:
I was reading Arianne R. Cohen’s condemnation of the violent ways of men (Opinion, “Women Don’t Do This,” Sept. 20) when one thought passed through my mind: men don’t do this. Men don’t take a tragedy like last week and selfishly twist it into some kind of ammunition for a personal agenda. A few dozen men may have attacked the World Trade Center, but Cohen seems to conveniently ignore the hundreds of male rescue workers who died trying to save their neighbors, or the thousands of men of the armed services who may make the ultimate sacrifice trying to make this world a safer place.
So men are more violent. Got me there. But women of power can hardly boast blush-free resumes. Queen Elizabeth I oversaw the colonization of the Americas, highlighted by mass genocide of Indians, while leading the persecution and execution of Catholics. Queen Victoria sat idly by while millions of Irish starved to the point of emigration or death. Indira Ghandi introduced mass sterilization, imposed martial law after waiving all civil rights and jailed political opponents. Even Margaret Thatcher, an inspiration to me, has the Falklands and ruthlessness in Northern Ireland to her credit. Women of power are not immune from spells of violence, injustice or sheer abuse of power.
Cohen criticizes our president’s response, but does she need a history lesson on the “hairy-backed war tactics” of Golda Meir in the Yom Kippur War of 1973? She responded with force, as she had to. So may President George W. Bush, as he may have to. Sometimes, the correct action of the state involves the use of force. Gender has nothing to do with it.
Brian C. Grech ’03
Sept. 20, 2001
Neither Do Swedes
To the editors:
Cohen might be right; perhaps women don’t do this (“this” referring to the terrorist activities of Sept. 11, 2001). Swedes also don’t do this—so what? I am afraid I don’t understand the point of blaming large groups for the acts of individuals.
It could likewise be said that men don’t drive their children into lakes (per Susan Smith)—but such statements are inappropriate and useless. Such generalizations about a group lead to the kinds of prejudices that we have seen against Arabs and Muslims in this past week (but for some reason, it is more acceptable to apply them to gender than race or religion). Most men don’t fly planes into buildings either; and, while 98 percent of violent crimes may be committed by men, the majority of men don’t commit violent crimes.
It may be correct that men tend to be more violent then women—but why does it matter? How does placing this blame help us to prevent violence? That women don’t form terrorist groups and attack civilian populations doesn’t prevent some men from doing so.
Kyle B. Peterson ’03
Sept. 20, 2001
Women Terrorists Too
To the editors:
I write in response to “Women Don’t Do This” by Arianne R. Cohen ’03 (Opinion, Sept. 20). I wish to point out that Cohen’s editorial was not only grossly inappropriate, but naive in its assertion that women do not participate in terrorism. On November 29, 1987, two North Korean agents planted a bomb on (South) Korean Air Lines flight 858, in an operation apparently designed to convince the rest of the world not to attend the Seoul Olympics scheduled for the following summer.
The Seoul-bound airplane exploded over Southeast Asia, killing all 115 civilian passengers. When captured, the North Koreans tried to kill themselves, though only one succeeded. The surviving agent, a 25-year-old woman named Kim Hyon-hui, was taken back to Seoul.
Kim was tried and given the death sentence for this murderous act, but the government pardoned her, according to journalist and author Don Oberdorfer, “on grounds that she was merely a brainwashed tool of the real culprits, the leaders of North Korea.” More caustically, another journalist wrote, “‘Virgin bomber’ Kim Hyon-hui fluttered her eyelashes, said she was ever so sorry, wrote a best-seller, and is now a millionaire in Seoul. That’s one lucky mass murderer.” The pardon-vs.-punishment debate aside, there is little doubt that were she not an attractive young woman, the South Korean government would have been less forgiving.
Of course, I do not mean to provide this example to single out North Korea, which has sponsored terrorism in the past but is clearly not responsible for the nightmare of Sept. 11. Along these lines, I believe that it is crucial for all of us to examine critically our motives for fighting a general war against what has become encapsulated in the buzzword “terrorism.” Whatever terrorism is, it is no more monolithic than our old enemy, “communism.”
