54 items found for your search. If no results were found please broaden your search.
(12/09/13 5:00am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>This year is coming to a close and, as we move toward a new year, we reflect on the one that was. Musical montages, news reviews and obituaries of those we lost this year attempt to condense one year of life into a digestible snapshot.One such attempt was a video titled “How the Media Failed Women in 2013.” The video began with several examples of ways in which women have made strides toward changing their public perception. Quickly, though, the feeling changes. New examples show the sexualization of women, challenges to their intellect and gross examples of misogynistic portrayals throughout the media.The problem is, I’m not sure what we’re supposed to do with that information. It becomes clear that there are images that demonstrate themes that anyone who respects women and their diversely significant roles in society can’t possibly support. It isn’t, though, the media that has failed women. It’s media consumers.We love to blame the media for our intake. In truth, though, it isn’t the media that tells us how to feel or how to act, but the other way around. We, as people, create the media.We have an incredible selective memory. We constantly acknowledge that media is a business and that money is the primary focus. We shouldn’t be surprised when the most lucrative media portrayals are also the ones that make us the most uncomfortable.A perfect example of this is the song “Blurred Lines” by Robin Thicke. The song, which was featured in the video mentioned above, discusses themes that should enrage women (and men for that matter), should be taken off the radio and should be the shame of the artists who contributed. Instead, it broke the record for longest tenure atop the Billboard R&B/Hip-Hop chart with 16 weeks, as well as being nominated for a Grammy for Record of the Year. We can’t expect change after we say we are so upset by the way our media portrays women if we continue to purchase the songs that so thoroughly destroy what feminism and its proponents help to create.The sad reality is that sex still sells, as much as we wish that it wouldn’t. Commercials that show the most skin get the most attention, songs and videos with the most sexualized themes still get the most downloads, and the celebrities that flaunt their bodies still get the boldest headlines.We most definitely have a problem. The way the media portrays women is unacceptable and desperately needs to change. To do that, though, we cannot continue to blame “the media” as a corporate institution. There are clearly three groups involved: the producers, the product and the consumers. This video attempts to blame the product, but the reality is that the producers and consumers are the ones who are in need of reevaluation. Without contributions from both, the cycle will only continue.— azoot@indiana.eduFollow columnist Austin Zoot on Twitter @austinzoot12.
(12/02/13 5:00am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>Today is Cyber Monday, the day Christmas shoppers can take to the Internet and get all of their stocking stuffers online at a deep discount. It follows a weekend of events including Small Business Saturday, Black Friday — oh, and that other holiday: Thanksgiving.Five or six years ago, Black Friday shopping began in the wee hours of Friday morning. Waking up at 6 a.m. was considered crazy but necessary behavior if you wanted the best deals. Three or so years ago, midnight became the new fad. Retailers have continued to push the limits, opening earlier and earlier, encroaching on Thanksgiving’s territory.The imposition of capitalism and materialism on a day that is supposed to be meant for thankfulness and spending time with family has distressed many consumers, leading to heated backlash against the early openings. Not only does Black Friday stand morally oppositional to the notion of Thanksgiving, but it also draws workers away from their families.The concept of Black Friday was not one that arose out of the blue. It is a direct reaction by the producer to better reach its consumer. Demand has continued to increase, with shoppers willing to go to further and further lengths to get the best deals. It isn’t up to the companies selling their products to decide how much of your Thanksgiving is given to retail rather than relatives. It is up to the customers to decide how much they are willing to allow.Americans are faced with a decision, then. If enough of the population is upset by the intrusion upon Thanksgiving, then it is time for individuals to stand against the continually earlier start time. Businesses were opening this year at 8 p.m. Thursday, not because of some malicious desire to steal you away from your family, but because you were waiting outside of their doors in the cold at 8 p.m. last year when they opened at 10 p.m. Whatever they can do to get you into the store, they will do. It is thus up to the customer to decide when the deals stop being sweet enough to outweigh the costs. If you stop showing up, they won’t open. It is truly that simple.That isn’t to say that there wouldn’t be some loss of discounts. There may be some savings lost to someone more willing to forgo dessert with the family in favor of saving some dough. Yet, it only took a few years for the Black Friday monster to get to where it is. It would take only a few years of tough love by shoppers to right the ship for businesses and let them know the limit.Black Friday offers many Americans the opportunity to provide holiday joy to friends and family in a way that would otherwise be financially irresponsible. The balancing act, though, comes into play when a person has to choose between the family they love and the material goods that will show that love.— azoot@indiana.eduFollow columnist Austin Zoot on Twitter @austinzoot12.
