88 items found for your search. If no results were found please broaden your search.
(09/10/13 4:00am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>America’s favorite pastime was never baseball — it’s shaming women for even thinking about sex.The reception of Miley Cyrus’ VMA performance is an easy example, but we’ve rounded these bases before.Britney went through it. X-tina went through it. So has the woman who sits next to you in W131, the barista who serves your Americano, the ladies reading this column right now.That’s right, anyone can be a dirty slut!Are you a woman? Strike one.Are you interested in sex? Strike two.Is it possible that someone else might think of you in a sexual way?Strike three. You’re out, you disgusting trollop.While much of the hatred directed at Miley is for sexuality performed in front of children — that she is supposed to remain a child star forever, even though she hasn’t been a child for several years — part of the backlash stems from the affront that a young woman would express any sexuality at all.This is an infraction that normal, everyday girls and women are indicted on constantly, with two shining examples from the past month.In Montana, a judge claimed a 14-year-old was “as much in control of the situation” as her 54-year-old teacher when he raped her. Two years after the incident, the victim killed herself.The teacher, Stacey Rambold, was sentenced to 30 days in jail. Even if this girl had a crush, even if she made clumsy attempts at seduction, the man in his 50s was the only one with any “control” in this situation.Then there is the popular post “FYI (if you’re a teenage girl),” in which Christian mommy blogger Kim Hall chastises teen girls for tempting the angelic Hall sons. Mrs. Hall makes her boys unfriend any girl who’s taking bedroom selfies and posting it to Facebook.These girls need to stop it, she says. Don’t they know that her sons will want sex after they see a girl in her bedroom?Obviously, it’s the girls poisoning her sons’ minds, rather than anything her innocent, perfect sons are doing.Instead of telling her boys that women are not objects, instead of teaching them to respect women as people, instead of resisting the fetishization of the female body, she’s mad at girls for developing into women and having cameras. Maybe these girls want to be thought of in a sexual way by the Hall sons. So what? Just because a girl or a woman wants to be sexy sometimes doesn’t make sex her only reason for being.It definitely doesn’t mean she deserves to be a victim, whether it be of rape or of objectification.Mrs. Hall should know that. Her sons should know that.This is the bigger picture that people are missing with Miley, with the girl in Montana, with bedroom selfies — men are allowed to want sex and other things simultaneously. Women are not.Robin Thicke performed alongside Miley in a routine they had obviously agreed to do together, but Miley’s the only one ruining America’s youth. Stacey Rambold is a teacher who raped a student, but somehow his 14-year-old victim is complicit in his crime.And the Hall boys can post as many shirtless beach pics as they want — many of which were moronically included with their mother’s post — but heaven forbid girls make kissy faces at the camera.A woman should be able to want sex without it becoming her only character trait. Media outlets, men and mommy bloggers, get over your sexual hang ups. Start treating women and girls like the humans we are.— casefarr@indiana.eduFollow columnist Casey on Twitter @casefarr.
(09/03/13 4:00am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>The news outlets that asked, “Is feminism racist?” obviously missed the point. Thousands of tweets from women of color resoundingly asserted yes, feminism has a race problem.Writer Mikki Kendall started the hashtag when famous feminist bloggers like Jessica Valenti failed to properly admit their complicity in allowing controversial nut-job Hugo Schwyzer a platform to promote himself and white feminism at the expense of women of color.Though it was not cited as a reason for starting the hashtag, it feels like it wasn’t a coincidence that #SolidarityIsForWhiteWomen trended shortly after British feminists participated in a boycott of Twitter to stand in solidarity with women like Caroline Criado-Perez, who received a mass of rape threats following her successful campaign to get female faces on British money.While Twitter should do more to address users who are threatening others, boycotting the site does more harm than good.Feminists use Twitter for consciousness raising, to discuss current events and to support each other. Voluntarily giving up this avenue for expression seems counterproductive.Especially for feminists of color, who are often ignored by mainstream white feminists no matter how many different social media sites they use, no matter how loudly they shout from the mountaintop. In this case, it seems that solidarity really is for white women.#SolidarityIsForWhiteWomen became an avenue for women whose voices had been systematically suppressed and undervalued to air their grievances. It was a resounding chorus of voices questioning why mainstream feminism had ignored women of color for so long.It was really cool.For a white feminist like me, it was an important exercise in remembering how to listen. And so, because Twitter accounts are fairly common, but columns printed in newspapers are not (or at least less common), I am donating the rest of my space to #SolidarityIsForWhiteWomen.The following is just a taste of the conversation. Find more on Twitter under #SolidarityIsForWhite-Women.— casefarr@indiana.eduFollow columnist Casey Farrington on Twitter @casefarr.
