In Response

The article was not only an attempt at warped humour, we feel we succeeded.

In no way were we trying to demoralize or degrade women or any other group, in fact, the article specifically said that these were rejected themes; things that should not be used for a wide variety of reasons. In a sense there is no difference among this use, pointing out things that should not be used, and the use in the letter from Ms. Olmstead, which repeats the names that she feels are offensive, using them informationally. Neither is an attempt to propagate or promote their use, both are pointing out things that are NOT acceptable uses. If one is offended by our use in a "rejected" ideas article, one must be offended by their use informatioinally in the complaint itself.

As for how this article would have been received if it had used derogatory terms for other groups, firstly we did! (i.e. religions and cults, speech impediments) Secondly, we did not avoid any groups purposefully, we aimed for a humourous piece; in a humour publication.

We find it hard to understand how pointing out things that should not be accepted are perpetuating their use. When one says that you shouldn't swear, are they propagating the use of swearing? When one goes further and names things you shouldn't say, are they encouraging their use?

Finally the assumption from Ms. Olmstead that the author of this aricle is male is interesting considering the context of the issue. To correct this error we would point out that the original article was written by a group that includes representation from both the male and female genders.

First Undergraduate Committee of Kaos
Preventative Advice Concerning Orientation