88 items found for your search. If no results were found please broaden your search.
(05/28/14 8:56pm)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>A 22-year-old self-described “involuntary celibate,” or incel, shot and killed six people and then himself Friday.Prior to the shooting, he posted a video describing his plan on YouTube and wrote a 141-page woman-hating manifesto. Later, three more people were found stabbed to death in his apartment. Obviously his access to weaponry as a severely disturbed individual is unacceptable.So is the attitude that motivated the killings — an attitude in which every member of our society is complicit.A study released in late 2013 indicates the majority of mass murderers act to protect their identity of hegemonic masculinity. The University of California Santa Barbara shooter is no different. His manifesto reads like it was ripped from reddit.com/r/TheRedPill/.Women, fickle creatures that we are, refused to have sex with a “gentleman” like him, punishing him for being too nice.Apparently, when women don’t have sex with every man in sight, we fail to fulfill our entire reason for being.Forty percent of mass murderers start with their girlfriends, their ex-girlfriends or their wives. Make no mistake — what happened Friday was an act of terrorism, and it was not an isolated act.Friday’s shooter joins the likes of Christopher Plaskon, who stabbed Maren Sanchez to death for denying his prom invitation.He joins the likes of Marc Lepine, who massacred 14 people at Montreal’s Ecole Polytechnique in the name of “fighting feminism.” He joins the thousands of men who kill their female partners each year.These women make up one-third of all female murder victims.The shooter joins the hate groups that bomb women’s health clinics and murder our health care providers.We don’t call violence against women terrorism because women are supposed to be terrified.Terrified of seeking health care, terrified of walking at night, terrified of saying no. Fear, after all, is an effective tool of control.To insist that Friday’s terrorist attack is an isolated incident of a sick individual is to be deluded.He found support for his violent convictions online, where he took the ideology of men’s rights activists and anti-pick-up artists to their logical conclusion. Not every misogynist commits violence against women, but every misogynist condones it.Even after, some corners of the Internet continue to insist that his actions were heroic. They say more women should pity-fuck the incels in their lives to protect themselves. Because women are to blame for any violence committed against them, including murder.That’s what we get for straying from our role as sex object, blonde bimbo No. 1, 2 or 3.These attitudes aren’t limited to extremist Internet forums. They’re positions men in our lives have, and they’re freely expressed if given the chance.One man flirting with me at a bar explained that women who stay in domestically violent relationships are asking to get hit.This was a man hoping that if he played his cards right he might get laid. And this was a card he felt comfortable playing.Everyone is complicit in the attitudes of masculinity that encourage men like the UCSB shooter to act.“Stop being a pussy.” “Man up.” “Don’t be such a girl.” Macho man is the ultimate ideal, and woman is an insult.Misogyny is heavy in the air we breathe.We refuse to call acts like this terrorism because common cultural narratives have linked violence to love.Love is supposed to be tumultuous and painful. It instills heartache.He pulls your pigtails because he likes you. He only hits me because he loves me so much.Apparently, killing a woman doesn’t count as much as killing a man.Our laws agree. Women who kill their male partners in self-defense get an average of 15 years in prison. Men who kill their female partners in a jealous rage get two to six years.After all, she was asking for it.A men’s rights activist once asked me why I feel so oppressed. This is why.casefarr@indiana.edu
(05/22/14 12:03am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>Nothing kills the mood quite like government oversight, or so our sex-regulators hope.Why anyone would want to make any law restricting free and consensual sexual activity is beyond me. Unfortunately, my misgivings don’t prevent these laws from being on the books.In the name of liberte, egalite and orgasme, the following are four types of regulations no red-blooded American should ever have to follow.Restrictions on condom salesThere is a rumor that Washington state requires stores have a specific license to sell condoms on many “crazy law” websites, but the Washington state government website has proven mum on the issue.For the sake of Washingtonians, I hope this rumor isn’t true. It’s hard enough to get people to use condoms without making them more difficult to distribute. Condoms and dental dams should be available everywhere, all the time and for everyone.Remember: All the best presents come wrapped.Anti-sodomy lawsMuch to Antonin Scalia’s chagrin, anti-sodomy laws have been unenforceable since Lawrence v. Texas was decided in 2003. But a decade ago it was totally cool to imprison “sodomites,” which has different definitions depending on the state. Usually it means gay dudes.The anti-sodomy laws Indiana had on the books were quite the puzzle. Anal sex with both men and women was prohibited. So was fellatio. Cunnilingus, however, was fine, as long as the woman was older than 21. Maybe. Lawmakers used so many innuendos for different sexual acts that no one was really sure to what they were referring.Hint: If you’re too embarrassed to use the word “cunnilingus,” maybe don’t write a law about cunnilingus. This issue actually became relevant in 2013, when Ken Cuccinelli, who ran for governor in Virginia, proposed a blanket blow job ban. Surprise — he was not elected governor of Virginia.Anti-masturbation lawsOK, so there aren’t any laws actually banning the act of self-stimulation, but if star of the bench, terror of our hearts Antonin “Killjoy” Scalia had his way, they might.In his dissent of Lawrence v. Texas, Scalia compares masturbation to bestiality and incest, and he fears that the moral authority of the law is waning.Scalia’s distaste for masturbation might explain his overall surliness. Like other forms of sexual stimulation, masturbation can relieve stress without the risk of pregnancy or sexually transmitted diseases.Restrictions on sex toy salesLaws against sex toys are the closest thing the U.S. has to masturbation restrictions, though they spill into partner play as well.Those states that would prevent us from stimulating our southerly regions with dildos, vibrators, fleshlights, butt plugs, etc., are primarily located in the South.Georgia prohibits the purchase of sex toys without a doctor’s prescription. Alabama has outright outlawed any device made “primarily for the stimulation of human genital organs.” Laws banning toys in Texas and Mississippi have been challenged in District Courts, although the Supreme Court has not heard any of these cases. Without traditional sex toys, people having sex simply have to innovate.Just think about all the foreign objects doctors extract from patients’ bums each year.casefarr@indiana.edu