(08/28/13 4:00am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>Students often disparage IU for not doing enough to encourage racial diversity and tolerance on campus.The IDS has criticized the lack of recruiting in overwhelmingly black communities such as Gary. We’ve called out racism against Asian-American and international students.IU on Strike’s platform demanded IU keep its promises to raise African-American enrollment to 8 percent.But our school has made an effort to reach out to our minority populations through institutions such as the Neal-Marshall Black Cultural Center and La Casa Latino Cultural Center. We have clubs upon clubs celebrating the various cultures and traditions represented in the IU population, from the Chinese Calligraphy Club to the African Language and Culture Club.IU has a race problem, like most schools in the United States, but we are working to make it better.One man does not negate this good work.The Traditionalist Youth Network is nowhere near as powerful as the IU student networks that are continuing to form and strengthen against this xenophobic, racist worldview. TYN’s IU chapter only has one member willing to identify with the movement. I suspect it only has one member, period.Anyone who was confused, angered or sickened by the protest on Monday, rest assured that you are not alone.But do not let this comfort make you complacent.Thomas Buhls’ brigade was met by almost 50 counterprotesters at Boxcar Books who made it clear the IU community does not stand in agreement with Buhls. But even if you were not there in that moment, you still have a chance to show IU students will not stand for racism.Many of us protested TYN’s march on Monday. Let’s carry this protest into our daily lives.Boycott the friends who make racist jokes. Picket the peers who refuse acceptance in favor of fear. March against those who would rather hate than understand. Conduct an unending sit-in on your own thoughts and behaviors.Why be traditional when you can be revolutionary?— casefarr@indiana.eduYou can follow the columnist Casey Farrington on Twitter @casefarr
(08/21/13 2:32am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>Today marks the beginning of the greatest study abroad experience of many freshman’s lives.That’s right, matriculating is like going to Europe for a semester. And just like studying abroad, you will go through several phases:The honeymoon periodEverything is wonderful. You’re loving trying new things, meeting new people and being exposed to new thoughts and opinions. You’re excited, and it shows.Culture shockYou may feel alienated and helpless. Perhaps your work will start to pile up, and it seems impossible that you will ever figure out this “college” thing. If home is close, you’ll be tempted to visit frequently.AssimilationSlowly but surely, you’ll work your way out of that feeling. You’ll start calling your dorm room “home,” and you’ll have weekly “family dinners” with the kids down the hall. The campus starts to become yours, and you feel justified as a true Indiana Hoosier. You’ve got a handle on the culture and traditions. You blend in with the native population.Reverse culture shockWhen you go home for Thanksgiving, what was once familiar and comfortable is foreign and awkward. Your family dynamic feels weird. Your old room doesn’t feel like home anymore, even though all of your old posters are still on the walls. It’s like you’re driving on the wrong side of the road.As you work your way through these stages, you will be tempted to do everything just because it’s new. Even if you know you will hate it and be angry at yourself later. For example, in Japan they sell a bright green drink called melon soda. I know, it sounds delicious and fun. While I was there, I quickly figured out that I hate melon soda, but I kept ordering it anyway. I would see the words “melon soda” and my brain immediately registered that this is something new, unique and unavailable in the United States. So of course, my next thought was, “I must drink this immediately!” Certain things about college life will feel the same way, especially for your first couple of months. Like my melon soda, you should try new things. But unlike my melon soda, don’t keep doing new things just because you can’t do them at home. Be aware of your motivations. Are you doing something because you genuinely enjoy it, or are you doing it just because you can? If your answer is the latter, then maybe you should stop doing it. And remember, you have at least four years to try new things. You don’t have to knock everything out in your first week.— casefarr@indiana.edu. Follow columnist Casey Farrington on Twiter @casefarr.
(08/20/13 6:41pm)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>Today marks the beginning of the greatest study abroad experience of many freshman’s lives.That’s
right, matriculating is like going to Europe for a semester. And just
like studying abroad, you will go through several phases:The honeymoon periodEverything
is wonderful. You’re loving trying new things, meeting new people and
being exposed to new thoughts and opinions. You’re excited, and it
shows.Culture shockYou may feel alienated and helpless.
Perhaps your work will start to pile up, and it seems impossible that
you will ever figure out this “college” thing. If home is close, you’ll
be tempted to visit frequently.AssimilationSlowly but
surely, you’ll work your way out of that feeling. You’ll start calling
your dorm room “home,” and you’ll have weekly “family dinners” with the
kids down the hall. The campus starts to become yours, and you feel
justified as a true Indiana Hoosier. You’ve got a handle on the culture and traditions. You blend in with the native population.Reverse culture shockWhen
you go home for Thanksgiving, what was once familiar and comfortable is
foreign and awkward. Your family dynamic feels weird. Your old room
doesn’t feel like home anymore, even though all of your old posters are
still on the walls. It’s like you’re driving on the wrong side of the
road.As you work your way through these stages, you will be
tempted to do everything just because it’s new. Even if you know you
will hate it and be angry at yourself later. For example, in
Japan they sell a bright green drink called melon soda. I know, it
sounds delicious and fun. While I was there, I quickly figured out that I
hate melon soda, but I kept ordering it anyway. I would see the words
“melon soda” and my brain immediately registered that this is something
new, unique and unavailable in the United States. So of course, my next thought was, “I must drink this immediately!” Certain things about college life will feel the same way, especially for your first couple of months. Like
my melon soda, you should try new things. But unlike my melon soda,
don’t keep doing new things just because you can’t do them at home. Be
aware of your motivations. Are you doing something because you
genuinely enjoy it, or are you doing it just because you can? If your
answer is the latter, then maybe you should stop doing it. And remember, you have at least four years to try new things. You don’t have to knock everything out in your first week.— casefarr@indiana.edu. Follow columnist Casey Farrington on Twiter @casefarr.