(11/18/13 5:00am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>“Hi, nice to meet you. My name is Austin. What pronoun do you prefer?”Apparently, this is the way conversations are supposed to begin now. Several recent campaigns have been pushing the notion that a person should ask, rather than assume, how another person would like to identify him or herself.This is yet another step in a series of advancements in the way we learn about and accept those who are different from ourselves. It also exemplifies the complexity of a non-binary system. It may, though, have gone a little too far.Though the most well-educated and thoughtful gender studies majors may be excited about this new idea, others are bound to be baffled at the expectation.It is also important to note that, when communicating with another person, the only necessary pronoun is “you.” When asking someone whether they prefer he or she, someone is trying to figure out how to talk about that person in a later conversation, most likely with others.In that regard, it is more of a philosophical attempt to understand another person, rather than a practical need for information for the purpose of conversation.The expectation is that conversationalists will take a certain amount of discomfort and spread it around. It is uncomfortable for someone who identifies in a way different from their appearance to have to correct someone else who makes an incorrect assumption. The logic of asking someone what they prefer is that it makes the conversation minutely and momentarily awkward, rather than leaving the shame to one person, the one who is identifying in non-apparent ways.In a perfect world, this is how we would address one another. We would be thoughtful, caring and willing to take on an awkward situation for the benefit of those who feel slighted. Unfortunately, we aren’t there yet. This isn’t the kind of conversation that can happen in today’s world. There are still far too many ignorant and bigoted people for this conversation starter to become mainstream.The reality of today is that a very small part of our society is as accepting as we would like. Rather than continuing to find new and innovative ways of revolutionizing how we accept and care for one another, we need to continue to develop a foundation of acceptance. We are moving on before that foundation is firmly set.Before we can revolutionize the way we talk to one another about sex and gender issues, we need to continue to educate people about the differences among us and that those differences are acceptable and appreciated. We need to ensure that schools are teaching their students to be thoughtful and loving toward their peers, regardless of their pronoun identification.So while we need to continue to grow and move forward, we cannot do that at the expense of the understanding of our society as a whole.— azoot@indiana.eduFollow columnist Austin Zoot on Twitter @austinzoot12.
(11/11/13 5:00am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>In preparation for his tour to promote his album, “Yeezus,” Kanye West has decided to use the Confederate flag as his own personal symbol. It will be used on several pieces of promotional material throughout the tour.Several columnists and bloggers have considered the statement and have come to varying conclusions. The conversation has focused on West’s choice in using a flag often considered a symbol of hate and oppression.When asked, West’s comment was simple. He said “It’s my flag now. Now what you gonna do?” The statement, though, may be too simple.An idea that has gained quite a bit of traction is the notion that West is attempting to rebrand the Confederate flag. By making it a symbol for a black performer’s career, it would carry on an all new meaning, revolutionizing the way people respond to and interact with the image.One of the issues with this is that West has failed to manipulate the media and his message in a way that would allow this revision to succeed. There isn’t even any real evidence that this is what West was trying to accomplish.Columnists and bloggers have, perhaps wrongly, assumed that West was making a grandiose statement, an audacious campaign to break away from hateful racism. Realistically, though, it is just as likely that West is just trying to piss people off and to spark a debate.For the purpose of argument, though, let’s assume West intends to shift the Confederate flag’s meaning for social reformation. If that is the case, West is destroying an important part of American history — one that needs to continue to be a symbol for future generations.The Confederate flag is a symbol of oppression and hate. It was used as an image by those who wished to maintain their hold as owners of other human beings. This image sends an unpleasant and uncomfortable message, which is exactly why it should continue to represent what it does.It is incredibly easy to make a positive symbol into a negative one. Just look at the swastika. Originally, a swastika was a symbol of peace in many near-Eastern religions and cultures. It was only after being adopted by Nazi Germany that it developed its negative connotation. On the other hand, it is much harder to make a negative symbol into a positive one. It seems close to impossible to make the swastika an image of peace ever again. A similar thing can be said of the Confederate flag.If West is successful in revamping the symbolism of the flag, children growing up listening to his music will not be able to understand the origins and meaning of “his” symbol. The historical significance will be replaced by pop culture shock-and-awe.Americans should not try to forget about racism, to sweep it under the rug and pretend it didn’t happen. Instead, we need to be reminded — to learn from the ideologies of the past and to reshape the way we think for the future.So no, Kanye, you can’t have the flag. It holds so much more historical significance than your concert tour.— azoot@indiana.eduFollow columnist Austin Zoot on Twitter @austinzoot12.
(11/04/13 5:00am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>While watching the World Series, you would think the strongest racial remarks would come from the broadcasting booth. This year, it turns out the culprit was a commercial.“Almost Human” is a new show Fox has promoted enthusiastically. The concept for the television series is that, in a futuristic society, police officers are “issued” partners, robots made to look like real people, rather than getting paired with actual humans.The protagonist, a young, good-looking white guy played by Karl Urban, is issued his partner, who is played by Michael Ealy and was created black.If that was the end of the racial connection, it wouldn’t be a big deal. It could have been a casting decision or a coincidence.Unfortunately, this is just the beginning of the problem for “Almost Human.”In the 30-second ad spot, the black robot offers his white master total submission, is used as a body shield to protect the real human and is even given the task of making his human’s coffee.Nowhere is there any actual statement of race or racial significance.But that’s also part of the problem. Though some blatant racists do exist, the far more realistic perspective is that racial stereotypes are a subconscious response to information we receive. In fact, it’s the lack of conscious thought that perpetuates these racial judgments.This new show’s title is the icing on the racist cake. To use the expression “Almost Human” to describe this robot is pleasant and clever, but when that robot is to be made so blatantly African American, it creates an uncomfortable connection that is all-too reminiscent of the 1960s, or worse, the 1860s.The racial messages our media producers send have a profound effect on other facets of our entertainment consumption.In 2012, when “The Hunger Games” movie was released, a large group of viewers took to Twitter in order to complain about the depiction of two of the movie’s characters as black. They were upset by the liberties the producers took in casting these characters.The problem was the depictions were perfect in terms of the book.The book specifically gave a racial depiction, which was then mirrored in the film.The Twittersphere was responding outwardly to an internal discomfort rather than a logical argument.These racial issues manifest themselves in our sports as well.During the World Series only one player on either of the two teams was African American. Though unrepresentative of the racial proportions of Major League Baseball, it is a statistic that has drawn significant attention.From the sports we watch to the movies we see, race remains a salient and volatile issue.When we view these issues thoughtfully and rationally we can understand where each portrayal comes from. It is subconscious and subtle portrayals of racial tensions that perpetuate the stereotypes we so frequently encounter.— azoot@indiana.eduFollow columnistAustin Zoot on Twitter @austinzoot12.