(05/14/14 11:50pm)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>Imagine you were forced to spend 22 hours a day in a cinder block box.Imagine someone watching you defecate. Someone watching you shower.Imagine you as your only company. Imagine your conversations.Imagine ticking the number of days on the wall, waiting until your term in solitary is up. But you haven’t officially been charged with anything. You were only supposed to be there for a few days. Those days have turned into weeks. It’s bordering on months now.Jane Doe, a 16-year-old transgender girl of color in Connecticut, doesn’t have to imagine. It happened to her.The events leading up to Jane’s incarceration seem clear enough — a Department of Children and Families worker illegally restrained her, according to the American Civil Liberties Union. Jane, who had been sexually assaulted by DCF staff members previously, responded violently. A DCF staff member was reportedly fired because of the incident. Meanwhile, Jane was sent off to an adult prison. No charges have been filed.Jane’s story isn’t unique. Though only 2.7 percent of the general public experiences incarceration, 16 percent of transgender people have been to jail or prison. This rate is almost double for transgender Native Americans and almost triple for black transgender people.It is estimated that, on average, half of all transgender people have been victims of sexual violence, many while they were imprisoned. But as CeCe McDonald, a black transgender woman who was unfairly jailed, pointed out following her release, prisons suck for everyone, not just transgender people. Instead of rehabilitation, American prisons have institutionalized abuse.Police profiling has something to do with it. Transgender women are arrested for things like “manifesting prostitution,” a charge that basically amounts to looking like a prostitute. Society categorically rejects transgender people. Upon coming out as transgender, more than half of transgender people were rejected by their families. Twenty percent have been homeless.They experience twice the average rate of unemployment, as most states do not prohibit discrimination against employees based on gender non-conformity. Because of the overwhelming rejection from mainstream society transgender people face, some of them resort to prostituting themselves or selling drugs to survive. In kicking transgender people out of our homes and our offices, in subjecting them to individual and institutional violence, we are complicit in their trauma, if not directly responsible. We need to fix our institutions, but we also need to fix ourselves. In the meantime, I hope we can find #JusticeforJane.casefarr@indiana.edu@casefarr
(12/16/13 5:00am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>The often unexpected obstacle for many women is other women.Competition between women is a familiar trope. It’s the kind of ill-will that made Mean Girls quotes famous, but it’s also the reality of American women’s lives. I won’t be writing for the IDS for a while, so I wanted to give readers a project until I return.This project is called Finding Female Solidarity.Dudes, you’re getting a free pass for now because I don’t know much about competition between men except for the fact that my brother likes to play League of Legends with his friends.For women, though, competition, especially competition over mates, has been framed as an evolutionary inevitability.The thing about evolution is, what is evolutionarily advantageous can change.And I fail to see a convincing argument for continued female in-fighting and mean girl behavior.Single women now have the means to support themselves — economically, legally, emotionally, sexually. For many women, basic survival is no longer contingent on the men in their lives. But in a society that too often values women as things instead of people, the false logic of infighting persists.Only by being a better object, a better accessory, can we be appreciated by a society that still doesn’t have a functional understanding of the female reproductive system. This breeds not only the obvious psychological problems of low self-esteem and body image problems, but it also undermines women’s ability to form strong bonds with other women. By competing with other women over looks, over status, over men, we are complicit in our own oppression.Encouraging women to value the superficial, then, is a way to encourage the patriarchy. And we’re buying into it. I buy into it.It takes work to stop competing. Sometimes I catch myself judging other women for their booty shorts or their hair cut or their piercings. Sometimes I catch myself wondering how someone who looks like that could ever have someone so wonderful, handsome and kind. But I do catch it, and I try and unpack why I feel the way I do. Why do I care what someone else is wearing or who they’re dating?There’s never a good reason. It’s always petty and destructive.Recently a friend told me about someone she knows’ trip to the gas station. A stranger approached her and touched her ass. She responded by pushing him away, and he slapped her in the face.This girl was sexually harassed and physically assaulted, but those present did nothing for her but shrug their shoulders and suggest she wear less revealing clothing.Imagine how alone she felt. Imagine how helpless she felt. Imagine how you would feel in that situation.Most of us don’t have to imagine, because something similar has happened to us.Now imagine if she had another woman there who would stand with her.In the grand scheme of things, who’s wearing what or dating whom isn’t important. Supporting other women in our common struggle for respect and equality is. We have our assignment. Now let’s get to it.— casefarr@indiana.eduFollow columnist Casey Farrington on Twitter @casefarr.
(12/13/13 5:00am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>Through incredible mental contortion, many conservatives have insisted that contraceptives, contrary to medical science, cause abortions.The argument has become the basis of Hobby Lobby’s suit against the Affordable Care Act, which the Supreme Court has agreed to hear. According to the Green family, who owns the oddly named craft store, they’re fine with 14 of the 20 types of contraceptives covered by Obamacare, but not drugs like Plan B and Ella, because those kill babies. But these “abortifacients” are nothing of the sort.The morning- and week- after pills prevent pregnancy by preventing ovulation. They keep the sperm and egg from ever meeting, which is not the same abortion. There is no evidence that these medications work after conception has occurred. But let’s ignore the fact that Hobby Lobby’s claim has no basis in science and look at the law their case will be testing.The Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 was meant to clarify and strengthen Americans’ First Amendment rights by acknowledging that laws apparently neutral toward religion can inhibit its practice.The law states, “Government shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability” unless “that application of the burden to the person furthers a compelling governmental interest” and “is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.” I know Hobby Lobby is not a person, and you know Hobby Lobby is not a person, but legally it is. Back in 2010, a case commonly known as Citizens United classified corporations as people in order to protect their right to donate money to politicians. I know. It makes no sense to me, either.I’m sorry, but I’m pretty sure no matter who you worship, all corporations don’t go to heaven. God knows corporations aren’t people.Corporations exist as a legal buffer between the people who run a company and the company itself. It was an effective way to ensure the longevity and success of a business. Now that corporations are people, too, suddenly they have rights that apparently need protecting. Rights like religious freedom.A corporation has no way of deciding what religion it should believe in. Corporate leadership just assigns its own beliefs to the company. This erodes the separation between corporations and the people who run them, negating why corporations exist in the first place.Beyond that, siding with Hobby Lobby’s claim would put a corporation’s “religious liberty” above actual people’s well-being, which brings me to the exception clauses of the RFRA.Universal access to contraception “furthers a compelling governmental interest” called reduced inequality, reduced poverty and happier citizenry.Access to contraception gives families the power to decide when they want baby to make three. Planned babies tend to be healthier, and their families more financially stable. These are two things that make for a better future, both for that child and for our country. It’s just good public policy.So sorry, Hobby Lobby, I don’t care about your devotion to Jesus or Brahmin or Xenu or whatever, actual people should always come first.— casefarr@indiana.eduFollow columnist Casey Farrington on Twitter @casefarr.
