Kansas State University’s well known battle cry, EMAW – Every Man A Wildcat – has been stirring up controversy for the past few years. A group of people deemed this term offensive in that it disregards the population of women relevant to the university. The same group has also proposed that the phrase be changed to EPAW – Every Person A Wildcat – in order to be inclusive of more than one gender on campus.

Until recently, I refrained from any sort of established personal opinion or making any sort of statement about this feud. I simply observed the arguments taking place from afar. I still don’t have the passion to definitively take the side of EPAW. However, I will gladly take it over the alternative, since the only objection I have to the suggested phrase is that I think it sounds a little dorky. Other than that petty excuse, I would strongly agree that the side of pro-EPAW doesn’t get enough credit for its motives.

One of the most common arguments I’ve heard from those who are pro-EMAW is that it is, in fact, inclusive of more than just men. They often refer to the term “mankind” or quoting the Declaration of Independence that “all men are created equal,” as it is thought to be inclusive of both men and women.

However, most people think that nowadays that said phrase and that said quote were initially invented only to classify white and heterosexual males. The term “women” was created after identifying humans as men or mankind in an effort to raise certain types of people into a higher power and to oppress what we refer to today as women. If you carefully examine English words and their history, even our language is implicative of women being subordinate to men, hence why some choose to spell the word “woman” as “womyn.”

While I don’t take personal offense to our modern-day English language, I am certainly understanding of why others do. We still practice many traditions today without thinking twice, whose origin of reason was to keep women oppressed: for example a wife taking her husband’s last name when a heterosexual couple marries, the father walking his daughter down the aisle to her future husband during a wedding, etc.

If you dare to argue that women are no longer oppressed like they were before or that gender inequality is no longer a problem, I ask you to think again. Women as a whole are still paid less than men, even if their practice is in the same career field. Women are also the majority of victims of spousal abuse and rape. If you don’t believe me, there are plenty of honest statistics out there that will back up my statement.

I have even more examples I can give of modern-day oppression towards women, but I think my readers will get the point with the ones I have already given.

Another common argument I hear from the pro-EMAW side, even after having realized or knowing my previous statements, is “it’s really not that big of a deal compared to a lot of other things” or “it’s just a phrase, it doesn’t mean anything.”

If that is the case, then why are those on the side of pro-EMAW so up in arms about it as well? If it’s just a phrase, then what does it matter if someone is offended by it? If it’s just a phrase, then what does it matter if the university decides to change it to EPAW?

Changing the phrase would not affect our academic stature, nor would it affect how the university performs at sporting events. We come up with new things to express our Wildcat pride all the time and it hasn’t made a lick of difference in how effectively the facets of K-State are operated. You said it yourself, it’s just a phrase.

In conclusion, my stance on the EMAW or EPAW debate is this: The side that is pro-EMAW isn’t allowed to be offended by the potential change in battle cry until our culture, that targets oppression at those who are not white heterosexual males, is completely fixed. When every person is treated with the same amount of justice, then you are allowed to refer to all people as “men.”

Elizabeth Carlson is a senior in philosophy and women’s studies. Please send comments to opinion@kstatecollegian.com.