(10/28/13 4:00am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>Being Jewish has always been considered equal parts cultural and religious. Researchers are now finding it to be statistically true.In a Pew Study released earlier this month, American Jews were surveyed to assess their Jewish practice, cultural identification and faith ideologies.What it found was that, among other things, the religion of Judaism is fading fast.One in five Jews, according to the survey, now identify as having no religion. This means that, while they continue to identify as Jewish, they do not actively practice Judaism. When assessed based on age, the numbers show that the older the participant in the survey, the more likely they were to identify as religiously and culturally Jewish. This isn’t good news for the future of Judaism.One of the main reasons for this is intermarriage. Ninety-six percent of Jews surveyed who also have a Jewish spouses have chosen to raise their children Jewish, whereas couples with one non-Jewish spouse only raise their children in Jewish households 20 percent of the time.The trend of Americans moving away from religious identification is not exclusively Jewish. Religious disaffiliation is actually exactly equal among all Americans 18 to 29 years old, at about 32 percent.So does American Jewry need to panic? Or do religious trends country-wide make the results of the survey simply the way thing are moving in America? The reality is that Judaism is far more susceptible to the effects of declining observance. The Jewish population has already shrunk to less than 2 percent of Americans. If Judaism is to continue to be the strong culture and strong ideology that it has been for centuries, then it is imperative that something change.That being said, there is a light at the end of the tunnel. When asked what it means to be Jewish, the leading answers were to remember the Holocaust (73 percent of respondents), leading ethical and moral lifestyles (69 percent) and working for justice and equality (56 percent). These are the core values of what it means to be Jewish. Although identifying as religiously Jewish is in decline, Judaism is still alive in its intent and meaning in the lives of Americans.This brings a sense of hope. Religious identity may be changing, but morality and pursuit of justice are not. As long as Judaism, and religion as a whole, continue to be ideologies that make humanity better, things are going to be OK. It is the obligation, though, of those who identify as religious to maintain the homogeneity that keeps each religion as a viable option for its practitioners. — azoot@indiana.eduFollow columnist Austin Zoot on Twitter @austinzoot12.
(10/21/13 4:00am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>Veteran blogger Matt Forney’s recent post, “The Case Against Female Self-Esteem,” has caused quite an uproar across social media.So, of course, it’s been reposted like crazy.The post argues women shouldn’t have self-esteem and society as a whole should discourage any inkling of female self-love.His argument is based on three points: women have never done anything to deserve self-esteem, insecurity is the basis for femininity in the first place and women fundamentally don’t want self-esteem.Read it, and your blood will boil. Reposting is a blogger’s fantasy.Every time someone reposts this blog, the author is, I’m sure, giddy with excitement. He wasn’t looking for praise when he wrote the blog. He was looking for attention. And the Facebook community has given him plenty of it.So much so that in the time since it was first posted, the author conducted a full redesign of his website.Everyone should be laughing at this guy. He is so blunt and so outlandish that it should be comical how insensitive and narrow-minded he is.But that hasn’t been the case so far. The response has been anger, frustration and a little bit of fear.People are scared because Forney appears (emphasis on the word appears) to be using pretty decent logic.He does what normal people do to get readers to follow his argument, complete with three steps and plenty of anecdotes.The problem is that the foundation of his argument is based on ridiculousness. He is assuming that the “facts” he is using are true. If they were true, this would be a logical paper discussing women’s confidence.None of it is based in fact, though, and therefore should be looked at as —actually, it shouldn’t be looked at.First of all, he makes the assumption that men earn their self-esteem through hard work while women gain confidence through being told they should have some.The author fails to appreciate the fact that, generally, men are the ones who are given assumed self-esteem and confidence while it is women who have to do things to earn those same feelings.He also makes the grave mistake of speaking for women as a whole.For him to say women don’t want self-esteem is a pretty bold step considering this guy is probably not the kind of person most women want to explain themselves to. Throughout the piece, Forney blatantly explains why women’s self-esteem shouldn’t be a part of our society, but he also subtly and subconsciously tells women and girls that this is the way the world is, which, in effect, causes their self-esteem to naturally decrease.If, for even a moment, anyone takes this guy seriously, he is accomplishing exactly what he set out to do.— azoot@indiana.eduFollow columnist Austin Zoot on Twitter @austinzoot12.