(12/12/13 5:00am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>At the first sign of a dick pic, mistress or prostitute, we are quick to demand apologies, prostration and resignation from our elected officials.Not so with celebrities.R. Kelly’s newest album, “Black Panties,” started streaming last week.The album is an ode to all kinds of sex, featuring track titles like “Marry the Pussy,” “Crazy Sex,” “Show Ya Pussy” and “Every Position.”The track listing and song descriptions make me nauseous not because I’m diametrically opposed to songs about pussy (perhaps my next column will extol the virtues of tracks like Iggy Azalea’s “Pu$$y,” Danny Brown’s “I Will,” and the like), but because I can’t help but assume the pussy he’s talking about is decidedly underage.There is strong evidence that R. Kelly is a pedophile.In 1994, 24-year-old R. Kelly married 15-year-old Aaliyah.In 2000, Kelly’s manager resigned and stated that he believed the artist needed serious psychiatric help to deal with his attraction to young girls.In 2002, Kelly was charged with 21 counts of child pornography for filming what looks like R. Kelly having sex with what looks like a 14-year-old girl.Since the 1990s, there has been a steady stream of women who have come forward claiming R. Kelly raped them when they were teenagers.Artists like R. Kelly baffle me with their ability to obscure their dubious morality and probable criminality with art. I wonder if it is a tradeoff: songs like “Bump N’ Grind,” “I Believe I Can Fly,” and the omnipresent “Ignition (Remix),” for the horror and heartbreak of young girls. Of course, it isn’t that simple. Many consumers insist on separating artists from the art they create. The actions, character flaws, even the intention of the artist is irrelevant to our personal consumption. Art’s meaning is created through interaction between the song and the listener, the painting and the viewer. I appreciate and respect this view of art, but not when the meaning we glean leads to the praise and privilege of modern stardom.Though I am a proponent of allowing perpetrators of crime to reintegrate back into society to be known for more than just their rap sheet, we are too hasty to accept celebrities back into our good graces. Often we welcome them with open arms before they have made any meaningful attempt to answer for what they have done.Oscar-winning filmmaker Roman Polanski is one of the oldest examples. In 1977 he drugged and raped a 13-year-old girl and then fled to Europe to escape prosecution for the crime.When he was finally apprehended, more than 100 people in film signed a petition demanding his release, including Woody Allen (who has dubious sexual mores himself), Wes Anderson, Harmony Korine, David Lynch and Tilda Swinton. Other celebrities have been given a relatively free pass as well.Charlie Sheen has perpetrated violence or threatened violence against at least three women with whom he was romantically involved.Sean Connery was accused of verbally and physically abusing one of his wives.Sean Penn attacked Madonna with a baseball bat.All of these men are still working, still famous and in some cases, still incredibly revered.If we cannot help but consume their art, we at least have a responsibility to remind these men of the harm they have caused. Their albums and movies can be critically acclaimed or popularly enjoyed, but they themselves should be publicly reviled until they are held accountable for their actions.But then there are those who ingrain their art with violence against women. Those like Eminem, who describes in great detail how he physically abuses women and confesses he will likely never stop. To me, rapping along to those lyrics is unconscionable.Which leaves R. Kelly.He has never been convicted, has never admitted to any wrongdoing. But if his marriage to Aaliyah is any indication, we can’t be sure that the pussy he wants to marry is at least 18.That ambiguity means I won’t be listening to “Black Panties” anytime soon.
(12/03/13 5:00am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>I recently peeled the ¡Obama! bumper sticker from my laptop. I haven’t been feeling that excited about him lately.Conducting a morally and legally dubious drone war abroad, allowing grossly overreaching spy programs and screwing up implementation of important domestic legislation doesn’t really inspire me to put on my Organizing for Action cap and play “The Audacity of Hope” audiobook at full blast.Perhaps this is the sort of disappointment we all feel when the first president we really cared about is a year into his second term. I remember voting vicariously through my older brother when I was 15, upset that I couldn’t participate in the historic election.I finally got to vote for President Obama last year.His is the first presidency I felt that I had a part in making happen.For perspective, I was born a few months after Clinton first took office, and I was in kindergarten when former President George W. Bush was elected (I am proud to say I voted for Al Gore in the Nora Elementary-wide election, though he unfortunately lost that race as well).Obama was my first president, so his failings seem much more personal.I supported him. I advocated for him. I voted for him.So the problems with his presidency feel like they are my fault.Not that I wish I had voted for Mitt Romney.He and Paul Ryan would have been a nightmare, likely pursuing the same problematic foreign policy agenda while also destroying the first meaningful health care reform the United States has seen in decades. Granted, the promises of candidate Obama were always too good to be true.He was supposed to repair our relations with other countries, fight “smarter” wars, close Guantanamo, fix the economy, fix health care, fix immigration, fix racism.I am not naïve, and I know the world looks different from behind the Resolute desk.Sometimes wholehearted promises are revealed to be far-fetched, ill-advised or impossible once you’re actually president.Sometimes campaign promises are simply as empty as the phrase implies.But we fast forward to President Obama today.Though there have been some massive foreign relations wins, the National Security Agency leaks have rocked relations with some of our closest allies and allowed Russian relations to further disintegrate. Though the technology we use to fight our wars has advanced, I do not believe execution has actually gotten any “smarter.”Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and some United Nations reports have accused the Obama administration of committing war crimes for its abuse of the drone program.Drones are a fantastic development in military technology, but the Obama administration is using them to play God.Administration kill lists can be thousands of names long.Thanks to signature strikes, which are drone strikes based on movement surveillance, sometimes we don’t even know the names of the people we’re killing. Not to mention the number of civilians who have died due to bad intelligence, bad aim or bad luck.Estimates for Pakistani civilian deaths range from the tens to the hundreds depending on who you ask. The havoc that drones can wreak on communities both through loss of life and loss of quality of life — the constant buzzing of drones can cause a breakdown of community because everyone is too fearful to leave their homes — actually perpetuates the extremist anti-American sentiments our soldiers are trying to quell.Obama has personally ordered more deaths than any Nobel Peace Prize winner before him.Paired with NSA’s PRISM and MUSCULAR, the drone program represents serious overreach by the Obama administration. Both have sacrificed American citizens’ civil liberties. Drones have been used to kill four American citizens despite the fact that citizens have the right to due process.One victim was a 16-year-old boy. And whether Obama knew the extent of the NSA programs that are in all likelihood sweeping up your data this very moment, his failure to take any meaningful action to rein in the programs betrays his flippancy toward Americans’ fourth amendment rights and right to privacy.These are serious concerns made all the more upsetting when we consider the dreadful execution of the Affordable Care Act, the legislation that is now sucking up both of the president’s terms because the administration failed to make a functioning website.Even when he does something truly in the best interests of the American people, he lacks the follow through necessary to make it count.Unfortunately, his actions only build on the foundation left for him by the Bush administration.No future president is likely to be independently elected to correct these abuses.It will take more public outrage and more congressional oversight before any change can really happen. Keep that in mind for the midterm elections next year.— casefarr@indiana.eduFollow columnist Casey Farrington on Twitter @casefarr.