(07/25/13 4:00am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>I’m exhausted of trend piece-inspired hand-wringing about the state of the collegiate hymen.I have news for every publication, most recently The New York Times, that insists on cracking this whole “hookup culture” thing wide open: female sexual desire is not a trend. Every piece focuses on women. Is hookup culture hurting women? Are women driving hookup culture? What about their MRS degree? How do they have time to hook up with randos when they have cooking, cleaning and laundry to do?I have yet to read an article about hookup culture that includes similar worries about men, an oversight that implies hurtful assumptions about both genders.The denial of female sexual desire, or the shock in discovering it, is an attitude leftover from Victorian days when women had to schedule a doctor’s appointment in order to orgasm. By focusing solely on hookup culture’s impact on women, these trend pieces reinforce the idea that women wanting sex — especially no-strings-attached sex — is an aberration that must be explained by something other than sexual desire. These pieces assume sexual desire is only caused by pressure from men, by career goals, by drugs and alcohol. These assumptions are harmful because they reinforce in young women the idea that their only role in sex is to be pleasing rather than to be pleased. This is the conditioning that leads to the scarier scenes of the Times piece, wherein women perform sexual acts just to get it over with, or because they felt like they had to.The failure to examine the men’s side is also troubling. When feminists say the patriarchy hurts men too, this is the kind of attitude we are talking about: that men are sex-crazed animals, that men’s emotions are weak, stunted or even non-existent.Hookup culture pieces tend to assume that all men would actually prefer sex without emotions. This denies male emotional depth and sympathy, furthering the cult of masculinity that insists (straight) boys don’t cry. Stereotyping male libido as uncontrollable and indiscriminate allows defense attorneys to put a rape victim’s wardrobe on trial. The argument “Look at what she was wearing! Of course I couldn’t help myself,” exists because it works. Because enough of us believe that men are physically unable to control where they stick their penises.The idea that “women only sex like this” and “men only sex like that” is actively harming us. It destroys female sexual confidence, male emotional solvency and perpetuates rape culture. And it sells papers. Until we can get it through our thick skulls that women can want sex and men can want relationships, we’ll be affronted with the same drivel next year, and the year after, until we all die, probably from the shock that college students are having sex.Or maybe the “Me Me Me Generation” will prove too incompetent to keep the world from exploding. I read about it in a trend piece.— casefarr@indiana.edu
(07/18/13 4:00am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>Nothing screams “traditional values” like provocative, expletive-laden messages scribbled in sidewalk chalk.The Traditional Youth Network’s calls to “fuck feminism,” modernism and consumerism appeared all over campus sidewalks last weekend, but were quickly scrubbed away in time to hide IU’s controversial side from orientation students.After watching their 20-minute video on YouTube, I can tell the founders of IU’s chapter, Thomas Buhls and Jacob Forst, seem really excited to bring Christian Orthodox traditional values to IU’s campus, along with their love of Vladmir Putin and their hatred of consumerist, individualist America. If you recognize Buhls’ name, it is because he wrote a letter to the editor that was printed in Monday’s paper with dubious racial implications.Wrapped up in their desire to fight back against liberalism is the indictment of feminists, homosexuals and those involved in interracial or intercultural relationships as bringing about the dissolution of family, society and, if left unchecked, humanity in general.As a feminist, I’m used to hearing about how I’m ruining the world. At this point, it’s almost funny.The basic thesis of the entire TradYouth philosophy is that “traditional” (i.e. male-led) families are more stable, that marriages within racial and cultural boundaries are stronger and that the homosexual lifestyle is inherently “unsustainable.” They object to anything “not rooted in tradition ... in proven, fundamental ways of living.” So how traditional are we talking here? Before 1993, when raping your wife wasn’t a crime in the United States? How about we go back to the 1950s, when housewives were so miserable many spent their days in a tranquilizer-induced stupor? Wasn’t it fun when married American women couldn’t hold property before the 19th century? Or maybe we should trade women as chattel again. Is that traditional enough for you?Buhls says he fears a family run by a single person as “it doesn’t create a functioning and happy family unit.” Unless that person is a man? As far as staying within cultural boundaries so that your family “looks like you” — this feels like the best way to say “racial purity” without actually saying “racial purity.” TradYouth’s fundamental objection with gays is that they cannot reproduce. I wonder if they think sterile couples are worthless, too. So these traditionalists want to simultaneously encourage a focus on family while denying the rights of interracial, multicultural and LGBTQ families. They want to strengthen community, as long as that community excludes feminists, LGBTQ-identified individuals and anyone of a different race.I feel ridiculous dignifying TradYouth’s philosophy with a response, but their video is structured in a way that makes these outrageous ideas seem reasonable. They’re not intolerant, they’re traditional. They hate consumerism and capitalism, just like many of their disaffected peers. They just want us to have stronger community ties and stop the alienation of me, me, me.It is, in truth, a philosophy of fear and selfishness that strives to place white Christian men unquestionably at the helm of society. Straight white males who feel isolated will especially gravitate towards this message. Why wouldn’t a such a man want to go back to the values of yesteryear? What does he have to lose?But seriously, guys? You’re idolizing Putin? Putin? The guy who stole elections, ensures nay-sayers disappear and never wears a shirt?Society isn’t perfect, but going back to a “traditional” lifestyle, especially TradYouth’s interpretation of what tradition is, would be dangerous and oppressive for the majority of Americans.Liberalism isn’t necessarily a garden of roses and sunshine, but “traditionalism” is most certainly a pile of garbage.— casefarr@indiana.edu
(07/01/13 4:00am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>Since President Obama’s election in 2008, there have been rumors that racism is over. Tuesday’s Supreme Court decision declaring Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act unconstitutional shows the more conservative end of the bench is happy to march in that bullshit parade. Section 4 contains a formula based on 1960s and ‘70s voter turnout that requires a select group of states and counties to request preclearance from the federal government before putting any new voting legislation into effect. The majority opinion, penned by Chief Justice Roberts, argues that because the formula is based on 40-year-old numbers it is defunct. The decision also cites numbers that show minority voter turnout to be much better in the states targeted by the formula than the national average. But the region with the most heavily monitored voting laws would have better voter turnout than those not under federal scrutiny. The formula, and the VRA itself, are working in these regions. Stopping the process now is like canceling your gym membership as soon as your six pack starts to show.Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg’s dissenting opinion outlined several recent examples of the effective use of the VRA. In 2005, a Texas county was prevented from prosecuting two black students after they announced their candidacies. A town in Mississippi attempted to cancel elections all the way back in 2006 when an “unprecedented number” of black candidates were running for various offices. Several counties were able to release themselves from scrutiny following 10 years without compromising citizens’ voting rights. Apparently the remaining states and counties find this route to be too taxing. Critics are right: the Voting Rights Act formula is outdated. Not because “blatantly discriminatory evasions of federal decrees are rare,” but because cloaked disenfranchisement is becoming more widespread.Following the 2012 election, statistical analysis showed that several states — including Indiana — had significant discrepancies between the popular vote and those actually elected to office. Indiana is also the proud home to a voter ID law that could potentially disallow minorities, the poor and the elderly from voting. This past state congressional session, a bill was proposed that would have prevented Indiana students paying out-of-state tuition from voting here as well.That disenfranchisement is an issue in Indiana and many other northern states speaks to Congress’ obligation to create a new formula that can account for subtler abuses of power against voters. It is Congress’ obligation to affect change in this realm — not the Supreme Court’s. The current formula is flawed, but taking Section 4 away completely is a mistake. Revoking the safety net will make further oversight of these and other regions increasingly difficult, leaving open heart surgery the only recourse where preventative diet and exercise would have done just fine.Though the court has left the door open for Congress to amend the legislation, it is unlikely anything with the efficacy of the current section will be passed. We need to build from current legislation, not start from scratch.With gerrymandering and voter ID laws as vivacious as ever, the Supreme Court has mistaken the lack of literacy tests for a lack of barriers to voting. Perhaps some of our justices need a literacy test of their own.— casefarr@indiana.edu
(06/20/13 4:00am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>The Affordable Care Act is often perceived as either a socialist plot to undermine the integrity of “Real America,” or the saving grace for America’s health care system. Obamacare is neither of these things.The legislation is clearly a step in the right direction — an attempt to expand insurance coverage, to crack down on unfair practices, to encourage preventative care — but it’s inconsistent implementation across the country reveals some serious flaws.It seems that the ACA’s efficacy is dependent on each state’s confidence in the legislation. While California has managed to establish an exchange that is projected to open with costs well below those feared upon the passage of Obamacare, it also has tried significantly harder than other states to bargain down costs and sign people up. Compare its efforts to states such as ours, where representatives are actively trying to prevent the law’s application. Congressman Luke Messer, R-Ind, is proposing a bill that would “protect” schools from complying with the mandate.“It is unconscionable that the Federal government is taxing schools to help pay for the health care law,” he said. I think it’s unconscionable that Indiana’s government cut $300 million from the K-12 education budget in 2009 and, despite recent surpluses, has failed to replace those funds. The congressman conveniently forgets how little Indiana seems to care about education funding in order to vilify a law that attempts to ensure the people who work in our schools have access to affordable medical care.Even without a law that provides “protection” from lunch ladies having doctors and being healthy, Indiana institutions have already found a way to circumvent the intentions of the ACA. IU announced in May that hourly employees would be limited to 29 hours a week — few enough hours that our school no longer has to insure them. Cleverly, IU has found a way to leave workers both uninsured and underemployed.Of course, part of the incentive for IU’s policy change is wrapped up in the fact state funding for our supposed state school has dwindled to about 16 percent, and will probably continue to decrease.All of these factors — both state and institutional evasion of ACA intentions — reveal the initiative does not go far enough. One of the fundamental problems with the U.S. health care system is that we are dependent on our employers as providers. Most of these employers are in turn dependent on a bottom line. Health care costs in the U.S. are inordinately (and arbitrarily) expensive. The incentive for taking the short term hit and insuring all employees is not immediately apparent for most, and so those who were vulnerable before the ACA could be even more vulnerable after.In light of recent government overreach and invasion of privacy, it is a little strange to be advocating more government. But health care is a place where, unlike my phone records or Facebook profile, expanded government involvement and regulation could be a good thing.A government option outside of Medicare and Medicaid — one that existed in conjunction with private options — could be a great opportunity to keep workers at full employment and full health. We know our health care system is a work in progress. Let’s make a little more progress.— casefarr@indiana.edu
(06/13/13 4:00am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>Almost a century after Margaret Sanger’s controversial campaign for birth control, we’re still freaking out about women having the agency to decide when they want to start a family.Following the Obama administration’s decision to allow current court rulings to stand, American women of all ages will soon have over-the-counter access to the morning-after pill, which can prevent conception if taken within 72 hours of intercourse. Plan B One-Step is the most well-known morning after pill and the drug on which the controversy is centered.Just to be clear, Plan B is not the abortion pill. Plan B cannot stop pregnancy after it has started. Rather, Plan B prevents pregnancy from ever happening in the first place. The expansion of access to this modern medical miracle is great for a number of reasons. Before now, women had to be at least 17 years old to gain access to the pill without parental permission. Now, all individuals, regardless of age, can access the drug independently. I think fewer teens becoming pregnant is a good thing.However, some states have laws allowing pharmacists to refuse access to drugs for their own moral or religious reasons, called “Pharmacist Conscience Clauses.” Many women who need access to drugs like Plan B are denied because the pharmacist working that day happens to be morally opposed to women not getting pregnant. Even in Indiana, which does not have any refusal clauses, many pharmacists have been known to refuse access even to prescribed birth control. Now that Plan B is OTC, women don’t have to worry whether or not the “cool” pharmacist happens to be working.Fewer hoops to jump through means more expedient access, which makes it less likely pregnancy will occur — the sooner you take Plan B, the more effective it is. Unwanted pregnancies decrease, stability of households improves, people are happier, society is better, everybody wins. Hooray America. I do not understand why some people believe allowing everyone access to a simple pill is so morally objectionable. Fox News’ Laura Ingraham warned on “Fox & Friends” that this ruling was good news for rapists and pedophiles. Can someone explain this to me in a way that doesn’t sound like girls who are the victims of rape must have the babies they are unwillingly impregnated with? The ignorance of this comment is astounding, implying that infants can be used as evidence against perpetrators of sexual assault. No conception should be encouraged so that a baby can be used as Exhibit A. I would think most girls and women who are raped don’t want to have a child by their rapist. This new ruling makes it easier to prevent that from happening.Ms. Ingraham’s comments, and other Fox contributors’ tacit approval, implies that birth control is the domain of deviants, stigmatizing an innovation that could help stem the social ills that are so often decried on shows like “Fox & Friends.” I urge everyone to embrace this change in policy. Easier access to emergency contraception will do much more good than harm.— casefarr@indiana.edu
