88 items found for your search. If no results were found please broaden your search.
(04/10/13 4:00am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>Year after year, reports issue a startling truth. Turns out the U.S. isn’t great at science. Or math, either. Compared to other countries, we’re not doing so hot. Perhaps not even lukewarm. Simply comparing our attitude toward school explains a lot.Most Americans don’t treat primary and secondary schooling like a full-time job.Homework doesn’t even become a serious concern until high school and even then can be avoided by the most skilled of attendees. Sometimes tissue boxes are traded in for points, and playing Tetris on your calculator suffices for participation in math class. Though some students do work hard, they are lauded as overachievers.Cue East Asia, where a full day of school is followed by hours at cram school. Kids have to take exams to get into public high school, which prepares them for the examination hell they brave to get into college.For many children in countries like China, South Korea and Japan, going to school is their job. Studying for hours upon hours is not overachieving, but expected. School days are longer and they’re also filled with more facts.East Asian students are expected to shut up and listen to the experts. When I sat in on a friend’s international law class at Tokyo University of Foreign Studies, the professor talked nonstop for the entire hour. No class participation was encouraged or expected. Why should he consult the students when his was the knowledge the class was thirsty for?While East Asian schools overwhelmingly teach through memorization and straight lecture, schools in the U.S. miraculously ask what students think. American kids are expected to think critically, voice their own opinions and come up with creative solutions to problems. It is clear that neither school system, Eastern or Western, is better than the other. Both offer valuable skills, the former emphasizing work ethic and raw data, the latter fostering social skills and critical thinking. While East Asian students continue to perform well on tests, Americans still lead the way when it comes to innovation, and the U.S. is still the biggest economy in the world.But students from East Asia are increasingly reaping the benefits of both systems, coming to the U.S. with a backlog of facts and a willingness to work hard, using our education system to learn the skills that are necessary to become a successful entrepreneur or business tycoon — not to mention the improved English that comes with living in a small town in the Midwest for a few years.Meanwhile, China and Japan are the second- and third-largest world economies respectively, but U.S. students continue to ignore those countries in favor of places in Western Europe when deciding where to study abroad. So next time you’re snickering behind an East Asian student’s back about their English skills, know that they’re gaining the skills they need to rule the world.— casefarr@indiana.edu
(04/05/13 4:00am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>Incredible violence has been committed against abortion providers, including butyric acid attacks, anthrax threats, bombings, arson and murder since Roe v. Wade was decided 40 years ago. Small change, R.C. Sproul Jr. would contend, when compared with the “American Holocaust” women are carrying out under the protection the court case provides — not to say he would condone the violent actions of anti-abortion radicals.To characterize abortion in the United States as a holocaust is to oversimplify the issue. To compare the 40 percent of American women who have had abortions to Nazis ends the conversation before it can begin.Who wants to listen to a Nazi? Who wants to listen to someone who calls you a Nazi?I doubt Sproul will change any minds today. Instead, he will further discourage sympathy between two points of view. He will further fracture the Bloomington community.It is easier to vilify the pro-abortion position than it is to truly address it, because the truth is that most women get abortions for reasons that coincide with evangelical values of commitment to family. Three-fourths of women get abortions because they are worried about taking care of the children they already have. These women already have what Sproul would call a blessing and want to do right by that blessing. Sometimes that means not welcoming a little brother or sister into the family. Raising a child for 17 years costs a minimum of $212,370. Even with two parents, even with wages better than the federal minimum, it is hard to adequately provide for just one child to the minimum acceptable standards. And most parents want what is best for their child. They refuse to settle for what is minimally acceptable.In this sense, terminating a pregnancy to better serve your existing children can be a rational decision.Additionally, half of women who get abortions express concerns about bringing up a child in a single-parent or volatile household. The prevalence of divorce and disjointed families is an aspect of American society that Sproul criticizes in his 2003 book, “Bound for Glory.” When women apply the same principles he champions to the real world, however, he unilaterally dismisses them as evil. Sometimes parental relationships cannot be fixed for the sake of baby. Sometimes the only way to avoid bringing a child into a toxic environment or a single parent family is to not have a child.Most women do not take their abortions lightly, and portraying abortions as heartless acts of selfishness is unfair. Careful consideration for other people’s welfare, for the quality of others’ lives, goes into these decisions. These women are not motivated by hate — they are motivated by love.The issue of abortion will probably not be comfortably put to rest in even my lifetime, but we cannot tolerate rhetoric that encourages hate and misunderstanding just because recognizing the nuances of a problem is inconvenient.Throwing around the word “holocaust” is the antithesis of a sophisticated argument.— casefarr@indiana.edu