(11/19/13 5:00am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>It is alarming that only 34 percent of girls and less than 7 percent of boys have been vaccinated for Human Papilloma Virus in the United States. These rates are embarrassingly low. So low, in fact, that they’re less than half of Rwanda’s rate.HPV is a sexually transmited virus known to cause certain types of cervical cancer and is linked to other cancers in the head and neck, as well as vaginal, vulvar, anal and penile cancers.Remember Michael Douglas’ purportedly cunnilingus-induced throat cancer? If it indeed was a result of oral sex, HPV likely played a role. Vaccines like Gardasil have been shown to prevent certain strains of HPV when administered to people between 9 and 26 years old, though health professionals recommend the vaccination be routine for all girls between 11 and 12. But parents aren’t vaccinating their kids, likely because they are uncomfortable acknowledging that someday their little boy or girl will be sexually active.Of those parents who did not vaccinate their daughters, 10 percent said it was because their daughter was not sexually active, despite the fact that the vaccine is most effective if all three shots are taken before the subject starts having sex.And because HPV most obviously affects gay men, sometimes leading to anal cancer, parents are even more hesitant to follow recommendations to vaccinate their sons. The problem is particularly potent in the South, where religious attitudes about sex and sexuality, along with misinformation campaigns, often cloud people’s judgments.The Hoosier state has seen its fair share of these problems and remains a cautionary tale when it comes to sexual health.There is no law mandating sex education in our public schools, but if schools are so inclined to acknowledge that sex exists, statutes require that abstinence be stressed.Indiana also has a history of accepting federal funding for abstinence-only sex education, which barred any instruction from contraceptive education.Naturally, our teens have sex more than the national average, and they use condoms less.We’re not faring any better when it comes to the HPV vaccination.Ours was a state where the Michele Bachman-like insistence that HPV vaccine causes mental retardation really took hold.A woman from Hobart, Ind., claims the seizure her daughter experienced 14 days after her first HPV vaccination was directly caused by the shot.With cases like these, it is important to remember that correlation does not equal causation. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the most serious reported side effects of the vaccine were headaches, nausea and fainting.Of course, sensational and horrifying claims against vaccines are much more memorable than factual reports on safety and effectiveness.Let me reiterate — the HPV vaccine helps prevent cancer. People are dying because we are uninformed and squeamish about getting a few shots.We need more positive awareness campaigns. Schools need to do a better job informing parents of the benefits and safety of the vaccine. Young adults who haven’t been vaccinated should take charge of their health.For most IU students, it’s not too late.The IU Health Center and Bloomington Planned Parenthood both offer HPV vaccinations. Get your first shot today. — casefarr@indiana.eduFollow columnist Casey Farrington on Twitter @casefarr.
(11/12/13 5:00am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>It wasn’t until college that I found a group of people who openly and proudly identified as feminists, so I’m happy the Indianapolis Star has been devoting space a few times a month to two women who wear the feminist label like a badge of honor.I would be happier, though, if these “Chicks on the Right” hadn’t decided that my feminism — the feminism I have identified with since I was 14-years-old, the feminism that got me called “feminazi” in high school — isn’t real.Which is the first among a list of reasons I wish the preeminent feminist voices in Hoosier media weren’t theirs.Not only do they want to limit who is really feminist, but they prioritize their conservatism over feminist critique.Their debut, “Here’s what real feminism looks like,” maintained that liberal feminism isn’t real.It’s not really in women’s best interest because, like all crazy liberal ideas, it encourages women to be dependent victims rather than personally responsible actors.Just because you disagree with one type of feminism doesn’t mean it’s not “real” feminism. There are incredible flaws embedded in the feminism associated with the suffragettes (they thought women’s place was in the home), the Second Wavers (Betty Freidan infamously called lesbians “the lavender menace”) and today’s liberal feminists (it’s kind of hard for poor women to Lean In), but they are all feminists.Don’t deny my reality just because my feminism doesn’t match yours. The failure to consider feminism as a wide-reaching movement of “feminisms” reflects the Chicks’ overall lack of empathy. They care for feminists as long as they are conservative. They care for LGBT individuals as long as they are conservative.Opinionated news media tends to fall into the chasm of party alignment. Admittedly, I have probably not written enough about my disappointment in the Obama administration. But I’d like to think that my feminist columns are relatively nonpartisan. I understand that being “on the right” is part of their shtick, but at times, the Chicks unnecessarily and fallaciously reinforce divisions.I was shocked at the gall of their column, “Wendy Davis is Democrats’ latest cult phenomenon,” which was peppered with exclamations by media outlets about how Davis looks. “We now know her choice of designer pants!” the op-ed shouted. “This, after all, is what matters, and it’s what wins elections for Democrats.” Given Sarah Palin’s embarrassing sideshow in the 2008 election, I’m surprised to hear that throwing pretty women in front of the electorate is a Democratic strategy.I’m even more surprised that the Chicks would willfully twist a problem with the media into a problem with Democrats, but I suppose I shouldn’t be.Sexist expectations of female politicians is a bipartisan issue — unless you are trying to imply that your opponent is frivolous and stupid.Then damaging female stereotypes are fair game — at least for the Chicks. But this wasn’t the only instance in which the Chicks let their allegiance to the right compromise their feminist backbone.Their column, “Stop being offended — it’s not sexist to be chivalrous,” seemed to purposely misunderstand what benevolent sexism is.“Apparently those groundbreaking studies should be making us question what sort of sexist jerks we married, what with all of their helpfulness and compliments and whatnot,” the Chicks complain. Benevolent sexism is the idea that some “positives” of being a woman are actually damaging, like the idea that men should pay for dates or open the car door for women.The theory recognizes that these behaviors reinforce sexism but does not necessitate that anyone who participates in these behaviors is a raging misogynist. In this way, the Chicks fail to meaningfully engage with critics or alternate ideas. Instead, they use sassy rhetoric to rile those who already agree with them. Sure, they convinced many who wouldn’t otherwise identify as feminists to do so, but how much will these new feminists engage in the movement or the dialogue?Would I be able to bond with them over feminism, or would they shun me as a fake because I don’t buy the Chick Doctrine?I am thrilled to see feminist issues discussed in the Indianapolis Star, but I wish those discussing them weren’t trying to force other feminists out of the conversation.— casefarr@indiana.eduFollow columnist Casey Farrington on Twitter @casefarr.