(06/06/13 4:00am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>I’d like to think that if I met Governor Mike Pence at some sort of function, I would be able to restrain myself from being uncouth: name-calling, tantrum-throwing, that kind of thing. I used to imagine having to remove myself from the situation before any neck veins burst and paramedics are called.I feel this way due to our obviously divergent political ideas.But finally, I discovered some common ground between ol’ Mike and me, and that ground is called “HIRE.”I’m ashamed to admit that I didn’t know what HIRE was until this past week when it celebrated its first birthday. For those similarly unacquainted, HIRE stands for “Hoosier Initiative for Re-Entry.” It is a program that helps those released from prison readjust to life on the outside by aiding their search for steady employment and stability. The Indiana Department of Workforce Development works with the Department of Corrections to select a group of inmates who will be trained in “soft skills, workplace attitude and motivation” prior to release. Following release, the DWD meets with initiative participants regularly to check in and help with any problems.The program has been in place for about a year, and so far 618 people have been placed successfully. Specifically, of those who are working the same job, 86 percent are making an average of $10.31 an hour. That’s about $3 more than Indiana’s minimum wage.Evidence shows that former inmates who are unable to find employment upon their release have almost double the recidivism rate (that is, the rate of people who return to incarceration) of those who are employed. HIRE’s continued success will foster a safer Indiana, and a richer one.Fewer recidivists means fewer arrests, fewer prosecutions and fewer incarcerations, all of which save our state money. While HIRE costs the state $644,000, it purportedly saved $8 million this year. That’s $8 million we can funnel towards other things, like — fingers crossed — our education system.Though Pence was not in office when this legislation was passed, he voiced full support for the legislation. “We are proud of the HIRE program’s efforts to help ex-offenders become self-sustaining, responsible adults with the financial means to take care of themselves and their families,” he said. “And we applaud the companies that have helped ex-offenders get that second chance.”Can I get in on that applause action, too?I’m glad that a program like this exists in Indiana. Too often, prisoners are written off as hopeless or inherently bad. These results show that many former convicts were driven to crime not by evil but by need. If we address need, we can stem crime. Crazy, I know.The only real qualm I have with HIRE is that it isn’t a bigger initiative. More than 20,000 people are released from prison in Indiana each year, but we have only managed to help 618 of them find jobs.Maximum security and gang-affiliated individuals will not be considered for the program. Why shouldn’t all inmates facing release be subject to this process? Prison socializes you for an environment entirely outside of mainstream society. The transition in and out isn’t easy, especially when so many inmates are treated like numbers rather than individuals. The people being released have spent years of their lives getting used to life in an institution. Our state can afford to help them transition back into life on the outside. Of course, it would be easier if prisoners were never dehumanized in the first place.— casefarr@indiana.edu
(06/03/13 12:13am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>I’ve been having trouble figuring out what to write about this week because I’m not particularly upset or annoyed at anything. It could be that I am slightly distracted, having just entered into an intensive Chinese language program, or maybe I’m just losing my edge.Because I’m not angry, I thought I would compile a list of goings-on that are signs of good times.1. The Pacers beat the Heat on SaturdayEven though I don’t really understand the concept of sports fandom in general, I actually enjoy watching basketball. I guess that’s what happens when you’re born and raised in Indiana. As a Hoosier, it is a point of pride that the Pacers are still in this thing, especially since, from my understanding, LeBron James is evil and we must defeat him at all costs.2. The Spencer Pride FestivalIt’s cool to see a small Indiana town disprove the stereotype of rural intolerance. Spencer shows that you don’t have to be in a big city to find accepting neighbors who recognize that people are people and love is love. Beyond accepting the LGBTQI members of their community, Spencer celebrates them. I hope that this kind of inclusion can continue to grow across Indiana, and our legislature will stop trying to pass marriage amendments. 3. A Cheerios ad features an interracial familyAs Loving v. Virginia, the Supreme Court case making interracial marriage bans unconstitutional, was decided 46 years ago, one would have expected this kind of familial depiction to be par for the course by now. Still, the ad is cute and a sign of progress, no matter how stilted.Though some terrible people flooded the ad’s YouTube page with racist comments, most people recognize that those commenters are terrible people, which I’m going to count as a win for America.4. Indianapolis was ranked the No. 1 city for college graduatesApparently college graduates living in Indianapolis are unemployed at the incredibly low rate of 1.9 percent, which is great news for recent IU graduates. Hopefully rankings like these will ease Indiana officials’ worry about “brain drain” and attract college grads to our capital. Perhaps an increase in the twenty-something population could also spur more government policies that young people support. But maybe I’m getting ahead of myself on that one.5. We’re finally starting to understand why United States healthcare is so expensive.Recent reports have shown that U.S. healthcare costs are arbitrary, the cost of the same procedure varying wildly based on location. Prices are usually determined in negotiations between healthcare providers and insurers, and it turns out that insurers have little motivation to bargain prices down.While this is bad news on the surface, I’m excited that the problems in our system are getting teased out. Hopefully these revelations will inspire effective solutions.I know that not all of these items are completely good, and some of them point to deep underlying problems in our cultural and government systems, but to me they signify a step in the right direction.It’s easy to get bogged down by bad news. Sometimes we need to look on the bright side of things.— casefarr@indiana.edu
(05/30/13 4:00am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>Planned Parenthood of Indiana has been the target of many misguided attacks over the past few years.Bloomington’s Planned Parenthood was attacked by a man with an ax just a few months ago.Earlier this month, Governor Mike Pence signed SB 371 into law, which could force the Lafayette Planned Parenthood to close. Two years ago our legislators passed a law that barred patients on Medicaid from using their federal insurance at the nonprofit — a law that has since been challenged in the courts and is likely to be struck down.And on Tuesday, the Supreme Court refused to hear the case, which was decided in Planned Parenthood’s favor in lower courts. It is a comfort to know that when our representatives get overzealous, the court system will keep them in check. These are the checks and balances our founding fathers envisioned. This is how America works!Of course, many Hoosiers aren’t as thrilled with the process as I am.Mike Fichter, President and CEO of Indiana Right to Life said “taxpayers should not be forced to subsidize the state’s largest abortion business. Even if Planned Parenthood is instructed to use tax dollars for non-abortion activities, they then are free to use other funds for growing their abortion business.” I have