(03/26/13 4:00am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>Walking home past nightfall, my pace quickens. My fingers curl into fists. I grab my keys in case I have to use them as brass knuckles or a makeshift mace. Even if I’m driving, I always check the back of my car for knife-wielding killers before I get in.Some women might congratulate me on such cautiousness. Some women have. I really wish they wouldn’t. I’m tired of nervous over-the-shoulder glances.These behaviors show I have been trained to believe this society is mine — if given the chance, it would gladly snuff me out.I’ve been told that someone needs to know where I am at all times. I need to travel in a group or use the buddy system, especially at night. I should probably carry mace or a gun.I am told all of this as though failure to comply makes it OK for attackers to descend.Warnings like these are well-meaning, but they contribute to the problem they are trying to combat.Discouraging women from being alone in everyday situations perpetuates the idea that we’re helpless. We’re like toddlers, in constant need of adult supervision.We have been infantilized, our ability to act as agents compromised. All women are just waiting to play damsel in distress, right?It is an idea that fails to align with reality.Besides the fact that you are more likely to be attacked by someone you know than someone you don’t, the Bureau of Justice Statistics has found that men are actually more likely than women to be victims of violent crime. That truth is not reflected in the dialogue we have created around victimization.John doesn’t need an escort home. He’s not expected to carry mace around. John is a man. He needs to learn self-reliance. He needs to be strong.Is it so bad that I want to be held to the same standard as John? I want to feel competent. I want to take care of myself. I want to walk home by myself past 9 p.m. without getting a lecture.Instead of telling women how vulnerable they are, instead of detracting from women’s sense of independence, instead of telling victims how they should be victims, we should try to reduce instances of victimization.Let’s fix the systemic problems that cause people to break the law. Let’s reduce instances of homelessness and poverty. Let’s improve access to education and health care, particularly mental health services. Let’s remove the stigma from mental illness. Let’s reform our prisons from punishment to rehabilitation centers. Let’s create ways to facilitate reporting of violent crime. Weakening gendered stereotypes is part of this process. Sensitivity should be nurtured in men. Agency should be stimulated in women. Friendships between men and women should be encouraged, as they can help reduce barriers to understanding that result in mistrust and violence.Let’s stop pretending the buddy system will solve all of our problems. Locking women in the highest room of the tallest tower is not the answer.— casefarr@indiana.edu
(03/19/13 4:00am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>Almost half of all pregnancies in the United States are unintended. While condoms are just waiting in the convenience store down the street, as the specter of Obamacare distributes birth control pills to any woman who will take them, when there are gels, foams, shots and implants that can help prevent pregnancy, almost half of all pregnancies are accidents.Of these, more than half occur in women who are using some form of contraceptive. This is embarrassing.It would seem that the American public remains woefully uninformed when it comes to contraception, despite its increased availability and variety. It probably doesn’t help that many of us were subjected to abstinence-only sex education. A curriculum of intimidation and half-truths, abstinence-only programs often paint condoms as laughably ineffective and instills a sense of shame surrounding sexuality. Indianapolis schools left me completely ignorant with this heartening message: “any negative consequences of premarital sex are your fault for committing such unconscionable sin.”This system negatively stigmatizes free discussion of premarital sex, making it harder for us to consult doctors and sex educators about contraception as adults. Abstinence-only doesn’t lead to abstinence. It leads to babies and STIs. When the 18 percent of sexually active unmarried women who used no birth control method were asked why they refrained, nearly one-third said they thought they could not get pregnant. Considering that only 10 percent of women even struggle to get pregnant, it is highly unlikely that 32 percent of unmarried women in their 20s are barren. When in doubt, assume you can get pregnant, and take steps to reduce that possibility if pregnancy is unwanted. Talk to your doctor about birth control.Many women are unaware of the full range of options they have to prevent pregnancy. Though the pill is the most common form of contraception in the U.S., it is not the most effective. Because there are so many opportunities for human error with the pill, it’s only 91 percent effective in common use, while IUDs and implants are always more-than 99 percent effective. Talk to your partner about birth control. As in, use it. Know who’s bringing what to the boudoir.Use condoms. The IU Health Center has condoms. Planned Parenthood has condoms. Convenience stores have condoms. Find me and I will give you a condom. Know how to use said condoms. Incorrect use can render them completely ineffective. Instructions are usually included with purchase, and you can find them online. Actually read these instructions.If you’re serious about learning a thing or two, contact a sex educator. Contact Planned Parenthood, which offers a lot of educational resources and programs — schedule one. A visit to its website could make all the difference. Starting a family should be a major life decision, not an accident. With the agency contraception gives us, why would we not take advantage of it?— casefarr@indiana.edu