(10/14/13 4:00am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>Minnesota Vikings running back Adrian Peterson’s life was turned upside down last Friday when his son passed away. In the wake of such a tragedy, Twitter was alive with well-wishes.Bryce Harper, the outfielder for the Washington Nationals, put it most eloquently when he tweeted “Prayers go out to @AdrianPeterson and his family! What a cruel world we live in! Truly unbelievable! #GodBless.”Though no solace can truly come to a man who has lost his son, Twitter offers a venue for those to share in the man’s hurt and loss. Social media is often blamed for a litany of issues in today’s world, including decreased productivity, lack of privacy and misguided understandings of what it means to be connected. Friday night, though, offered us the opportunity to collectively mourn.Peterson tweeted in three separate posts: “Thank you to my family, my fans and fans of other teams for their support.” “The NFL is a fraternity of brothers and I am thankful for the tweets, phone calls and text messages from my fellow players.”“God Bless everyone and thank u so much.”Coming together as a global community helped Adrian Peterson cope with the heinous reality that has become his own. It allows for healing, for caring and for unity.Hurricane Sandy, the shooting at Newtown, Conn., and the Boston Marathon bombing were all met by Facebook posts, tweets, Instagram photos and more, showing support for those who were hurt or killed and for those families struggling through the difficult time. There are always challenges when social media allows strangers to interact with whom they think they know. Several media outlets and fans have tweeted pictures of Adrian and his other son, Adrian Jr, who is very much alive and healthy.Just hours after taking to Twitter to thank his fans for their support, Peterson had to post again, this time asking that the public stop posting pictures in memory of a son that is safe and healthy in his father’s care.Though the system has its flaws, the end result is that social media has the opportunity to do equal parts good and bad. It is in moments of crisis that humanity has the chance to use the tools at its disposal to make the world just a little better.— azoot@indiana.eduFollow columnist Austin Zoot on Twitter @austinzoot12.
(10/07/13 4:00am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>It is difficult not to blame the government shutdown on the two party system.The United States is at a standstill because a conservative House cannot get along with the liberal Senate.But this friction is not a new problem. The two party system has been a cause for conversation and debate for as long as we have had a government.The past four presidents have alternated parties. This is indicative of a pendulum effect. The American public elects a leader who is new, different and innovative. That desire to justify moving back in the other direction creates a feeling of opposition.It is very hard to dwell in the middle because there is such a force pulling to one side or the other. There are other countries that have chosen to widen the market, so to speak. America’s close ally, Israel, uses a system that many Americans consider complicated because of its many, many parties. As many as 15 parties hold control of government positions, which leads to a leadership structure that is spread amongst many.The political parties are also more specialized. There are parties specifically dealing with each of the individual issues that face Israeli culture. Some clash, others are totally mutually exclusive, yet they all work together in a way that, if not organized, at least continues to function at the end of the weekend.Does that mean Americans should broaden their net? Does that mean more parties should be available? Not necessarily. There is a strength in ideological integrity when an individual can look around and feel comforted by a larger collective. But, when that individual becomes so constrained by his or her relationship to the party rather than the individual’s actual job to serve his or her country, the party system has failed us. Though being a Republican or Democrat determines who you sit with, it isn’t inherently who you must be or how you must vote.Though some in the U.S. will argue they have the freedom to shut down our government to make their point, it is time for the two parties to be brave enough to sit down and do the work that is required of them, no matter the side of the aisle on which they choose to sit.— azoot@indiana.eduFollow columnist Austin Zoot on Twitter @austinzoot12.
(10/01/13 4:00am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>In statements made by Barilla CEO Guido Barilla, the company made it clear that its commercials were to uphold “traditional families,” and that gays were not to be part of the advertising. As a pasta eater, it is important to consider what the product is that’s being sold. On one hand, pasta is not a matter of social commentary. Eating pasta that does not support gay rights does not necessarily make you de-value your gay neighbors or friends.At the same time, though, the only real way a consumer has to make social change is to speak with one’s wallet. The customer has the distinct opportunity to voice his or her opinion by choosing another pasta.One of the greatest criticisms of this mentality is that one person refusing to buy pasta won’t bankrupt a company, and, therefore, won’t cause it to change its policy. There are multiple companies who actively support “traditional marriage agendas,” companies who are not worthy of any rational person’s business.AutoZone, Urban Outfitters and Salvation Army are Bloomington businesses whose corporate heads deny support to gay rights by donating to anti-gay politicians and legislation. Buying into a company that holds views contrary to consumers’ isn’t about the views of the company. It is giving the consumer the opportunity to reflect on what he believes, and then act according to his moral compass.An individual who chooses not to purchase Barilla pasta isn’t doing so to change the company. He is doing it to reflect his own opinions and how they match the world around him.— azoot@indiana.eduFollow columnist Austin Zoot on Twitter @austinzoot12.