a few problems with Mr. Fichter’s statements. First of all, Planned Parenthood is a non-profit. It isn’t in the “abortion business,” and if it is, it’s not very good at it.Roughly 71 percent of Planned Parenthood clients seek pregnancy prevention services.Why would they devote so much time and energy to preventing unwanted pregnancy if they’re really trying to “(grow) their abortion business?” They can’t provide abortions if their clientele isn’t pregnant.Planned Parenthood of Indiana has even partnered with two adoption agencies for women who can’t or don’t want to raise their child, but also don’t want to have an abortion. Why would this even be an option on their website if they were in the “abortion business?”Seems like a poor business model to me.The most recent data available shows the rate of abortions declined between 2000 and 2008, and hit an all-time low in 2009. Unfortunately, lower income women experienced a 50 percent increase in the number of unintended pregnancies between 1994 and 2006.These data show that the women who need Planned Parenthood’s services the most — especially contraception and sex education — are likely the same women who are on Medicaid. It is unclear why Indiana’s government has been carrying out this crusade against Planned Parenthood for so long. It is not an abortion store. The organization provides a spectrum of women’s health care, of which only 3 percent is as an abortion provider, but this 3 percent constantly overshadows all of the other work PPIN does.The healthcare provider is one of the few organizations in Indiana dedicated to sexual health and comprehensive sex education. It is doing important and valuable work to make Indiana families stronger and Hoosiers healthier. In attempting to exterminate the 3 percent of Planned Parenthood that provides abortions, our legislators are undermining the 97 percent of undeniably good work the organization does: cancer screenings, STI testing and treatments, contraception education and access and prenatal care.If we let Planned Parenthood do its job, it is likely that the rate of abortion will continue to decrease, as will the rate of unplanned pregnancy.I’m happy that the courts has knocked down yet another prohibitive measure towards women’s health, and hope that this sends a message to the Indiana legislature: let PPIN work. Planned Parenthood is good for Hoosiers, even if some of us have yet to be convinced.— casefarr@indiana.edu
(05/23/13 4:00am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>Rarely is using women’s bodies to peddle tickets celebrated as much as it is each May, when Hoosiers gear up for race weekend.Each year 33 Indy 500 “Princesses” are selected from a pool of hundreds of applicants to participate in Indy 500 festival events and “participate in statewide outreach initiatives.” Applicants must be enrolled in an Indiana college or university, must be between the ages of 18 and 23, must be single and childless, cannot have been married before the race takes place, and of course, must be female.In other words, she must be able to afford the ever-increasing cost of college, must be young, and must appear virginal and sexually available for the duration of race festivities. By the way, every woman must submit a photograph along with her application. “This photograph will not be used in the judging process,” the 500 Festival’s website assures, “and will only be used for internal purposes.” Sure, 500 Festival. Sure it won’t be.It just so happens that this year every Princess is white, and there have only been two non-white women crowned as Queen in the history of the title. These women are described as “ambassadors for the 500 Festival,” and chief among their duties — besides attending coronation ceremonies and parades clad in sashes and tiaras — is participating in “statewide outreach initiatives.”“Each 500 Festival Princess will be responsible for securing appearances close to or in her hometown and will work closely with the 500 Festival’s Princess Program Coordinator and Communications Manager to develop messaging, talking points and presentations,” in addition to attending upward of 20 events over a period of three months, according to the 500 Festival’s website. In exchange for her work, she receives some clothes, jewelry and a 1-in-33 chance of a $2500 scholarship. Under the guise of a scholarship competition, the 500 Festival is systematically selecting women who adhere to hegemonic conceptions of beauty — young, white, mostly middle class, appearance of being sexually available — to sell their events.And like all pageants, the program throws in some female competition for a crown and vague, arbitrary behavior restrictions for good measure. Princesses are restricted from making “inappropriate” posts on social media sites, and from any “behavior deemed by the 500 Festival as detrimental to and in depreciation of the interest of the 500 Festival, its representatives, sponsors, or licenses.” Alcohol use is also restricted, despite the fact that some of these women are of legal drinking age.This program perpetuates a flawed, restrictive and exclusive view of femininity. Then it commodifies the women selected, reminding Hoosiers that the Indy 500 princess is a morally chaste young white woman who primarily male race fans can imagine having sex with.Sure, the women are also tasked with participating in various charitable activities, such as visiting retirement homes, hospitals and schools, with the prime objective of getting people excited for the upcoming race. But for the most part, these women are used as accessories to the fanfare, objects to adorn parades and festivals, pretty girls to excite people to come watch cars go around a track really fast 500 times.The 33 women are an intelligent and talented group, but the selectivity of the Princess process is irrelevant to their actual duties.By treating the chance to be objectified as a high honor, the 500 Festival is promoting the idea that the ideal Hoosier woman is a young, priviliged white one who can smile and look pretty.Certainly Hoosier women, and every single princess selected, are capable of much more than that.— casefarr@indiana.edu
(05/16/13 4:00am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>NBC recently wasted three whole minutes of airtime interviewing a privileged white man about how difficult it was to give up part of his privilege. How brave of Paul Miller, who writes for a tech blog, to give up the Internet for a whole year! An entire year spent not checking Facebook, not tweeting bad jokes, not Instagramming breakfast! Paul Miller had to read books and actually go to the bank.Miller reports that the experience was eye-opening — he used the loneliness to get in touch with his creative side and be productive.Unfortunately, Paul Miller’s experience was tainted by the fact that everyone is on the Internet now. It’s like that time Tyra Banks put on a fat suit to try to get the “fat experience,” or that one Vice reporter wore a hijab for a day to really understand what being a Muslim woman was like. “But Paul Miller,” you might ask if you were NBC or some other, more responsible news source, “what about all the people who aren’t on the Internet?” As of the 2010 U.S. Census, 20 percent of Americans lacked Internet access. The FCC reported that 119 million Americans, over a third of the nation’s citizens, were without broadband Internet by 2012. If you were a real news source, you might actually interview those people instead of Paul Miller. Paul Miller made a choice to do a dumb, unscientific social experiment on himself. He was bored and wanted to see what it was like. I have a suspicion that he maybe wasn’t that good at the Internet in the first place — a great impetus for the experiment was that he felt overwhelmed by his connection.The 119 million Americans without a broadband connection? They’re not doing it on a whim. These people are excluded from one of the greatest information resources and equalizers in history because of race and class status.Americans without Internet access are predominantly poor and often live in rural areas, which have been culturally alienated ever since the US moved from an agrarian to a city-centric society. Native Americans living on reservations are even more likely to be without access. One less medium in which Native American voices can be ignored by mainstream society.The Internet has the power to assuage inequalities among Americans, but is actually exacerbating existing discrepancies. Of course, those of us who have the resources to effect change, to start a conversation, are instead sitting across from Paul Miller, asking how this upper-middle class white guy could possibly tolerate losing his Foursquare governorship of the local Starbucks.This story shows both mainstream media’s bias toward the white and middle class and its unwavering allegiance to puff pieces that fail to fulfill the media’s obligation to the public. Yes, the segment appeared on Today, but harder news shows aren’t doing much better. Our news outlets are failing us, bringing us Paul Miller instead of having meaningful conversations that could prompt our country to do more — like figure out how to give 119 million people access to the Internet.Miller pretending to live in the late 1980s may be good for a laugh, but it should not be filling airtime. But I guess it doesn’t really matter because no one watches NBC anyway. — casefarr@indiana.edu