(03/06/13 5:00am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>When Indiana’s Lifeline Law took effect last July, it was a major victory for last year’s IU Student Association administration, which had helped bring the issue to our state legislature. The law protects those who, though inebriated and underage, act in good faith with law enforcement while seeking medical attention for a dangerously intoxicated friend. For the IUSA ticket, Hoosiers 4 Solutions, this legislation is not enough.Sexual assault has become an increasingly visible problem at IU, from an Indiana Daily Student feature article about the issue that prompted a spirited debate among students to the sheer number of reported rapes that have occurred so far this calendar year. The IDS has reported on eight rapes since January.Hoosiers 4 Solutions wants to expand Indiana’s Lifeline Law to help mitigate this problem.The current law only provides immunity for those helping someone in an “alcohol-related health emergency.” Solutions’ addendum would provide immunity for those reporting a sexual assault as well.With the current legislation, it is possible that someone could report a rape and be prosecuted for any of the crimes Lifeline provides immunity for: public intoxication, minor possession, minor consumption and minor transportation.A drunken student could easily be punished on top of being assaulted for simply trying to bring their rapist to justice. The threat of such charges needs to be removed to allow for increased reporting of these crimes. Because alcohol is involved in at least 50 percent of sexual assaults, it is imperative we remove this barrier to reporting. Rape is a violent crime, not an “alcohol-related health emergency,” and is therefore not included in Lifeline in its present form. Although there is only a low probability that alcohol charges would be filed in the face of assault allegations, the possibility is there. It’s a possibility I am uncomfortable with and a possibility with serious symbolic implications. According to a Justice Department survey, only 46 percent of rapes are reported. This means that for some reason or another, 54 percent of victims felt unable to tell the police they were assaulted. Expanding the Indiana Lifeline Law could potentially raise the rate of reporting.Victims of sexual assault often fear reporting the crime because of the victim-blaming that has permeated common thought. Especially if alcohol was involved, these people are made to feel as though they somehow provoked this attack.Passing a law that ignores minor alcohol violations in the face of a sexual assault report is an important step toward removing the stigma against victims. Law enforcement would no longer formally dignify these claims. Perhaps legal forgiveness would be the impetus some victims need to forgive themselves.If IU’s population coincides with national statistics, about 4,350 students have been victims of attempted or completed rape. This number is unacceptable. We need to address the problem of sexual assault on our campus, and this expansion of the Lifeline Law is a step in the right direction.— casefarr@indiana.edu
(03/05/13 5:00am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>You’re supposed to read them, although I understand if you’re using this page as an impromptu umbrella or rat cage bedding. Captain Planet would certainly be proud of your adherence to the three R’s. Maybe you don’t have the time, or are uninterested in the topic, or think the accompanying picture looks dumb, so you don’t bother reading. I will accept full responsibility for your lack of interest while privately blaming our editors.But if you’re going to bother to engage with what I’ve written, online or with friends, please take the time to read the entire column. Sometimes reading the first few sentences is not enough. You know where a column is going, but maybe it’s more nuanced that you thought. Maybe it’s not, but you’ll never know until you reach the end. As you read, remember: This is someone’s opinion.A common criticism of the opinion section is that it isn’t objective. Readers shake their heads, bemoaning the death of journalism.If only I could wield such power.I am not a journalist. The death of journalism is not on me. I am an opinion writer. I am under no obligation to be objective.You can write about your opinion in a column, a letter to the editor or a comment on idsnews.com, but I don’t have to talk about what you think in my column. Addressing alternative points of view is probably rhetorically advantageous, but I don’t have to do it.And if you’re bothering to read my personal thoughts all the way through, please beware a final hurdle: identifying with a specific group or philosophy does not necessitate tacit endorsement of everything other members of that group do or say.There are pro-choice Republicans, gun-toting Democrats, feminist Muslims and Americans who are less than exceptional. Presuming an argument based on a single identity can leave you responding to claims never made by the writer.In rebutting a Republican’s pro-life column, citing former Rep. Todd Akin’s, R-Mo., discussion of “legitimate rape” is only relevant if the author alludes to it. Though Akin’s statements, in conjunction with others’, may point to problems with the GOP as a whole, Akin does not represent a universal Republican point of view. We assemble ourselves into groups to make the world easier to navigate, but pretending every member of a group agrees perfectly with every other member ignores the variability of humanity, cheapening understanding of individual arguments.Columnists fall into this trap, too. Reading one stupid quote from one stupid person, we are quick to condemn entire movements, parties and ways of life. We do this because it is easy. It is easy to put down crazy ramblings. It is difficult to confront a well-reasoned argument.These are just a few recommendations as to what you can do with an opinion column. If all of this sounds unreasonable, rat cage bedding is still a viable option.— casefarr@indiana.edu
