Spring enrollment reaches record high; registration frustrations escalate

I fail to even see the point of your replying to the comments for this article. What are you trying to establish? That you don't have trouble with women? Nobody cares, really. You ask that Nicole not reply so harshly to, in your own words, an article "meant to largely induce controversial conversation." Well congratulations, that's what your article did. Don't get defensive when dissenting viewpoints react to your own, otherwise don't pretend that your aim in this article was to create "controversy." If you weren't prepared to receive backlash or arguments against your opinion, don't even bother publishing them. There is a degree of consequence and responsibility you face when publishing something, opinion or not. If you can't face that fact, then stop writing for the Ka Leo.

By the way, everything I wrote is an opinion and has no merit. Just wanted to save some time for you and point that out.

And sorry William, in starting a relationship with a female, whether friendly or romantic, Men have to be the one to open them up. A Woman wants to powerful from the power transferred over by the Man. Girls don't like boys like you because you're the type to wait around and see for the girl to be the man in your relationship.

I read two of your articles in the paper. The one titled “Houseless not Homeless…” and “The Cute Conundrum.” In the former, you seemed enlightened, like you had reached some pinnacle of human understanding and freed yourself from society’s oppressive bonds. In the latter, you seemed a tool of those very bonds. You speak of quiet desperation yet seem unable to see how it affects your sisters. Along with the message of “more, more, more” most women have also been told (explicitly or implicitly) that their greatest achievement in life is to please men. I would like you to take a moment to imagine how such a message may affect one’s spirit. Similarly, imagine how it would feel to be appreciated mostly for your body and approached over and over by people, only to find out that they really don’t care who you are at all. I assure you, this is not how women are “spoiled by males”—at least, not in the way that you meant it. Quiet desperation, indeed.

You started your “Conundrum” article talking about the division between two types of girls: the cute ones and the sexy ones. Such a statement discounts all the achievements, thoughts, and feelings that these girls have and reduces them down to their appearances. This is called objectification. (By the way, what was your reasoning for pairing girls with males rather than girls and boys or females and males?)

“You never try for the sexy girls” yet go on to say that they “want to marry a rich doctor who drives a Mercedes.” Extrapolating traits of select individuals onto a larger population is widely viewed as unsound and unfair (stereotyping), especially when the physical traits are used to predict personalities. My advice is that you stop assuming that part of the “available selection of girls” are “intimidating and unavailable” (more than slightly contradictory) and start seeing them for the complex, thinking, feeling human beings they are. “Stop worrying so much about [their] appearance” and become a real example of how “not all guys are pigs.”

Your objectifying and stereotyping will make it hard for you to relate to people on a personal level and prevent you from learning who they really are. This may have much to do with your difficulty with women. Let’s all commit to creating a world where people “open up” (as you suggested), learn who others are, and not judge their worth by their three-week old beard growth or how “sexy” or “cute” they may be.

To the editors: please consider more carefully the editorials that you publish and their offensive nature. I cannot imagine that you would have published such an article if it was so crudely telling African-American or homosexual students to be more approachable or likeable.