(05/13/13 4:00am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>Often, after my columns are published, I receive a lot of really good feedback about what I did well and what I could have done better. I also receive a lot of poorly articulated insults. Sometimes when these insult-lobbers can’t figure out how to criticize what I’ve written, they criticize the way I look.Following one of these incidents, my mom sent me a very thoughtful email with a picture of me in full makeup with the following caption:“You know you are beautiful to me everyday, but don’t forget you can pull out your ‘supermodel’ persona anytime you choose to!”I love my mom and the gesture was sweet, but it made me feel a little bit uncomfortable. Do I have to wear makeup to look good? Does looking good even matter?I almost never wear makeup unless I’m going to some sort of event, like if I’m going to a formal affair and want to look put together, or if I’m going to a party and I want to look bossy. That I opt not to wear makeup most of the time tells me that when I do wear makeup, it’s not because I want to. Rather, it’s because I feel socially obligated to, or that, given the situation, wearing makeup would be socially advantageous.This is a weird problem for me as a feminist. I’m critical of beauty standards while simultaneously adhering to them.I’ve written a lot of things about beauty both for the IDS and my personal blog, culminating in the conclusion that physical beauty is an arbitrary and oppressive concept that doesn’t mean anything and should be ignored.Rather, women should be angry about all the pressure we receive to place our value in how we look. This is a conclusion that ignores the reality of social pressures and the value of conformity. Women who recognize the oppressive nature of societal beauty standards have to ask themselves:What can I accomplish while conforming to beauty standards? What can I accomplish without conforming?A 2011 New York Times report shows that when women wear makeup, they are perceived to be all-around better individuals than when they don’t. With makeup, women were understood to be more “likable, competent, and trustworthy” (unless they were wearing too much makeup, of course, because these things can never be easy). This study shows that as of yet, certain conventions of beauty are still a job requirement for women. We live in a society in which women who don’t shave their armpits or legs, or don’t wear makeup, are looked down upon. This is absolutely unfair. All workers should be judged on their actual competency rather than how they look. But changing the way bare-faced women are perceived is not going to happen overnight. The workforce I will enter two years from now will not be markedly different from the workforce studied two years ago in this regard. Beauty will still matter.How do we escape the grip that beauty has on us if it is necessary in order to get jobs, or promotions, or respect?I don’t know.I suppose less conformity in movies and television, less conformity by pop stars and politicians would be helpful. But how will movies, TV shows, pop artists and politicians get popular without being perceived as “likable” or “competent?”Balancing the right amount of conformity with the right amount of rebellion seems most appropriate, but I’m not sure I’ve taken enough chemistry to calculate that equilibrium.So for anyone who wants to give me feedback on how ugly I am, or give me makeup tips, my email is below.— casefarr@indiana.edu
(05/09/13 12:09am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>Come 2014, I plan on jet-setting around the world, then coming back to Bloomington to finish my degree.Unfortunately IU hourly employees’ futures don’t look quite so bright. In an email sent out in late April, Associate Vice President Daniel Rives announced the University’s plan to comply with the provisions of the Affordable Care Act for 2014. Under the Act, more commonly known as “Obamacare,” employers can either A) offer all full-time employees healthcare or B) pay a fine for each full-time employee who is not covered. The ACA specifies that a full-time employee works at least 30 hours a week. In order to comply, our University has opted for option C. Rives’ email states: “Hourly (temporary, seasonal, student, work study), with or without retirement --- number of hours worked shall be limited to 29 hours per week, effective July 1, 2013 --- no eligibility for medical coverage.” Not only are these people ineligible for healthcare through their employer, they are now officially underemployed.These are people who are obviously willing to work, but IU is denying them that chance just to shave a little bit off of their budget. Once again, IU puts money before people, displaying their admirable priorities.This is circumvention, not compliance, and it is infuriating. The ACA has helped college students by extending the period of time we can use our parents’ health insurance, but IU has made the decision to use the ACA against hourly employees. Our school has created a scenario in which already privileged university students get one more advantage over the workers who help form the foundation of what keeps this school running. IU is an educator and an employer, and it owes its employees more than 29 hours a week and well-wishes when it comes to health. An apple a day will keep the doctor away, especially if an apple is the only healthcare you can afford.While IU is at fault, the Indiana Statehouse’s complicity should not be ignored. IU only received 16 percent of its funding from the State of Indiana in 2012. By 2020, this proportion is expected to drop to only 10 percent. IU is barely a public institution anymore. If every subsidized industry that received government funds was denoted “public,” the US would be a veritable worker’s paradise. Indiana, “our Indiana,” is a poser, public in name only. This section has repeatedly slammed the statehouse for its focus on extraneous laws, and for good reason. We literally cannot afford the number of hours being cut from employees and the amount of debt being foisted onto IU students. Yet our state legislators are busy worrying about passing a hunting rights amendment — when to my knowledge, no one’s hunting rights are in danger.Rives’ email is just one more example of how education and employment are being mis-managed in Indiana. Our legislators owe us more, and our University owes us more. — casefarr@indiana.edu