(02/25/13 5:00am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>Christianity is still going strong. Freedom of religion is not war. Christian hegemony is alive and well.Having grown up in a secular household, it is hard not to audibly scoff whenever someone bemoans America’s so-called “War on Religion,” especially when they really mean “War on Christianity.” These religion-defenders seem confused about the difference between waging war and respecting the separation of church and state outlined in the Constitution. The theory of evolution is not an affront to Christianity. Asking employers to cover employees’ health insurance is not the anti-Christ. Disallowing prayer in schools will not bring about the apocalypse.They also seem fairly blind to the fact that American society, or at least Indiana, is ardently Christian.I knew I was damned by the time I was 3. I have my homeschooled Christian neighbors to thank for that. Hearing me use words like “dang,” or my parents’ rock music, they would scamper away from my devil-house shrieking, “you’re going to hell!”In elementary school, asking what church someone belonged to was a standard getting-to-know-you question. At age 7 or 8, I was happy to answer differently from everyone else. I never sang in a church choir. I was never baptized. These things made me interesting, but they were also somewhat alienating. The insistence of others that I was missing out prompted me to give church a try in middle school. The religiosity of my role models and peers made me feel guilty that I found religious services uncomfortable, that I was mistrustful of reverends and pastors, that the doctrine they were espousing just never clicked with me.Biblical allusions evaded me in high school English class. Having never read the Bible, I was always a beat behind my church-going peers, only recognizing the most obvious of references. It hurt my understanding of Western cannon and my International Baccalaureate oral exam grade.Still, because I grew up in a hegemonic Christian culture, even though I have never read the Bible, I generally know what it says. I know the important stories, the important lessons, the important people.Christianity, a religion I do not practice and do not believe, has permeated every phase of my life so far, defining my relationships with others and the world. If anything, recent “anti-Christian” legislation only puts Christianity in danger of being less hegemonic, of being less invasive in the lives of non-believers.Of course, this is purely anecdotal, so let’s look at some facts. 78.4 percent of adults in the U.S. are Christian-affiliated. Our president is sworn in on a Bible. Our money clearly states “in God we trust.” The Supreme Court just dismissed a case objecting to one of the many government-sponsored displays of the Ten Commandments. Since the 1950s we have pledged allegiance to a country we insist is “under God.”We live in a Christian country. Any war against that would be fruitless.If anything, there is a war against Christians deluded enough to believe theirs is the only way of thinking.— casefarr@indiana.edu
(02/19/13 5:00am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>#INeedMasculismBecause was trending on Twitter last week, and like all things masculism, the ensuing argument broke the Internet. Masculists pitted themselves against feminists in a Twitter battle as fruitless as every other Internet fight.For the unacquainted, masculism is the ideology of men’s rights activists, who claim that feminism overshot, resulting in the oppression of men.Follow the white rabbit down the glory hole that is the men’s rights subreddit for a more wide-ranging glimpse of just how society is keeping men down, with posts and comments that sometimes read like a circle jerk of the Nice Guys of OkCupid.One of the most frustrating aspects of the movement is that many of these men have legitimate concerns, but they are articulating them in a way that is alienating and offensive.Custody laws that inherently favor the mother, the incarceration and treatment of the prison population that is mostly male, the marginalization of male victims of sexual assault and abuse and other issues are problems that need to be addressed.But these problems arise not due to oppression, but due to a history of flawed thinking in regard to gender.Saying that male-bodied persons are being systematically oppressed is not a great way to endear people to a cause. To be oppressed, one must be disempowered. As we live in a patriarchal society founded, built and run by men, there is an obvious dissonance in the lamentations of men’s rights activists.Though no research has been conducted on the demographics of MRAs, their concerns seem to imply that many are experiencing oppression — oppression in the form of classism or racism, not misandry.For the institutionalized biases that do exist against men, MRAs would do well to stop pitting themselves against feminists and instead join the more established movement. Constructions of masculinity are already being studied and discussed in gender studies classes around the country, and most feminists are aware of the negative effects of patriarchy on men. Some of these men seem to realize that something is being taken away, and it doesn’t feel fair. But that something is the privilege that comes with being male.Most men will never take a class that requires readings by exclusively female authors. There is no need for a male Bechdel Test, because male characters in movies are usually important and discuss topics other than women. Men still hold an inordinate amount of CEO positions and seats in Congress. When a man runs for president, no one will wonder if America is ready. He will never be asked what designer he’s wearing. MRAs raise important issues, but they are misguided in asserting that male voices are being overshadowed by those of women and transgendered individuals. Trans men and women are some of the most invisible people in the United States. Adjust the rhetoric, tone down the misogyny and perhaps we can actually address the problems about which MRAs are rightly concerned.— casefarr@indiana.edu