(11/08/13 5:00am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>On Nov. 1, some houses on my block immediately replaced the cobwebs and jack-o-lanterns with Christmas lights.November. First. Way to sweep the deliciousness that is Thanksgiving under the rug.Thanksgiving is centered on my two favorite things: food and talking.Pie and mashed potatoes and gravy and pie and stuffing and pie and of course turkey but also pie.Don’t get me wrong, Christmas is great, too. I just don’t think it’s so great it warrants steamrolling a holiday where I get to eat pie.I enjoy Christmas for the same reasons I enjoy Thanksgiving — I get time off to hang out with the people who are most important to me — but I am not particularly enchanted by a lot of the trappings of Christmas.The atmosphere that dominates most of November and December is manufactured to sell me something.There are around 40 versions of Santa Baby. There is no reason to have that many versions except to capitalize on nostalgia and Christmas cheer. I doubt all of them have added anything of meaningful artistic value to the piece.Starting Christmas early extends the period of time companies will attempt to guilt me into buying useless things to prove my love for my family or Jesus or whomever.The consumer spirit has encroached on Thanksgiving. Wal-Mart, Kmart, Sears, The Gap, Toys ‘R’ Us, Banana Republic, Michael’s and Old Navy are opening Thanksgiving morning this year to get a jump on Black Friday profits. I get why stores that sell groceries might need to stay open, but who in the world is trying to go to Banana Republic on Thanksgiving?Christmas has strayed from more intimate meanings to become a two-month consumerist binge. Let’s celebrate later, and maybe we can all save some money and some dignity. —casefarr@indiana.eduFollow columnist Casey Farrington on Twitter @casefarr.
(11/05/13 5:00am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>The U.S. has been plagued by a series of terrifying incidents that put mental health front and center.Just this weekend, a man opened fire in the third-busiest airport in the nation, killing one person and injuring at least three others before being critically injured himself. The perpetrator is thought to have been mentally ill, suffering from paranoia or depression. After shaming video game companies and wondering what other societal sins infected the minds of the perpetrators, newspapers and television pundits inevitably turn to U.S. mental health services.Mental illness only gets attention when masses of people get hurt and the perpetrator’s history of treatment is used as evidence against them. It’s about the only time anyone cares to take a look at a system that fails every day, not just when a shooting occurs.Too often we ask why these people weren’t stopped rather than why they weren’t helped. In any given year, more than 26 percent of Americans will suffer from some sort of diagnosable mental illness. That translates to almost 60 million Americans who would benefit from mental health care.That’s more than four times the 13.7 million Americans who have ever had cancer. When we limit our national dialogue on mental illness to when people experiencing mental illness carry out violent acts, we’re equating mental illness with violence.For fear of being stigmatized, some of the people who need treatment will refuse to seek it. And that will just make their problems worse.Imagine having a broken leg, but refusing to see a doctor because then someone might know your leg is broken. Last week on the news, you heard that everyone with a broken leg is dangerous and unstable. So you don’t get any X-rays, you don’t get a cast. You hope your leg will heal properly on its own.This is the message we’re sending people with mental disorders. Instead of making mental health the issue of the week when something terrifying happens, we need to actively de-stigmatize these illnesses.We should be talking about mental health all the time. By actively challenging culturally-held assumptions about mental illness, 26 percent of the U.S. population can stop suffering in silence.— casefarr@indiana.eduFollow columnist Casey Farrington on Twitter @casefarr.
(10/28/13 4:00am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>Department by department, agency by agency, we’re losing our right to privacy.Last week the Justice Department admitted to illegal wiretapping used in criminal prosecutions on American soil. In Colorado, Jamshid Muhtorov is being tried for aiding the Islamic Jihadi Union, a terrorist organization in Uzbekistan. The case includes private emails and phone calls that were collected without a warrant in 2008.In admitting to the practice, the Justice Department is finally subjecting unwarranted surveillance to judicial review. Hopefully, court by court, we can start tearing down the privacy invasions the federal government has allowed to proliferate since the Bush administration because these practices are obviously wrong.“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” That’s the entire Fourth Amendment. No, it is not followed by “or, like, whatever. I don’t know, it’s up to you guys.”The Bill of Rights applies to everyone, even non-citizens such as Muhtorov.What is particularly shocking to me, however, are the American citizens who would passively accept infringements on their right to privacy because they “have nothing to hide.” That is patently not the point.Most victims of New York City’s Stop-and-Frisk policy didn’t have anything to hide, either, but they were still subjected to baseless violence, humiliation and intimidation.Anyone whose house has ever been broken into knows how it feels when your private space is invaded by strangers. Yet for some reason, Americans think it’s OK as long as the violation occurs digitally and those strangers have government badges.Keeping the right to privacy alive doesn’t just protect us from blanket government surveillance out of “V for Vendetta” or “1984.”The right to privacy, which is not explicitly written in the Constitution but has become a part of United States constitutional law, has become the basis for some of the most significant court decisions in U.S. history.When a Cleveland ordinance’s narrow definition of “family” threatened to render Inez Moore, her son and her two grandchildren homeless, the right to privacy ensured they wouldn’t be evicted from their home.When John Lawrence and Tyron Garner were caught having sex in Lawrence’s apartment by Texas police, it was their right to privacy that maintained private consensual homosexual sex acts couldn’t be criminalized.The right has helped students learn in foreign languages, kept abortion and pornography legal and prevented the regulation of facial hair.Our insistence we have “nothing to hide” could corrode the foundation upon which so many important rights sit. I don’t want the government reading my emails or listening to my calls because if I allow access to my private correspondence, how can I argue that my family, my body, my sexuality, my language is none of its business?National security is important, but it means nothing if we continue to let our personal security slip away.— casefarr@indiana.eduFollow columnist Casey Farrington on Twitter @casefarr.