(09/30/13 4:00am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>If you’ve been inside the TV Radio building or Ernie Pyle Hall in the last several months, you most certainly have heard about the merger between the Telecommunications, Communications and Cultures and Journalism departments at IU.The problem is that somewhere along the way, someone told the student body that University decisions were meant to be made democratically. I have some sad news — it isn’t true.A significant number of students have grown frustrated that the University asked for feedback on the proposed merger, yet didn’t stop the process when the students voiced their opposition.I have no idea where these people came up with the idea that the world is fair, but welcome to reality.As an academic institution, IU is running a business. They have an obligation to market a product competitive on the academic market and keep graduates competitive in their careers.If students don’t like the product the University is putting together, they are more than welcome to find another institution that better fits their needs.You didn’t see Apple asking users whether they wanted certain features on the new iPhone. They created the product, with limited requests for beta testing, and then gave the public the end result. If someone didn’t like that end result, they could go to any other phone provider. Anyone who expects the academic world to work any differently is in for a shock.According to the Media School’s plans, the new college will not be fully operational until the fall of 2015, at the earliest.This means that fewer than half of currently enrolled students will still be here by that time. This allows students looking for a more traditional journalism experience or telecom education to find other opportunities.This decision is one clearly researched thoroughly before taking it to the student body. The merger was more or less official long before it ever hit the public for debate.IU is clearly aware of growing trends toward electronic media. They are clearly aware that newspapers as a print media have been declining and that many of the most illustrious newspapers, including the relatively local and famous Chicago Tribune, are filing for bankruptcy. IU is clearly aware that, to provide students with the most useful education possible, changes need to be made to remain current and competitive. The University thinks it will best accomplish this through the merger.As a senior in telecom, I am not the target audience. My input is for the improvement of the program as a whole, not my own education. The plan is happening whether I like it or not, and my job as a student is to give constructive feedback for how to make it better.The debate will undoubtedly continue, as it should. It is important for all students to consider how media are changing and growing. The expectation that the University is beholden to the student body, though, is simply not based in fact.— azoot@indiana.eduFollow columnist Austin Zoot on Twitter @austinzoot12.
(09/23/13 4:00am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>In the six months since his election as the 266th pope of the Catholic Church, Pope Francis has already made several comments that have revolutionized the way his flock views many social issues. This week, he has done it again.In an interview that was published in 16 Jesuit magazines worldwide, the Pope spoke out against the Church’s frequent assault of issues such as gay rights and abortion. “We have to find a new balance,” he said. “Otherwise, even the moral edifice of the Church is likely to fall like a house of cards, losing the freshness and fragrance of the Church.” If only this pope had been wearing the big hat during election season last year, we may have experienced a very different outcome. The Republican primary process looked more like a Bible study than a political debate, and now the Holy See is saying that maybe those issues that caused such a ruckus were overstated.We don’t remember Rick Santorum’s stance on fiscal policy. We remember his stance on abortion, and that his outspoken disregard for homosexuality led to his name becoming a synonym for bodily fluids.We remember Michele Bachmann claiming that God was driving her political campaign against gay marriage and abortion. Whether or not these individuals are Catholic, each of them used religion as a significant portion of their campaign, and thus need to take into account all of the religious authorities speaking out on such social issues. It is these politicians’ insistence on using these social issues as the basis for their ideas about America that exhausted not only the American public’s patience, but also the Pope’s.It is important to note that the Pope is not saying that Christians should throw away all their beliefs on social issues. He isn’t saying priests will start performing gay marriages. He isn’t saying women can become priests. He isn’t saying abortion is now acceptable. What he is saying is that there are an immense number of religious doctrines that better demonstrate one’s faith.The most significant point that the Pope brings up is when he said, “If someone is gay and he searches for the Lord and has good will, who am I to judge.” It is a beautiful thing that the most respected religious authority in Christianity is willing to come forward in such a public way in favor of being a good person. Christianity is a religion based in loving thy neighbor and feeding the hungry. The Pope knows that and is ready to lead his congregation in the right direction.— azoot@indiana.eduFollow Austin Zoot on Twitter @austinzoot12.
(09/17/13 4:00am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>My column this week is about nothing. That’s because I’m a white man.Being a white man means all interesting and meaningful topics are off limits to me. What license does a white guy have to comment on important social issues?I have no ability to speak about racial issues in America. I have no license to say that the N-word makes me uncomfortable. I have no understanding with which to say I think we undervalue our differences in favor of a “fairness” that keeps anyone from getting hurt, at the loss of truly expressing ourselves.Let’s ignore the fact that although my skin is white, I identify as Jewish.Let’s forget that as recently as the 1940s, Jews couldn’t work in America because of discrimination. Let’s forget that, according to the United States Census Bureau, there are only five races. Those races are White, African American, American Indian, Asian or Pacific Islander. Let’s close our eyes to the fact that those five categories fail to appreciate the fact that a white, Christian farmer from Nebraska and I are in the same category.At least as a Jew my religious issues are fair game. As a man, I have even less license to an opinion.I can’t comment on the social pressures men put on women. I don’t know what it’s like to have my body examined and critiqued, nor do I understand what it’s like to feel restricted by social expectations and gender norms.Of course, let’s not consider the 50 pounds I lost so I wouldn’t feel ashamed of my body. Ignore the thought that if I cry in front of anybody, I’m considered weak. Forget that if I don’t watch sports and live at the gym, I’m called a pussy.Never mind that, as human beings, our brains need ways to distinguish the world around us, and gender is one of the most rudimentary ways of understanding what makes each of us individual. It isn’t sexism — it’s categorization. And that makes people uncomfortable.As a man, there is nothing I can say that would get to the heart of a gender-related issue, because, as a man, I must be the one imposing sexist mentalities for the betterment of my world view.The role of columnist is actually a consulting job. When a racial issue comes up, look to the people of color in the room. Questions about slut shaming? Ask a respectable woman. Want to know what it’s like to walk down the street and listen to an iPod, I’m your guy. But please, please don’t cross those lines. I can only imagine the understanding and collaboration that would ensue.— azoot@indiana.eduFollow columnist Austin Zoot on Twitter @austinzoot12.