(02/11/13 5:00am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>I was invited to three Anti-Valentine’s Day parties this week. It seems all of my friends are on the same wavelength, which is tuned to the “Valentine’s Day is stupid” channel. I love this station — eff consumerism, eff Hallmark Card-defined love, eff fondue restaurants, to list just a few of its greatest hits. Valentine’s just seems like a weird day to have a special date. Isn’t that what your anniversary or birthday is for? Or, like, Saturdays?Plus, if you celebrate the day after everything is marked down 60, 90, 1,000 percent.Admittedly, I’ve never had a Valentine’s Day Date, so I could just be another Poor Soul Who Will Never Understand the Meaning of True Love. I could be, but I no longer live with any cats so it’s pretty unlikely.Going on dates is fun. Making it a special date, like where you wear something besides sweatpants, is fun. Getting presents is fun. Going to a stereotypically romantic place on a Thursday around the same time as a million other people, however, does not sound fun. Freaking out about what to get someone you just started dating last week because it’s Valentine’s Day does not sound fun. All that pressure to be open and romantic sounds terrifying and horrible.As we all know, not everybody performs well under pressure. If you get my meaning. If you know what I’m saying. I’m winking right now. See?Despite finding the holiday incomprehensible, I’m wary of the haters. These are people who are more extreme in their disdain than I. I’m half a hater; these people mainline ‘hater-ade.’ They want to show how happy they are being single on the one day no one cares. They want to protest because they feel like society is trying to take away their spirit. Maybe this is their first sans-Valentine Valentine’s Day in recent memory. A cool thing about Valentine’s Day is that it is not required. You’re not going to get an F in your sociology class for not attending and writing up a page on the experience. No one’s going to cart you off to spinster jail.In objecting so much to the concept, some people are actually revealing how much they wish they had a date. Either do Valentine’s Day or don’t, but be honest with yourself about it. If you like the holiday, celebrate however you want, and be honest if your disdain arises because of a pronounced sense of loneliness. If you don’t like it, be honest about that, too, and maybe you won’t have one of those sitcom debacles about someone who said they didn’t want a gift but really did want a gift and now the world is ending. If only I had someone willing to “be mine” this week — I would probably forget that it was Valentine’s Day and buy myself some Chipotle because that’s what I do every week.— casefarr@indiana.edu
(02/05/13 5:00am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>While I sympathize with their demand to reduce tuition, I’m just going to sneak out quietly to avoid the wrath of any nearby strikers.Since I moved off campus, IU pays me to attend. I live off my refund check, which I guess means that I live off the state of Indiana, donations and probably a little bit of other students’ tuition.Initially, I didn’t understand the stirrings of discontent surrounding tuition and fees which, according to a strikers’ leaflet, have increased more than 45 percent during the past six years. IU was always the cheap option — a public, in-state school that is willing to give merit-based aid.In a sea of United States schools charging upward of $50,000 per year to attend, IU’s in-state $10,034 seems like chump change. Even adding the cost of room and board, $18,888 compares favorably.This is a problem.If you are using a $200,000 education as a benchmark, one for south of $50,000 looks like a bargain. Really, both prices are a bit much to expect 18-to-22-year-olds to accept responsibility to pay. As a public institution, IU should not have its hand permanently in the pockets of its students.Our school does try to help. According to the College Board, IU meets 89 percent of financial need, and the average financial aid package is $11,388. These numbers could definitely be improved, but they are not insignificant. I do worry about the 11 percent of need that is not met. The College Board also indicates that students from wealthy families annually pay almost full tuition and fees. Perhaps most do, but I doubt that the true average net price for families making more than $75,000 is between $18,000 and $19,000. I take issue with this stat because of how merit-based aid is doled out. Yes, I am criticizing my own livelihood. No, I do not want it taken away.Students from wealthier backgrounds are more likely to do better in school. Rich families can move to better school districts. Upper-class first graders have vocabularies twice as big as their lower-income peers. Children who simply have more books at home complete more years of school. While 28 percent of merit aid goes to high-income students, only 20 percent goes to low-income students. Though the cost of college can be a burden for most families, there is a difference between one family having to cut back on a few things and another having to skip the expense altogether. If you are able to gain admission, cost should not prohibit you from attending.I have yet to decide whether to strike on April 11 and 12. I do worry about missing class, but the strikers’ demands deserve our attention.— casefarr@indiana.edu