(10/22/13 4:00am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>I never thought I would be thankful for the anti-abortion protesters who like to frequent our campus.But thanks to the pamphlets one batch of protesters were armed with, I finally remembered to schedule a pelvic exam with Planned Parenthood.The protesters passed out literature while making claims that jive with the abortion-factory libel theory often promoted by pro-life politicians. My appointment was a small counter-protest that happened to coincide with taking charge of my sexual health. When I went, the weather outside was dreary, but the clinic was decidedly not.Next to the receptionist window there was a basket full of condoms for sale at 30 cents apiece. Nearby was a rack full of pamphlets on relationships, sexuality and contraception.I’m the product of an Indiana public school and being in the presence of real sex education materials is still a little breathtaking. The employees were friendly and patient, which is good because I am terrible at filling out medical forms. The pelvic exam itself — which was my first — was easy and painless for me. For any ladies suffering angst about their first exam, don’t worry. Any discomfort is over quickly, and it’s an important part of taking care of yourself as a woman.Most women should get an exam after they turn 21. The nurse practitioner showed me how to give myself a proper breast exam.She answered my questions about intrauterine devices and sent me home with a fistful of pamphlets.But there were details that made it clear this wasn’t a visit to just any health care provider.Finding the entrance feels a little like discovering a speakeasy. A security camera is poised above the entrance. The precautions reminded me that just this past spring, Bloomington’s location had been attacked by an ax-wielding ideologue.After taking my phone number, the clinic worker asked if it was okay for Planned Parenthood to identify itself as such if they ever had to call me. A necessary safeguard in case I lived with strict parents or an abusive partner.All of Planned Parenthood’s services are stigmatized because it is also an abortion provider.Women shouldn’t have to fear going to a health care provider they can afford. Those who work at the clinic shouldn’t have to fear the next protester who goes too far.Planned Parenthood is an important community organization, especially in a college town where many students are having their first sexual experiences, taking their first stab at birth control and contracting their first STIs.More anti-abortion protesters were on campus Monday. I hope others were reminded to schedule their next appointment with Planned Parenthood, too.— casefarr@indiana.eduFollow columnist Casey Farrington on Twitter @casefarr.
(10/15/13 4:00am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>Welcome Week my freshman year was the first time I was called a “fag hag.”Since then the slang has become familiar — fag hag, fruit fly, fairy princess. Basically, it means I have a lot of gay friends. More than that, it implies I use them as accessories.Last week my fellow columnist Emma Wenninger wrote about how straight women often fetishize gay men sexually.Liking gay porn and finding gay actors attractive, she argued, is only superficial acceptance of gay men into our lives.Women searching Craigslist for their new gay best friend similarly miss the point.What these women really want is not a living, breathing human being, but a walking stereotype.Someone to take them shopping. Someone to make catty remarks to about that dumb biddie in class. Someone to gossip with about boys. Someone to interject, “What, what, what are you doing? You stupid bitch!” To some women, gay men are like the newest designer handbag: he will totally complete her look.Relying on stereotypes to understand a group is how we dehumanize people. That these stereotypes spark a desire for friendship rather than violence shows marginal societal improvement.The script that these men are expected to follow is limiting and selfish. He is imagined as a sidekick. He will help her with heartbreak. He will help her find boots on sale.As soon as he threatens to step out of the stereotype to become a full-fledged person, she bails.In her book “Bossypants,” Tina Fey describes her own misunderstanding of gay men when her teen self is faced with the unifying truth of gay men: they want to have sex with other men.She enjoyed gay men in the abstract, as the stereotype, as the designer handbag, but when it came to supporting her friend in his pursuit of another man, she freaked.To assume all women who have gay male friends are as shallow as Teen-a Fey is similarly misguided, though.To call women “fag hags” can be insulting to very real friendships on both ends.I don’t take kindly to being called one because it assumes the worst of me and my friends.As a woman, it assumes I am shallow. That each gay friend I have is part of a collection.For my gay male friends, it assumes they are willing to be collected. That they are willing to act as my accessories. It implies that these friendships aren’t real and that there is something wrong with me or my friends for partaking in them.Though many women should be wary of putting their gay friends in a box, questioning the value of a friendship solely because of the sexuality and gender of those involved is just as damaging.My best gay friends aren’t my gay best friends. They are some of my best friends, period.— casefarr@indiana.eduFollow columnist Casey Farrington on Twitter @casefarr.
