I’m a young woman—conscious, proud, and respectful of my mind and body; I’m a staunch supporter and member of the Women’s Issues Club; I’m an editor of The Record; and I’m personally responsible for writing a portion of last week’s editorial. That editorial, as with any, did come from the opinions of the whole board, a diverse group of critical thinking, far from sexist students from all facets of the school. In response to Mr. Bauld’s letter to the editor, calling the usage of the anonymous “we” to express our thoughts in that editorial “cowardly,” I would like to make clear that we were not using the plural as a mask or something behind which to hide. If that “we” is too weak, though, hold me accountable.

I’m afraid the limited space of the editorial caused our—my—opinions to be shortened and oversimplified, and to come off as more glib than I intended. I agree entirely with the heart and fundamentals of Ms. Byland’s eloquent argument: the objectification of women, the use of derogatory words for our body parts — these are real, crucial issues that should be challenged and discussed. I agree with Mr. Bauld that the pattern of the assembly, of male voices and female bodies, is disturbing. I agree with 99% of the issues raised by Ms. Byland, Mr. Bauld, and the WIC during its meeting on Monday; and it has been terrible to feel as though the 1% with which I disagree has set me against those people and their views, because that could not be further from the truth.

It’s just in the matter of how it relates to Mr. Rogowsky’s specific usage of “bazongas” in last Tuesday’s assembly that I disagree. Here, I believe that by saying his adolescent self had mainly liked his neighbor because she had huge “bazongas,” Mr. Rogowsky was entirely mocking himself— not saying that women should be assigned value based on their breasts, but saying that it was stupid and immature of a man to do so.

I certainly did not mean that it is acceptable to say something offensive or demeaning to a woman as long as you follow it with, “Can’t you take a joke?” I just feel that the punch line of Mr. Rogowsky’s comment was Mr. Rogowsky himself, and that is what kept it on the “acceptable” side of the line of what is offensive.

I cannot speak for Mr. Rogowsky as to whether or not that is what he meant by that comment; but I can say that is what I meant in the editorial—no attack on or diminishment of Ms. Byland’s valid argument was meant. Perhaps our call to relax was rash; in any case, it was not fully articulated.

That’s how I took the speech at last Tuesday’s assembly. Do not feel exhorted to agree with me. I am glad that the assembly has generated this level of discussion. I am glad that the administration did not interrupt Mr. Rogowsky, a move that was recommended in Monday’s WIC meeting. That would have felt like censorship. While we are a school and responsible for a level of appropriateness in what is presented—we are also a school and responsible for encouraging critical thought and the development of ideas. It has been a long time since I have questioned my beliefs or thought quite so hard about why I think what I do as I have this week; and I believe the fact that the assembly, Ms. Byland’s Op-Ed, and the editorial are still generating debate is a good thing. As a newspaper editor and a thinker, I am committed to spreading ideas—the last thing I want is for anybody to feel stifled in expressing any kind of opinion.

I don’t think this is a simple, black and white issue; I don’t think there are easy answers; I think there are many layers. I hope that we continue to talk about these layers, and the greater questions they raise, in some kind of organized forum.