(09/09/13 4:00am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>One of the most challenging parts about being Jewish is how much other people think they know about Judaism.They aren’t always right, but boy, do they ever think so.One of the most common areas where people seem to misunderstand the religion is in the timetable of religious observance.Because of the use of the lunar calendar, holidays can shift drastically within the secular year. The day a holiday may be one year could fall on an entirely different day the following year.This year in particular, all Jewish holidays are appearing earlier than usual.While in past years the Jewish New Year, Rosh Hashanah, has been as late as early October, this year, Sept. 4 was day one of the year 5774. Unfortunately for IU students, this also marked the ninth day of classes. This posed a challenge for many students who wanted to start the semester on the right foot, yet also wanted to fully practice their faith.Luckily, a form exists for students to get out of class without any punishment. The religious observance form is available on the IU website and offers students the chance to communicate with their professors about the significance of missing class to be in services on these holy days.What makes the situation really extraordinary, though, is the way that it is received by the professors. At many institutions in the United States, missing class is a real challenge for students. While it is immoral and unreasonable for a university to downright refuse to allow the student body to miss class for a religious observance, it is not uncommon to see teachers refuse to allow for make-up work or to count the absence as unexcused.An unexcused absence might mean students cannot receive credit for work completed that day, which might seriously harm their grade.That is one of the ways that IU demonstrates its excellence. Professors at this University go out of their way to plan their classes around the holidays whenever possible, and are willing to go out of their way to accommodate students. Accommodations are made to ensure the beliefs and practices of each individual are made as available as possible.That is, of course, not to say certain instructors don’t struggle to understand. It is not uncommon for a Jewish student to be exposed to intense questioning about the reason, length and obligation of a given holiday. One professor this year even went so far as to ask me if I had changed the date this year.While clearly making light of his ignorance, he was getting to the root of the situation — a calendar so difficult for the secular world to navigate leaves far more questions than our Christian counterparts deal with on any given day.Yet by creating such an easy avenue through which students can be religiously accommodated, IU is succeeding at creating the kind of tolerant and understanding community that is so fundamental in the rhetoric of the institution.In that regard, IU serves as a model to other collegiate institutions. Although missing one day of class may not be a big deal to a professor, it could mean the world to a young Jewish student.— azoot@indiana.eduFollow columnist Austin Zoot on Twitter @austinzoot12.
(12/05/12 5:00am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>Of all the weekends on the academic calendar, the greek system picked the absolute worst for its 21 party.The first sorority recruitment hurdle was a grand two-day event for close to 2,000 women in search of the perfect environment in which to bond, grow and live in a wonderful community of sisterhood.If only the timing wasn’t so asinine.Two weeks before finals, an underclassman has far too much going on to drop everything to be vetted for two days. Projects are due, tests are looming and the pressure is cranked up to the max. Anyone who supports the greek system will cite that it teaches young people how to prioritize and organize so a girl can turn into awell-rounded woman.It is a shame, then, that actions are screaming contradictions at the words.It is in no way teaching a girl to prioritize when she is asked to dedicate well more than 12 hours of the weekend before dead week to rush. There is no good reason to take the focus away from academics.IU is widely regarded to have one of the most rigorous and thorough sorority recruitment processes in the nation. Let’s not, though, confuse rigor and intellect.The second step of the recruitment process involves participants coming back to school early from winter break and continuing to narrow down the options. This step is perfect, actually. A student going through rush during break only affects her winter break, not any part of the school year. It doesn’t ruin her grades or her focus on anything truly important.The question then becomes, if women have to come back early anyway, why doesn’t 21 party also move to the week before a semester begins?It is important for all of the recruits to learn dedication.It might require some kind of sacrifice to be in a sorority, and if a woman isn’t really serious, she should be weeded out of the system quickly.That doesn’t mean, however, that a woman who takes her school work seriously should be questioned for her dedication. It is a disservice to the best of the women to disparage them for wanting to do well in the classroom. And although the greek system would never admit to it, that is exactly what goes on during the rush process.This isn’t even considering the impact on sisters already in the house. Someone has to be there to put the recruits through the ringer. It is an immense time commitment to put on a game face and give up a pivotal weekend in favor of sisterhood. It is irresponsible of the sisters to do it and negligent on the part of the system to ask them to do so.If there were no other options, this would be admissible, if not a little superfluous.But because there are others, and better ones, it instead appears to be a downright offense to exactly what the greek system is supposedly meant to teach the young college students who get involved.— azoot@indiana.edu
(12/03/12 5:00am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>The Middle East changed drastically Wednesday. No land changed hands, no shots were fired, no treaties were signed. But one voting body changed the whole landscape of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.After a United Nations vote, Palestine was officially declared a non-member observer state. This gives Palestinians the ability to participate in committee meetings and, at the very least, have a say in the diplomacy of the world.This, contrary to popular belief, does not anger Israelis as much as most might believe. In fact, a decent portion of the Israeli and Jewish-American community is actually in favor of a two-state solution.Within hours of the official vote, which the United States and Israel both opposed, Israel approved the construction of 3,000 homes in an area of the West Bank and East Jerusalem that would effectively create a significant and literal roadblock to the creation of Palestine as an actual nation with land claims.The move was a brilliant one on Israel’s part. With