(10/14/13 4:00am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>Opponents of the bill introduced by Rep. Rick Nolan, D-Minn., that would stop congressional pay during a government shutdown, contend that shutdown or not, Congress members should be paid for doing their jobs.But letting the government shut down means our legislature is patently failing to do its job. Shutting the government down is too dangerous to use as a bargaining chip.For many, the shutdown seems irrelevant, its most obvious evidence less than painful. A few tourists can’t go to some parks. Big whoop. I guess it’s hard to see contaminants in our food. Usually the FDA checks for that, but not during a government shutdown. You can’t see hunger, either. But with WIC and SNAP assistance running out, there will be a lot more of it. And no one really knows what justice looks like, but the 15 victims of the West Fertilizer explosion certainly aren’t getting any now that the federal investigation into their deaths has been halted. These services might be “nonessential” in political language, but that just means that without them our country won’t immediately implode.Costs for the shutdown brought about in the name of fiscal responsibility are estimated to be up to $300 million a day. Nolan’s bill may be idealistic. It probably won’t get passed, and it probably won’t prevent the shutdown card from being played in the future, but it’s the only real suggestion we have.We need reform that makes shutdowns like these impossible. The current Congress won’t be able to manage that kind of legislation.Until we can vote this Congress out of office, Nolan’s bill is the best shot we have at making representatives feel the shutdown they’ve inflicted on the rest of us.— casefarr@indiana.edu
(10/10/13 4:00am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>Early in the first episode of “Masters of Sex,” Dr. William Masters is astonished to discover that women fake orgasms.As the doctor sat there, aghast, I couldn’t help but laugh.Of course women fake orgasms, and he calls himself a doctor?To modern audiences, the characters seem incredibly naïve. The sex acts that some 1950s Americans didn’t dare try seemingly run on loop on 21st-century cable television. The days are long passed when Fred and Wilma Flintstone were the only TV couple who shared a bed.But however savvy we think we are when it comes to sex, we’re still having “women fake orgasms?” moments.It was only in the last 15 years that we’ve truly come to understand the structure of the clitoris. It’s not just the little pleasure button above the urethra, but an organ that extends within the body and wraps around the vagina. And still, most people don’t know about the clitoris’ extensive structure, let alone how to find it.This is why sex researchers like Dr. Masters and Indiana University’s own Dr. Alfred Kinsey are so important.Writing articles and publishing books on sex normalizes the taboo. Doctors study sex, just like they study the digestive system or the inner workings of the human brain.It gives us language to talk about something paramount to the propagation of the human species and to understand human happiness.Sometimes the end game of sex is a baby. More often, the goal is a little more fun.Too many people are having bad sex. Especially in college. We’re having bad sex because we’re afraid to talk about it for whatever reason: religion, society, fear of embarrassment. Fear of embarrassment is particularly potent.What if you’re not as experienced as your friends? What if they know some secret to sex you haven’t figured out yet? What if they find out you’ve never actually done it?If we talked about sex more often, we’d know that everyone is an idiot when it comes to pleasure.If we talked about sex with our sex partners more often, we’d know how to make our time between the sheets orgasmic for everyone.Sex researchers are doing all of us a valuable service by redefining what “normal” sexual behavior is and bringing the true nature of sex into the public sphere.But we have to do our part, too.Take the steps to learn more about human sexuality.Read a book. Take Google by storm. Figure out what you like. Ask your partner or partners what they’re into.Having a conversation about your predilections in bed might be awkward, but so is faking an orgasm.
(10/08/13 4:00am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>We’re a week into the shutdown I assumed wouldn’t happen.I feel like an ass for expecting anything else from the schmucks who represent Indiana in Congress.In case you were wondering, Indiana Republicans who serve in the House — Rep. Jackie Walorski, R-2nd District; Rep. Marlin Stutzman, R-3rd District; Rep. Todd Rokita, R-4th District; Rep. Susan Brooks, R-5th District; Rep. Larry Buchson, R-8th District; and Rep. Todd Young, R-9th District — are wholeheartedly participating in this act of adolescent rebellion.All of them refuse to vote on a clean, continuing resolution, which would reopen the government. “We’re not going to be disrespected,” insisted Stutzman, moodily. “We have to get something out of this. And I don’t even know what that is.” Quick to join this cool new clique, Rokita insisted Obamacare is “one of the most insidious laws ever created by man.”Rokita has yet to learn much about world history and what the word “insidious” means.This is all classic teen angst. So passionate, so misguided and so, so pointless.It is clear our representatives are unconcerned with the effects of the government shutdown because they are too enamored with martyring themselves in a crusade against Obamacare.Even Gov. Mike Pence accidentally implied that the shutdown was “worthwhile” if it meant a delay in the implementation of the Affordable Care Act, a stance he has since denied.Adults who behave like children do not deserve respect. Tea Party Republicans didn’t get what they wanted when the ACA was passed. They really didn’t get what they wanted when its constitutionality was upheld this past summer.So, they thought they’d steal dad’s car and take it for a spin. Now they’ve wrecked our government.What is insidious is not the ACA’s attempt to insure 25 million Americans, but the idea that it is worth defunding other federal programs in protest of that legislation. The “deal” the far-right is insisting on amounts to, “stop trying to help millions of Americans or else we will make sure the FDA doesn’t keep your food safe, children don’t get to go to their Head Start classrooms and new mothers can’t feed their infants with WIC assistance.”That is insidious. That is a hostage situation. What is “worthwhile” isn’t depriving Americans lifesaving federal programs, but voting against representatives who think it is. I don’t want to be represented by people who think shutting down the government is a viable option. I don’t want to be represented by sad teens.Just to refresh your memory, Walorski, Stutzman, Rokita, Brooks, Buchson and Young are the Indiana representatives suffering from hormonal angst. The next election is a year away.I know how to hold a grudge. I hope you do, too.— casefarr@indiana.eduFollow columnist Casey Farrington on Twitter @casefarr.
