TO THE EDITOR:
I appreciate Anna Dardick taking the time to respond to my letter.
I wish she had also taken the time to read it. As I make clear in my letter, I have no problem whatsoever with the stances that Jaslina Paintal takes. If Jaslina Paintal, or any other writer, wants to call out white feminism, she is more than welcome to do so.
I have no objection to divisiveness, although I do disagree with the way of thinking that equates moral virtue with agreement and moral turpitude with dissent.
More broadly, I object to Ms. Paintal’s column not because I believe her stances to be incorrect, because I have a strong attachment to second-wave feminism, because she is “divisive,” or because she confronts progressive ideologies that contribute to oppression, but because her column isn’t well-written or well-argued.
Part of making a point effectively is being charitable to those who disagree. Ms. Paintal’s column fails in that regard, but my primary complaint goes beyond her tone. My primary complaint is that Ms. Paintal is not at all compelling in her presentation of her politics.
The dominant mode of expression in her column is the unsupported assertion, followed closely by the dismissive insult. This is inappropriate for any newspaper, let alone the student newspaper of a top-tier public university. There is no shortage of people who share Ms. Paintal’s ideologies but are able and eager to argue, rather than rant. Give the column to one of them.
David Hawisher
Class of ’15
