You're Out

I never thought it would happen to me,” is a phrase most commonly associated with toothless Midwestern lottery winners, yet here I am about to utter it. As many students know by now, the Oregon Daily Emerald is the student paper that attempts to be our New York Times but inevitably reads more like Parade magazine. When I pick up a copy it is usually because I need to line my beloved pet’s cage. This time I was rather caught by surprise, I found real information on the front page and rescued it just before by bird began to poop. The headline read: “University settles Saferide lawsuit.” Being a registered bleeding heart, I was shocked to hear myself utter, “it’s about time.” Until now, I was pretty sure that conservatism was equivalent to having a grievous mental disorder, when an anonymous female overheard me telling my friends at the bus stop about the article and commented how I was quite the “young Republican.” If being conservative means thinking critically about the unequal distribution of university services, then, so be it.

Since arriving on campus in the fall of ’00, I have seen many gratuitous displays of liberal fanaticism, daily protests, deadlocked petitioners for OSPIRG, and an almost religious dedication to the ramblings of 80’s sitcom star, Woody Harrelson. Saferide is very much a product of this liberal campus; a well-intentioned group sees a cause and immediately throws money at it. I, for one, grow tired of this; that extra dollar in fees here and there is exacting a heavy toll on the booze budgets of my associates and I. Last weekend, we drank whiskey out of a plastic bottle, for Christ’s sake. Admittedly, Saferide does have some social value as assault prevention tool and sorority girl taxi. But, until March 29, 2002, I’ll be damned if I’ll ever get a ride home, which is just one mile outside of DDS’s range. Saferide’s service area covers most of the Eugene area after dark; I could easily commute home in one of its shuttles if only I had the required vagina. Because of Saferide’s bigotry, I must walk 8 blocks from the nearest bus stop through the worst neighborhood in west Eugene and contend with grabby beggars and strung out methamphetamine addicts. Until recently, the other 47% of the student body and I were SOL, if we were beyond the reach of DDS or LTD. This is quite contemptuous, because not only is my safety not as important or valuable as a female student’s but I am also expected to pony up the cash for the pleasure of being insulted.

In an attempt to justify Saferide’s discrimination, an article entitled, “Another Militant Feminist Rant Against Petty Sexist Fucks” ran in the February 2000 Insurgent. This article from title to termination was not only insulting by the callous dismissal of criticism as being “The trivial pastime of misogynist and mean-spirited fools”, but it also contradicted its main premise. The article’s argument went something like this: Women have a right to safety without having to rely on men to protect them, and the University has the responsibility of making sure students’ rights are protected, therefore the university is responsible for women’s safety.

What the author of AMFRAPSF conveniently forgot is that the university is composed of both genders and that men have legitimate assault issues as well. This dismissal is outrageous because its intrinsic premise is “rape is the only crime that count.” Another glaring omission is that stranger rape, the only kind that Saferide can prevent, is the least common form of sexual assault. It fails to solve one of the biggest concerns women have — date rape. The biggest logical error of the feminist Saferide supporter is that by taking money from men to protect the women on campus, women still remain dependent on men for their safety. If a woman is truly to be liberated, she needs to realize that she is in the same dangerous world as her male counterparts and that the correct feminist response to danger is identical to a prudent male’s response to the situation at hand.

The forces of evil are always just outside of striking distance, it seems. The women’s liberation movement of the sixties has, unfortunately, birthed the whiny social victims of today. Luckily, title IX has brought the Saferide program in line with equality. We have no choice in the gender we given; the ORC has done well this time in seeing that we are not penalized because of it. After all, if the University has to sink equal amounts of money into unequally exciting women’s sports it is the least they can do to give us men a lift home from school when the busses stop running also.