(05/02/13 10:30pm)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>I’m not what you would call a “science nerd,” so I don’t know much about Facebook targeted ads.What I do know is that I keep getting Japanese-language ads searching for egg donors that are inexplicably accompanied by pictures of Mother Teresa. Targeted ads are supposed to be an enhanced marketing strategy wherein advertisers buy data on potential consumers in order to advertise directly to those most likely to buy their product.That is a long way of saying Facebook uses posts like “Macklemore is so sexy!” and “I just ate a Pop Tart” to make hella cash.Advertisers are desperate to know what we kids are into these days, and we have ever so kindly catalogued our “likes” for them, for free.As technology advances, so do marketing techniques. Most things we buy are catalogued and tracked, and depending on whether we have a membership or use a credit card, we’re tracked, too. The more connected we are, the creepier advertising seems to get. Visions of Minority Report advertisements haunt me, many of which are already reflected in reality.By analyzing customers’ purchasing habits, Target can determine whether or not female shoppers are pregnant by their second trimester, regardless of who the shopper herself has informed. Shortly after it was developed, such analysis led to an awkward conversation between a teen and her father when baby-centric coupons were mailed directly to her. In recent years, celebrities have discovered that when they tweet their whereabouts, the paparazzi mysteriously show up. More disturbingly, social media sites gave some dumb kids enough information to burglarize a series of celebrities’ homes. This saga inspired the much-anticipated (by me) film, “The Bling Ring.” To make it harder on cat burglars and the paparazzi, many stars have changed the way they use social media. Maybe it’s time we plebeians do, too.Not to be a fear monger: Millenials are notoriously the generation of overshare. Many of us fearlessly post the most intimate details of our lives for all to see because “YOLO.” Maybe you find it convenient to shop online when advertisers know exactly what it is you’re looking for. If that sounds like you, then share away. Who am I to stop you?Unfortunately, I have read way too many dystopian novels to feel very good about Facebook, or Target or whatever corporation knowing how my relationship is going or who my fave bands are. Double unfortunately, if you lack a social media presence in this day and age, people might think you’re a sociopath, so it’s not like I can delete my Facebook. A good middle ground between live-tweeting your wedding and having no online presence whatsoever is to think more carefully about what information you’re just giving away. I also enjoy liking things nonsensically to throw advertisers off my trail.It’s that kind of initiative that garners attention from the fertility agencies, asking for eggs at $6,000 a pop.— casefarr@indiana.edu
(04/23/13 4:00am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>This column was brought to you by gun control, but this is not a column about gun control. Last week I participated in a class discussion about how gun control affects our liberty as U.S. citizens. Students voiced various arguments, many of which are chanted religiously by pundits, some of which I wish were chanted religiously by pundits. One all-too-familiar argument is this: Criminals will get guns anyway, so what’s the point in making more gun control laws? You will only infringe upon the liberty of good, law-abiding citizens.The easy counterargument to this claim is, “Then why should we have any laws ever?”But this claim also reveals a very flawed worldview Americans tend to have. For some reason, many of us are under the impression there are good people and there are bad people and these two groups occupy circles that never intersect in the Venn diagram called life.While this worldview is comfortable, it leads to deeply problematic assumptions. Because we think that only criminals can commit crimes, we are blind to the systematic societal problems that make ordinary everyday citizens into criminals. The failure to pass gun control legislation that would have expanded background checks in the Senate on Wednesday is just one example of how our conviction that only bad people do bad things likely prevented common-sense measures to stop violence and make our country safer.Earlier this year, conservative pundit Sean Hannity revealed how such a perspective cripples any progress in the fight against rape culture. Guest Zerlina Maxwell had the gall to argue that the onus should be on men to not rape, rather than on women to not get raped. Hannity responded, “Criminals are not going to listen to that,” and later, “Evil exists in the world.” Boiling the world down to such simplistic terms makes many incorrect assumptions about how rape works and who is committing it. Seventy-three percent of rapes in the U.S. are committed by someone known to the victim. In fact, most violent crimes are carried out by people known to the victim. When it is your family, your friends, your co-workers or your acquaintances who are committing crimes against you, it is difficult to brush these occurrences off as just bad things done by bad people. This thinking not only stops thoughtful preventative measures from being enacted, but it is one of the fundamental reasons our prison system is so poor.Correctional facilities put little emphasis on “correction,” punishing rather than rehabilitating and further dehumanizing those who have already committed antisocial acts. We cannot afford to continue separating our populace into “good” and “evil” as though there is absolutely no vacillation between the two, as though criminals are non-humans lurking in the shadows.People commit crimes for a host of reasons ranging from the understandable to the unconscionable. Not every criminal is an inherently bad person. Ignoring the nuance means ignoring a host of possible solutions for the difficult problems we face.— casefarr@indiana.edu
(04/16/13 4:00am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>Americans are proud of who we are, where we’ve come from and what we can do — until some movement comes along. Protesters are just so loud, so confrontational.“Please,” we beg. “Stop. You’re making a fool out of yourselves — out of us.” Bloomington witnessed this phenomenon last week, when IU on Strike carried out its well-organized protest calling for lower tuition and more diversity, among other things. When the marching began outside Ballantine Hall, several students in my class wondered aloud what the protesters were doing, indicating their complete ignorance of local news. Had these students bothered to open any local newspaper or even glanced at what was trending on Twitter, they would have known exactly what their peers were doing. One student asked, “They’re going to be arrested, right?” in a tone that suggested she thought they absolutely should be.Perhaps this is a trite reminder, but the First Amendment states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” The strikers had something to say. They peaceably assembled to say it. They had grievances they wanted redressed.Other students looked on derisively. How dare the strikers interrupt their day? How dare they ask for so much? Why do they hate IU? Why don’t they just go somewhere else?Flippant attitudes toward people who care enough to start a movement have become commonplace in the past few years. Occupy protesters were maligned as lazy, idealistic vagrants. Tea Partiers are dismissed for suffering from alleged false consciousness. For some reason, trying to make a country, state or school better is no longer an expression of love for said country, state or school. Instead it is perceived as ignorant hatred of a system protesters fail to understand.None of these movements are perfect. Their methods and goals should be criticized. Good protests should spark discussion. But it seems like these are discussions Americans are not interested in having. We would rather complain about how strikers interrupted our day than think about the problems they see and the solutions they suggest. We would rather dismiss them entirely than meaningfully engage.These discussions do occur to a limited extent in the media. Newspapers and TV broadcasts report, analyze and discuss these movements in ways ranging from nuanced to absurd, but none of us bother to pay attention. When we do read or watch the news, it has been tailored to our preexisting belief systems and biases. We don’t want real discussion. We want thoughts pre-digested in ways that won’t challenge us. The strikers tried to challenge us last week. Not surprisingly, many of us walked quickly in the opposite direction, humming with our fingers jammed into our ears.— casefarr@indiana.edu