(01/29/13 5:00am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>With the election of Glenda Ritz as superintendent of Indiana schools last November, there was hope that Indiana education policy could start moving in the right direction. Gov. Mike Pence’s two-year budget plan, however, leaves some doubt. The plan would increase K-12 education funding by one percent, and in 2015 the best-performing schools would split an additional $64 million. I am wary of this pittance being promoted as progress.Former Gov. Mitch Daniels cut $300 million from K-12 education back in 2009. The Pence plan recoups less than half of that figure, despite a $2 billion surplus. Unlike state Sen. Luke Kenley, R-Noblesville, I don’t think kids should be forced to swallow this cut just because their parents have faced pay cuts and layoffs. If anything, kids with struggling parents need better schools.The $64 million split between the best-performing schools, however, is what really makes me nervous. The schools that are already high-achieving are generally not the same schools that need the most funding. Good schools are marked by great teachers, diverse opportunities, AP and IB classes in a variety of subjects, computer labs and quality teaching equipment. It takes money to make all of these things happen.While I’m sure that the schools in upper-middle class suburban areas would appreciate increased funding and put it to good use, these are usually not the same school districts that struggle with mass truancy and have a majority of students on free or reduced lunch. I suppose the $64 million is meant to act as a reward, an impetus to encourage schools to get their act together by applying economic principles to education. But, as well-meaning of an incentive as this plan is, the school system is not a marketplace. Students have little to no opportunity to choose which school they will attend. Kids stuck in Indianapolis Public Schools go there not because they are getting maximum utility, not because they have made a rational cost-benefit analysis, but because education is compulsory and they have nowhere else to go.Indiana students should receive a quality education no matter which school they attend. We cannot afford to think of schools as suppliers and students as demanders. Poor students will continue to be relegated to poor schools. We cannot write these kids off.This $64 million is going to help a few kids get a better education, but leave most of those who are at the margins of society in the dust. It is another step toward increasing income inequality and cementing class immobility. We need higher funding for all schools, along with productive policy changes. Of course throwing money at the problems inner-city and rural schools face won’t make them magically disappear, but, in conjunction with better policy, we can make a dent. When it comes to education, hopefully Ritz and Pence will work together to find ways to benefit every student rather than throwing pennies at a select few. — casefarr@indiana.edu
(01/22/13 5:00am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>In grade school, the Girl Scouts didn’t let me join.It was not because there was something wrong with me or anything, but simply because the local troop was full. The only way I was going to get to be a scout was if my working mom took it upon herself to start a new troop. So I was never a Girl Scout. Maybe this rejection led to a bizarre grudge, because I think we should do away with the Girl Scouts altogether. And the Boy Scouts.Yes, these groups are great places to build character, learn important skills and bond with fellow scouts, but why are they separated by sex? There should be one all-inclusive Scout troop to rule them all.I realize the activities each troop participates in are largely contingent on the Scoutmasters, but these groups do a lot to socialize children into stereotypical gender roles. Looking solely at merit badges, there is a lot of overlap in what each program values. They’re all about community participation, self-improvement, practical skills and creative interests. But there isn’t a Boy Scout badge for “babysitting,” “eating for beauty” or “manners.” There is no Girl Scout badge for “shot gun shooting,” “engineering” or “truck transportation.” It is just as valuable for a girl to be able to drive a truck as it is for a boy. Both sexes should know how not to offend others. Learning how to take care of a child is important for anyone who will potentially become a parent. Everyone can forget about that eating for beauty nonsense, though.By taking the best of both programs and swirling them together, we can help build the character of impressive, well-rounded, responsible humans, rather than reinforcing weird expectations based solely on gender identity.Opponents would argue that it is better to separate kids based on sex to avoid any funny business. I would argue that funny business already occurs in the Scouts as-is. Still, camping trips could have sex-specific tents or hotel rooms, or however people “camp” nowadays.Besides, Boy Scouts will not seriously pursue their motorboating merit badge until their teenage years. The brotherhood and sisterhood forged in these groups are incredibly valuable, but imagine how much more beneficial these would be if we allowed these bonds to form between boys and girls. A male friend once told me that because of our friendship, he started to understand women as people. Combining the scouts could demystify the opposite sex for thousands of children.The Scouts would also be more inclusive. It wouldn’t matter if a biological male who identifies as a girl, or vice versa, showed up, because everyone’s already in the group. Plus, twice the amount of kids would be pushing delicious cookies and that dumb popcorn would finally fall by the wayside. I love cookies. — casefarr@indiana.edu
