I applaud Technician for its publication of Nielsen’s commentary in yesterday’s paper, considering the upcoming Harrelson Lecture will be delivered by bioethicist Dr. Leon Kass, noted for his extensive commentary on the disappearance of courtship in our society.

I, too, take issue with the idea of attending a university solely for the purpose of pursuing the “Mrs. degree” because it wholly misses the purpose of a liberal education. The author, however, also seems to miss this nuanced point. In our society, we are fortunate to have the privilege of an education to better ourselves as citizens, give us a foundation upon which we can make informed and relevant decisions in choosing the leaders of our democratic state and provide us the social context in which we can raise our own children to deal effectively with the world. Yes, college is “about educating ourselves and furthering ourselves,” but not, as the author states, solely so.

In her notion of a “Miss degree,” she further overlooks the fundamental problems that have led to the crisis of the apparently missing family values we currently face. Her stipulations include marriage as “a vow taken as a declaration of love,” and she lambastes women whom she claims halt their ambitions and goals at the altar. The woman who “decreases or simply stops” working to raise her children is fulfilling her biological purpose and her propagative nature.

The skyrocketing divorce rate, prevalence of illegitimate children and need for abortion would be eliminated if we understood marriage as a promise, a commitment and the only manifestation of a couple’s desire to give new life and retain permanent, joint responsibility for it. Men and women both have a responsibility to “pay back for the gift of life and nurture [that they have received] by giving life and nurturing in return,” as Dr. Kass put it. A loving, involved and profoundly meaningful marriage is specifically designed to serve this purpose, and a woman who chooses this path should be celebrated, not attacked.

Ben GaddySeniorElectrical Engineering

—

In Greg Behr’s commentary about the various sledding sports in the winter Olympics, he talks about skeleton sledder Zach Lund and makes the remark, “Skeleton racing would not necessarily be a sport where someone doping would have an advantage.” He implies the sports where doping makes more sense are the endurance-type sports like cycling, but I think he omits the important fact that doping affects all types of strength — enduring strength and explosive strength. While the benefits to enduring strength are obvious, I’d like to remind everyone of the doping controversy in baseball. The home-run sluggers don’t dope to help their endurance so they can run around the bases several times without getting tired after they hit those homeruns. The doping helps them for that split second when they crack the bat to the ball. This is much the same situation in sledding because a tremendous, explosive start could easily make a difference of several seconds in the end. Doping is a serious issue in all types of sports. I think it might make a good subject of an article or series of articles in the future.

Also, I think it’s very interesting to note that, in the case of Lund and his suspected anti-doping medication, he has been using the medication for several years because baldness was a problem in his family. For years, he checked the list of banned medications, but this one wasn’t on it. Finally, he just accepted that it was legal, and the list was changed recently without him realizing it. He is being investigated for using a drug that was allowed for many years but now suddenly isn’t, and it’s not even a performance enhancer at all, but something that merely has the potential to mask a performance enhancer. Hopefully he is cleared of any wrongdoing.

Andrew SnyderSophomorePhysics and Nuclear Engineering

—

I must say, I was disappointed in the Viewpoint article presented in Thursday’s Technician entitled “Mrs. degree has no place in a feminist world.” Why is it, in a society where there is “freedom for all, equality and the drive for career” (as the author so clearly states), we are limiting the range of a woman’s choice concerning what she wants to do with her career? I don’t know about you, but I see motherhood as a career. Think about it, if a woman opts to become a stay-at-home mom, she assumes a 24-hour-a-day, 7-day-a-week, 52-week-a-year role. This is opposed to the eight-to-five job most people refer to when discussing “career.” She is still providing for her family (just not in the “typical” financial way most consider), and she is still choosing what she WANTS to do. Ms. Nielsen assumes in her article the women who choose this role are somehow being forced into it, but I would beg to differ. I have plenty of friends who have a genuine desire to do nothing more than to get married, have a family and provide for them by staying at home. Who is to say that option is not as good as choosing to have a family and then go off to a job every day, leaving your child in the care of another — whose choice to care for someone else’s child, mind you, is somehow seen as better than the mother’s choice to stay home and care for her own? That just doesn’t make sense.

Now please, don’t get me wrong. I plan to finish my degree, to graduate school and then work, and if the Lord blesses me with a husband, then I will deal with that when the time comes. That route, however, is not for everyone. “You can be anything you want to be” is a phrase heard by so many little girls when they ask their parents, “Mommy, Daddy, what should I be when I grow up?” The fact her desire is to be a stay-at-home mother should be privileged no less than a woman who chooses to go on to run for president of the United States. Let her choose what she wants; isn’t that what a society where there is “freedom for all” entails, anyway?

Christine WeisgerberJuniorPsychology

—

Mrs. degree will always be key

It doesn’t make any sense at all to condemn women, hopeful for a good husband and eventually a family, for going to college mindful that it could be a place where a suitable mate is found. Women and men have a natural longing for family, and without such, obviously the human race would have no continuation in a ‘feminist world.’

Even if a woman has no direct intent to find immediate employment in her degree field, instead opting to start a family, there is nothing wrong with this — in fact, it’s wonderful. Any of us who have lasted through college more than two years can agree it’s not just an education you hope to ‘use.’ If your disposition as a student and a member of the campus community is proper, college is a positively life-changing and shaping experience that’s indispensable. Whether you seek a job or not, you are now more educated, experienced and mature than you were four or six or eight years ago.

Women college graduates are no exception. College-educated women are smart, capable and better with time management and sacrifice. What better wives and mothers than these more whole, rounded people? To condemn college-educated women for seeking family-centeredness would be to decrease the number of children raised with good education and inspiration. College-educated women will raise smart children and drive them to happiness and achievement.

Don’t get me wrong, I agree seeking out a man with a high-earning potential to latch onto for support of ‘non-working habits’ is not right. On that point, I agree with (I will assume) Ms. Nielsen.

Ms. Nielsen asks, “How could someone grow up in today’s world and still want nothing more for herself than marriage?” Let me tell you how. News flash: Marriage deserves to be referred to with more respect than “nothing more than.” The people who see it as “just” marriage are more often than not either 1) Hollywood superstars or 2) going to end up in the 50-plus percent statistic of divorce. Marriage is a serious institution and a tremendous joy to those who embrace it properly. It’s not the thing people who respect it “resort to” if they can’t achieve their dreams.

Career should serve marriage and family (if you desire marriage) — not the other way around.

Nielsen follows, “How can goals and ambitions be halted at the altar?” Well Ms. Nielsen, they are not halted at the altar. At that moment, they’re transformed from “What do I …” into “What do WE want to achieve for ourselves? What can WE do? How can WE be the best parents to our children? How can WE give to the community and the world in an incredible and invaluable way?” It has been proved time and time again that no matter who or where you are or how rich or poor, living life solely for yourself provides no lasting satisfaction.

The question from brilliant women seeking education, as well as family, to those who are simply self- and career-centric should be, “With so much love to give and receive, how could anyone place material things and career advancement over true happiness?”

Answer me this … Which one of us — any of us — wants to live out retirement and die rich, accomplished, respected and … alone?

Brad SafranskiSeniorComputer Engineering

—

I think that as a country we would be better off getting RID of the outdated Social Security system all together and let the worker decide what he or she wants to do with the money because managing Social Security is a lot more of a hassle than it is really worth. Instead of merely privatizing the program, Bush needs to get rid of it all together and return the millions of dollars taken to the rightful owners. The people know much more about managing their money than the federal government. The government is irresponsible and spends it for useless things (in the billions of dollars), like the war in Iraq and missile defense.

Praveen SriramSeniorAIS