There are terrorist organizations in many countries, including our own, and although some of them may be connected, they don’t all have identical beliefs, methods, and targets. Nor were they all responsible for these recent attacks. Our leaders need to remember the lessons of our many blunders during the Cold War before they go about painting pictures of a massive world movement that is against “freedom.” This is not a valid excuse to obliterate every regime that we find morally distasteful. We must move beyond easy explanations—including Cohen’s—if we wish to effectively recover from this tragedy.
Aaron R. Miller ’02
Sept. 23, 2001
Men Are Also Heroes
To the editors:
I read with interest Cohen’s article, seeing how I am a woman myself. However, as a woman I was quite disappointed in the negativity directed toward men. Yes, so far the identifiable members of this tragedy on both the terrorist and American side are male, and have reacted accordingly from a male perspective in each case. However, the supposed heroes of the Pennsylvania flight who diverted the flight from its intended target were male. Also male are countless firemen and policemen who gave their lives to help others, as well as many rescue workers and other concerned citizens from New York City.
I am appalled that this tragedy is being used as a way to further cement political agendas and opinions not just by Cohen but by others such as Jerry Falwell or Pat Robertson. Like Cohen said, right now “We need caring solidarity among all Americans. We need to protect our country, to care for the victims and their families and actually identify our enemy.” We don’t need to use the events of last week as an excuse to bash men and smugly assert the moral superiority of one gender over the other.
Annie Zaleski ’02
Sept. 20, 2001
Peace Rally Misguided
To the editors:
I commend The Crimson for its well-reasoned criticism of last Thursday’s peace rally organized by the Harvard Initiative for Peace and Justice (HIPJ) (Opinion, “We All Want Peace,” Sept. 21).
I consider myself to be a peace-loving person with a high regard for the sanctity of life. I would not condone an ill-conceived plan of retaliation resulting in the unnecessary loss of more American lives, nor do I revel in the thought of killing innocent civilians thousands of miles away. But let’s face it: an act of war was made on the United States of America on Sept. 11, resulting in unfathomable human loss and incalculable property damage. As a nation, we simply cannot and should not ignore the fact that nearly 7,000 innocent people were killed (including many foreigners) on our soil by terrorists whose mission is to destroy our values and beliefs. They are jealous of democracy, of freedom, of success, and have perverted their own religion in order to accomplish their goals. Make no mistake: they will not stop their crusade until we stop them first.
While few people really want to go to war, fewer still would want to witness another “day of infamy.” Whether we like it or not, justice can only be achieved, and our safety and security can only be better protected, if this worldwide association of terrorists is eliminated.
I am greatly dismayed, although not surprised, by the outspoken liberal element on this campus which has missed the point. Their rally was noble in its intent of wishing for peace, but failed to provide an alternative reponse to the attack on America. They urge diplomacy and peace, but we are not dealing with a reasonable enemy: anyone who would dare turn civilian aircraft into deadly weapons to kill thousands of innocent people is not reasonable. He is evil.
In addition, I take offense to those who have unjustifiably blamed the United States government for bringing the attacks upon its people through its foreign policy. Whose side are you on? How can you even try to justify these attacks?
What truly enraged me, however, were comments made by a Harvard worker at the rally who heartlessly failed to mourn the deaths of management from the attacks and foolishly lamented that workers are somehow victimized during wartime at the expense of “Big Business, the White House and the military.” How can anybody take the rally’s speakers seriously if this is their mindset?
While I champion free expression, I must shake my head in horror at what is being expressed. Military retaliation might not be the preferred response, but it is the best the U.S. and its coalition can do to show terrorists that violence and evil will not have the last word.
I think Harvard needs to hold a rally of a different sort; one that is supportive of our country, President Bush, his advisors, and our military men and women. We should not be ashamed to be Americans, but proud, and it’s high time that the campus acts like the rest of the nation for once in this regard.
John P. Kachichian ’04
Sept. 22, 2001