the UN taking actions despite the dissent of the Israelis, it became very clear Israel could be left out of the conversation. If Palestine is created as a nation with a set boundary of land without any discussion with the Israeli government, war will break out before the final votes are tallied.The Israeli government’s actions guarantee that, at the very least, conversations will be forced to occur. Peace in the Middle East is not as simple as giving everyone some land and a government and calling it a day. Issues must be sorted out and discussed between the two sides.Creating a state without these conversations is not a step toward peace. It might be the opposite.A quote by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has been the anthem of peace negotiations, or the lack thereof.His statement, “If Israel were to put down its arms, there would be no more Israel,” is a frightening reality in the political landscape of the region. The involvement of American government has also been called into question. Far too many have asked why the U.S. voted against the creation of the state of Palestine. This is a very simple answer and one that is far too easily forgotten: Israel is America’s strongest ally in the ever-changing Middle East.With the American government behind them, the Israelis stand a fighting chance to stave off the vast military force backing the Palestinian community.A two-state solution without peace talks with Israel will not be a two-state solution for long. If any type of insurgence occurs for the new country of Palestine to attempt to attain Jerusalem, one of the most hotly contested properties in the world, a shootout will ensure that only one state rises from the ashes.It is the job of the United Nations to ensure this doesn’t happen and peace is found.— azoot@indiana.edu
(11/28/12 5:00am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>First, there was a calm, as if before a storm. Now, we appear to be back at that tense yet quiet stalemate in the Middle East. What happened in between were the defining moments in the Israel-Gaza conflict.Earlier this month, Israelis executed an airstrike in Gaza, killing at least 10 people, most notably the leader of the military wing of Hamas. Within hours of the attack, Hamas released a statement spewing hatred against Israel’s government and claiming it had “opened the gates of hell.” They didn’t know just how right they were.Since its 1947 conception, Israel has been through hell and a half. In just 65 years, the country has experienced several wars with essentially every nation surrounding it, attempting peace with many and succeeding with only some.It is Gaza’s turn to dish it. But very little of the intended attacking power actually made contact. The Israeli “Iron Dome” shot down almost every attack that was launched, protecting its citizens and allowing the Israeli government to focus on opportunities either for counter-offensives or peace agreements.That peace now looks to be open for discussion. A ceasefire has emerged, more to protect the insurgence from insult, no doubt. If this is what hell looks like, snowballs just might have a chance.Hamas is not a nation. Hamas is not a governing body working toward a goal of peace and happiness. Bluntly, Hamas is a terrorist organization. As much as it might defend hope for eliminating its idea of evil from the world, the simple truth is that Hamas employs fear and terror as tactics to manipulate the world. It is the bullies of the world, and it is about time someone put an end to it.For the Israeli government to attack a high leader in Hamas’ military unit is no grounds for any type of backlash from the global community. In fact, that is exactly what this man was asking for. A man who dedicates his life to destroying the lives of others does not have any right to start a global rebellion with his death. It most likely is no surprise to the organization that their military leader was killed. They are not unleashing hell because of this incident. This is just the perfect excuse to do what they had been intending either way. Hamas will now use this opportunity to attempt to sway the world against the Israelis, citing its agitation and hate as reason to fight against the small nation. Here’s to hoping the world isn’t ignorant enough to buy that.For far too long Israel has looked to be an aggressor, a trigger-happy country ready to leap at the chance to cause death and destruction. It is about time the global community sees what is really going on. This was an opportunity to take the life of one man intent on killing many. This was not a man committed to finding peace. This was a man committed to creating war. It is an example of Israeli diplomacy that they have even agreed to a ceasefire because they have every right to blot out those who threaten their existence. Hamas, in attempting to prove Israel’s aggression, has proved almost exactly the opposite.Just as Israel defended itself in 1947, 1967, 1973 and every day in between, the nation will once again do what it takes to stand resolute. As long as the peace continues, Hamas has yet another chance to stay active in a political conversation it really has no business participating in. Hamas had better not forget who it is dealing with because if it does, there will most literally be hell to pay.— azoot@indiana.edu
(11/14/12 5:00am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>As if there were any more reasons to boost our generation’s gargantuan egos, Facebook has given them yet another outlet for self-obsession. A new feature appeared recently with relatively little hype, offering the opportunity to “promote” a status on the site. Upon posting “what’s on your mind,” the option appears to give that status a particular extra significance to the world. After selecting such an option, a new prompt appears, this one for your credit card number. For a small fee — only $7 — you can put your status at the top of your friends’ news feeds, essentially calling attention to it above all of the other crap that accumulates on the draincatch of the internet. There are many seemingly attention-starved people on Facebook in the first place, and if they begin feeling particularly desperate, this model of cash for increased affirmation could end up gaining some success.First of all, this opportunity to “promote” oneself is indicative of many of the business challenges Facebook has recently faced. Ad revenue has not been nearly as successful as hoped, and the marketability of the stock was not as high as was originally predicted. To ensure a continued flow of revenue, the website had to find alternative ways to get people to want to pay to use the site, a site whose success in the first place was partially due to its free use.While Facebook claims it will always be a free social networking tool, it does not claim it won’t find new ways to use the money its users willingly volunteer.Plus, with all the extraneous, useless and often false information that infiltrates a person’s news feed, it wouldn’t hurt to be able to put the important stuff at the top. Nobody cares which meme is trending most on