(01/15/13 5:00am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>When we learn to ride a bike, we are not worried people will think less of us.If we start playing baseball, we don’t expect our first team to be our one and only. After our first night in a college dorm room, we don’t assume we’ll wake up reborn. These standards seem ridiculous until we apply them to the taboo topic of sex. Young adults are often made to feel that their first time is possibly the most important thing we will do. It is viewed as one of the most monumental moments in our lifetime.It is what will make you a woman. It is the universal bar mitzvah.Deep down, we know these ideas are stupid. Unfortunately, we are trained to ignore our B.S. detectors by a society that is just as confused as we are.Last year Jaclyn Friedman, preeminent feminist and author, came to IU and discussed the commodity model of sex, in which virginity is treated like a precious diamond. It is an economic application of heterosexual sex, where women are the suppliers and men are the demanders. It is up to the women to protect their magic southerly parts until a gentleman offers the proper price: marriage. The women are considered worthless if they “give it away” before this price is met.For men, this can mean that masculinity is determined by how good they are at getting women to have sex with them at below market value.Indiana public schools have completely bought into this model because they receive federal funding to teach abstinence-only sex education, which isn’t sex education at all. Sex intimidation would be a more appropriate name.I remember in one class, a teacher asked everyone to squeeze out a tube of toothpaste onto a paper plate. When the plate was all gooey and minty fresh, she asked if we could put the toothpaste back in the tube. Of course, we couldn’t.“That’s what happens when you lose your virginity,” she said. “You can never get it back.”Unlike any other activity, if you have sex for the first time at the wrong time or in the wrong way, you will be ruined forever. Sex, like toothpaste, is something you want to squeeze out of the tube right the first time. Even though most people do not stringently follow the commodity model, it is evident in our everyday interactions.This is the model that causes women to strategize about how soon into a relationship they can have sex without losing their status as “girlfriend material.” It is this model that causes men to lie about their sexual experience to avoid being stigmatized as effeminate or gay.By applying economic models to our sex lives, we cheapen ourselves. We become things rather than people, and one kind of experience comes to define our worth. If you like someone, who cares how shiny and new they keep their diamond?— casefarr@indiana.edu
(01/08/13 5:00am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>The gang rape and murder that occurred in New Delhi last month shocked the world and put Indian culture under a microscope.It is easy to point at a foreign culture and argue what it’s doing is wrong. Americans are especially good at it. Critics worldwide wondered how something like this could happen and what Indian authorities were doing to fix the problem.They cite the prevalence of child brides and the frequency of domestic abuse.Indian officials have been condemned for their poor handling of rape cases in general, as another victim killed herself after her case was mishandled by the authorities, and she was asked to marry one of her attackers.The devaluation of women may seem particularly egregious in India, but it is not solely an Indian problem. This is a trend seen worldwide. This is an everyone problem. An editorial in the New York Times asserted that India “can never reach its full potential if half its population lives in fear of unspeakable violence.” While this criticism rings true, limiting it to India is facetious.It feels ridiculous to disparage others for making the same exact mistakes we are still making. Our country is no stranger to gang rape, insecurity in female mobility, police apathy toward victims and insensitivity in the trial process. One in six American women will be the victim of an attempted or completed rape. American women who walk home alone after dark are consistently berated for acting irresponsibly. The majority of rapes that occur in the United States go unreported. Only 3 percent of American rapists ever spend a day in jail. Half of our population lives in fear of unspeakable violence, but these fears are perhaps ignored because they do not exist in the context of arranged marriages and Hinduism. They don’t exist in the context of the other.India should be censured for the societal norms that have caused a 25-percent rise in the number of sexual assaults during the past six years. We should challenge practices that silence women and take away their autonomy.But we cannot become complacent just because things are worse elsewhere. We cannot reserve our outrage for Indians, Saudis or Egyptians. We cannot continue to find fault solely with those who are racially, culturally and religiously different from ourselves without looking in the mirror. India does need to make changes, but we cannot forget that we, too, still have hurdles to overcome. — casefarr@indiana.edu