(10/01/13 4:00am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>Dove wants us to think we’re beautiful, but only if it sells more Dove products.One of the company’s most popular ads shows the dissonance between how beautiful women are versus how ugly they perceive themselves. The video is part of a larger Dove campaign that encourages you to “love the skin you’re in,” a series that has been lauded for using models of all shapes and sizes to promote positive body image.And it’s all a crock of shit.Though it’s cool that Dove commercials depict a range of body types as beautiful and loveable, the ads are nothing but deceptive marketing.Dove, like many companies that try to profit off a moral stance, is practicing sleight of hand. Look at the body-positive advertisements in this hand as the other picks your wallet clean.Assigning moral values to any company is ridiculous because its primary value is always money. Otherwise it’d be a nonprofit organization.It’s impossible to peddle beauty products to women without capitalizing off insecurities.Dove has a print ad featuring a cheerful older woman who asks, “Wrinkled?” or “Wonderful?”Meanwhile, its pro-age lotion attempts to keep skin looking younger.When women don’t have enough insecurities, these companies invent some.Take Dove’s Clear Tone Sheer deodorant, which promises to reduce dark marks and uneven skin tone in your armpits.After I saw an ad for the product, I peered warily under my arms. I had no idea that my underarm skin was so hideous.Globally, companies have a history of inventing problems for consumers to have. The only reason shaving armpits has become the norm for so many women today is due, in part, to the need for Gillette to expand razor sales in 1915. Its new razor for women coincided with changes in fashion that allowed women to sport bare arms and an ad in Harper’s Bazaar that encouraged ladies to remove “objectionable hair.” By making you feel insecure and then providing a remedy for that insecurity, these products make you about as happy as you would have been had you never heard of them, but poorer. In other words, these products make you worse off — a kind of big glitch in that is supposed to maximize consumer “jollies.”Perhaps consumers silly enough to be taken in by the beauty and pharmaceutical industries should be blamed for their own misfortune, but at a certain point, enough people fall for the marketing to make shaving your armpits and using wrinkle cream a societal standard.For companies like Dove, caveat emptor applies. Buyer, beware Dove’s feel-good marketing. It’s all an act.— casefarr@indiana.eduFollow columnist Casey Farrington on Twitter @casefarr.
(09/24/13 4:00am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>In modern American society, every woman of a sex-able age is a gatekeeper.Let me explain.There is a cultural myth that women are responsible for keeping men from having sex with them.Vaginas are the gate, and women are Gandalf declaring, “You shall not pass!”This is why drunk girls apparently deserve what’s coming to them when their molested, half-naked bodies are posted with abandon on the Internet.A good gatekeeper never would have gotten so drunk, never would have left her gate unprotected.Luckily, this myth is suffocating under the weight of female sexual liberation.The gatekeeper phenomenon itself is one widely recognized and discussed, particularly by feminists.What garners significantly less discussion is the emergence of the New Gatekeeper — one born of estrogen, progestin and your doctor’s prescription pad. Though birth control is essential to the women’s movement, expanding women’s freedom of choice and agency, it has stopped short of its potential.The pill and intrauterine devices have contributed to the creation of the New Gatekeeper. No longer are we charged with keeping penises out, but with keeping babies nonexistent.Men are expected to wear condoms, yes, but how many monogamous couples do you know who have nixed condom usage because it feels better without them — and besides, she’s on birth control?I suppose that’s better than the 30 percent of sexually active heterosexual couples who rely solely on the pull-out method.Male forms of birth control beyond condoms, vasectomies and sterilization do exist, but are stuck in the research and development phase at pharmaceutical companies.My favorite form of could-be male birth control is called RISUG, a simple shot that renders a man’s sperm sterile for up to 10 years. If he wants to stop shooting blanks early, all it takes is another injection. The injection has no real side effects, which is crazy when you think about the reduced sex drive, weight gain, mood swings, cramps, blood clots, heart attacks and strokes women put themselves at risk of every pill they pop.But something as awesome as RISUG is useless to me.For starters, it’s a cheap shot most men will only get once.Compare that to the killing drug companies can make on birth control pills. The ones I was buying from the IU Health Center last year cost me $24 — a month.But despite the low cost, few men would bother to take the plunge. Their wives, girlfriends and hookups have this whole not-having-a-baby thing covered.Except they don’t.Half the children born in the United States are unplanned. Of those, 43 percent of partners were using birth control. Not to say women should give up the agency birth control has afforded us. Giving women the ability to decide if and when to have children is a crucial step toward gender equality.But if ideal child-rearing is to be an equal two-partner task, child-preventing should be, too.Men, set the precedent of what kind of father you will be by demanding the ability to share in the burden of birth control.— casefarr@indiana.eduFollow columnist Casey Farrington on Twitter @casefarr.
(09/16/13 4:00am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>I’ve tried to give Obamacare credit for trying.It is the first major health care reform in the U.S. since Medicare was passed in 1965.Though some of the country’s most vulnerable workers (part-time, seasonal and minimum wage employees) are worse off because of the legislation, 27 million more Americans are insured because of the Affordable Care Act.Providing access to free birth control is an important provision that will improve the well-being of many families in the long-term.But the firing of 800 IU Health employees is just a glimpse of how imperfect these reforms are.Many of Obamacare’s shortcomings — that it is expensive, that it hurts small businesses, that it has caused people to lose hours if not their jobs — are results of the exceptionally American idea that health care should be provided by employers.Forcing American citizens to rely on their employers for health insurance is regressive, inefficient and inhumane.Take a walk down memory lane to 2010, when Obamacare was working its way through the legislature. President Obama’s hair was just starting to gray, Syria wasn’t in the throes of civil war and Kimye was but an impossible dream.During deliberations the idea of a public option, which would compete alongside private insurers, was decried as “socialist,” and we were left with the tax-like mandate of the ACA pretending to understand today.But for truly universal coverage we need a public option.Government health insurance would be bad for private health insurers, yes, but good for every other business in the U.S. — and for every citizen.Removing the responsibility to provide health insurance from businesses would allow the great American car companies and social media start-ups to just worry about making great cars and streamlined websites. Of course there would still be expenses in the form of taxes, but the switch would free up another valuable commodity — time.Even with Obamacare, about 21.6 million Americans will still be uninsured in 2018.Part of the problem with U.S. health care is costs are arbitrarily decided by hospitals with the expectation that they will be bargained down by insurers. But uninsured Americans don’t have the clout to bargain down inordinate prices, and they are forced to pay through the nose for even the simplest procedures.Putting the government behind that 21.6 million suddenly gives them a whole lot of clout. And a tangible connection between government and health care would spur more Americans to vote for price restrictions from hospitals. No more colonoscopies that cost $2,000 in Baltimore and $8,000 in Austin. One uninsured American is too many.No one should suffer treatable or curable illnesses and live in a country that prides itself on its medical professionals. No one should be blamed for being uninsured just because they can’t find a job or they can’t pick up enough hours to qualify.Too many Americans deny themselves proper medical care because they can’t afford it. This dearth of preventative care leads to expensive treatments for conditions that could have been avoided.Health care in the U.S. is broken. Obamacare just scratches the surface because it refuses to challenge the foundational flaw of our system.— casefarr@indiana.eduFollow columnist Casey Farrington on Twitter @casefarr.