the Internet or that your uncle just planted a row of corn on Farmville. To be able to put the important things where they belong and let the cream rise is not opportunistic. When actually used for good, salient information, the “promote” tool could be beneficial to everyone involved.This is a big step by Facebook, demonstrating a willingness to try different business models. This is a site that is truly one of a kind and, in terms of experimentation, has yet to prove exactly how it will support itself financially. The owners are also smart enough to take advantage of the lack of a real alternative at this point on the market. They have the monopoly on their unique form of social media.Sorry, Google+. Facebook has all the freedom in the world to try and potentially fail until it gets it right. It isn’t a bad call to throw this out and see if it floats.Now, it is up to the consumer to decide whether it will. It is a steep fee to be willing to put those important — or so you think — thoughts at the top of friends’ Internet worlds. I don’t know the exact regulations surrounding the use of the tool, but in an interesting twist, it might not be your typical broke college students who choose to do it. Instead, it might be businesses and advertisers. That, too, could be an interesting opportunity for revenue. We shall see.The real question, then, becomes who is to deem what is and is not truly important. If only all of the important people were willing to pay the $7 and all of the unimportant people weren’t, then the system would be great. Unfortunately, the world doesn’t always work this neatly, and sometimes it’s the fools that shout the loudest. If that’s the case, this could be just another opportunity for the ignorant and oblivious to have their 15 minutes of fame.At least among their 976 Facebook friends.— azoot@indiana.edu
(11/09/12 5:00am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>The country saw a ghost at approximately 1 a.m. Wednesday morning. That man was President Barack Obama, circa 2008.For the first time since his 2008 election, he spoke of strength, hope and patriotism.Unfortunately, idealism doesn’t win elections. But now, in the time when he no longer has to worry about his popularity, he can get down to business. And business means bringing this country back together.In his victory speech, Obama said, “The task of perfecting our union moves on, and it moves on because of you ... We are an American family, and we rise and fall together as one people.”Now, it is our time as Americans to hold up our end of the bargain.In a political season so divisive, with opponents drawing vicious attacks and arguing about issues that reach the very core of an individual’s identity, it is time to stop being Democrats, stop being Republicans and, most importantly, stop being angry. It is time to be what we should have always been: Americans.All too often after a presidential election people talk about moving out of the country if their candidate doesn’t win. Fine. Move. If you don’t want to live in a country that predicates a sense of pride, respect and patriotism, you can go somewhere else, and your ignorance will not be missed. In fact, there are billions of people on this earth who would give their lives to have what Americans take for granted, so if you aren’t willing to cherish your right to be an American, give it up.Obama has the chance to make the changes he promised in 2008 but was too handcuffed to achieve. He has the chance to continue to reach across party lines, ask the hard questions and repair possibly frayed foreign relations.No matter who you voted for or your political stance, we all have a stake in the future of this nation. It doesn’t matter how you voted. Obama is your president. Instead of maintaining disdain or anger toward him, it is time to move on and support the leader of our nation.Maybe I am being an idealist in my support of our country moving forward, but that is exactly the point. America was founded upon ideals of the way government should function. President Abraham Lincoln was an idealist when he said government should be “of the people, by the people, for the people.” President John F. Kennedy was an idealist when he said, “Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country.”Each and every American has the opportunity to believe in these ideals. President Obama is the man holding the reins to that future.— azoot@indiana.edu
(10/31/12 4:00am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>I’m sure we all got the same speech when we were younger. It probably had to do with drugs or alcohol, or maybe getting some part of our body pierced, or perhaps even a tattoo. We were sat down by some scary adult and told we should “not give in to peer pressure.” I’m sure that, at the time, it scared us into submission. It is only later in life that we realized that this is a bunch of malarkey.Let me introduce to you the new phase of advertising and party planning — positive peer pressure. No, this isn’t an alliterative contradiction. It isn’t even really new in the world of advertising. It is a form of engagement as old as man itself.You see, when Eve ate the forbidden fruit, she gave some to Adam. And why did he eat it? Well, the hottest girl in the world was offering it to him, so he was obviously going to say yes. Although he got kicked out of the Garden of Eden, he got the girl and, according to advertising, that is all that matters.No matter what the issue in question is, people are afraid to do things by themselves.They are afraid to be alone, which is why those creating events and activities need to be able to use the “Well, all of your friends are going” approach. Who hasn’t said, “Well, everyone else is doing it”?The invention of Facebook events revitalized this idea. Whenever anyone is invited to a party or social gathering, the very first place to look is the list of who else is invited and who else is going. If five of your best friends are going, well, you are definitely going to be there. If one of the stars of the school football team is going, there is the chance for an autograph. If no one else is going, it doesn’t matter how cool the party is, there is absolutely no chance you will be seen there. This, of course, leaves a much bigger, almost philosophical question. Who is going to be the first person to sign on to an event?Major advertising campaigns are even getting in on the action. Budweiser has a series of advertisements that show a sports team taking the field with a banner saying, “Grab some Buds.” Even though the play on words is so vividly obvious there, the real call to action is that their beer tastes better if you are drinking it with a friend.This doesn’t mean you have to give up on being an individual. It just means that you have to find other people to be an individual with. If you can’t seem to get anyone to do things with you, find the largest group of people who are willing to get on board.Who knew that the big and scary threat we thought was going to end our social lives back in elementary school would actually make our events and parties hopping as adults?— azoot@indiana.edu