(12/10/12 5:00am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>The United States should change its drinking laws.Yeah, yeah, this argument is about as cliché as they come, but I am confident I would maintain this view even if I were not an underage American. When I was younger, I totally supported the magic age of 21. I agreed with the idea that alcohol is an impediment to brain development and thought the law was an effective way to protect kids. Then, in high school, I felt little to no pressure to partake, and it definitely was not an expectation. This was not the case when I got to college. Our culture touts college as a time for experimentation. You are supposed to go out, get drunk and make mistakes. Adults often look back fondly on their “crazy college years.” This is the culture that has encouraged and will continue to encourage underage drinking at IU. Our laws fly in the face of that culture. A drinking age of 21 forces students to tread a weird middle ground in which they have to pretend they are not drinking while everyone knows they are. They are walking on a balance beam between what is expected and what is allowed. It is pretty hard for drunks to balance. They inevitably fall, and fall farther than they would if drinking laws were different.Because they cannot buy their own alcohol, underage students often end up at strangers’ parties drinking strangers’ beer. While it is fun to meet new people, in this context it can be dangerous. Maybe these strangers want to take advantage of freshmen seeking alcohol. It is a risk students will take to participate in the “college experience.” Because they are not supposed to be drinking alcohol, drunk students are afraid to return to the dorms for fear of getting caught by a resident assistant. Instead of going home, they may end up on some creeper’s couch for the night. Students who have walked miles to get to the party with the free beer sometimes can’t walk home at the end of the night and will take rides with someone whose name they don’t even know.The most serious case is when someone has alcohol poisoning and their friends are afraid they will get in trouble if they call for help. Of course, the Indiana Lifeline Law provides immunity for students in this situation, but can we trust a freaked out drunk student to remember this recent piece of legislation? They will definitely remember that they are drunk and underage, and that is against the law.We force students to sneak around, and in sneaking around, students get hurt.Something needs to change. Maybe college campuses could be exempt from the drinking age. Maybe high school graduates could be fast-tracked toward legal alcohol access. Maybe we could simply lower the drinking age to 18. Whatever the path, laws need to change, because I doubt students will.— casefarr@indiana.edu
(12/07/12 5:00am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>I noticed something weird in a friend’s Facebook profile picture. The face of the woman he had moved to Japan to date had been inexplicably replaced with that of another Asian woman. Otherwise the picture was exactly the same as it had been.It seemed like he had cut one woman out of his life and pasted another into her place. The image bothered me, probably because I am friends with his ex-girlfriend, but also because it seemed to be clear evidence of what gross people call “yellow fever.”That is the racist name white men who fetishize Asian women call their predilection. This fetish is relatively common and accepted by mainstream society. Often men feel no qualms about saying “I only date Asian women,” and listeners rarely protest the validity of such a statement.Only dating a specific race is racist. You have decided that vast groups of people are unfit to date solely because of their race.I’m sure men who have restricted themselves to the Asian members of the dating pool would argue they are enamored with Asian culture, but sometimes I think these men are more in love with the culture than they are with their girlfriends.Not to mention the fact that there is no monolithic Asian culture. Asia is kind of a big continent. Even if they were born and raised in the United States, women of Asian descent are treated as embodiments of some exotic and mysterious culture by fetishists, rather than as individuals. According to a study by Korean-American psychologist Bitna Kim, white men who exclusively date Asian women overwhelmingly cite the perceived subservience of these women as an attraction. They like that “women serve the men. They do things for him that the Western culture has long forgotten.” In this sense, the fetish is both racist and sexist. A fetishist wants an Asian girlfriend in the hopes that he can have the sexy sandwich-maker he always dreamed of. These stereotypes are dangerous and these relationships hurt the women involved.The blogger She-Hulk-Smash describes her experiences saying it isn’t very hard for her to find a man interested in her because they don’t care who she actually is. As long as she was still Asian, she could be a completely different person and it would make no difference.She says these men treat her like an “exotic souvenir,” a characterization she resents. It is important to recognize Asian fetishists for what they are: racists and sexists. This is especially important at IU, as thousands of Asian women attend our University. Of course biracial dating is awesome, but not when it is based on racial stereotypes.You should not date someone because of what they are, but because of who they are.— casefarr@indiana.edu
(11/30/12 5:00am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>Passing out hundreds of condoms on campus as I have, you get an interesting, albeit unscientific, snapshot of campus sex-positivity. Unfortunately, the picture is not encouraging. The process usually goes like this:At first you’re embarrassed. You’ve got to give all of these sex gloves to strangers. It’s even worse if that dude from your business class passes by. “Hey business dude,” you think, “Don’t mind me, just trying to encourage safe sex, you know.”Then you get some encouragement from passersby who are really excited about free condoms. They usually make some crude joke after taking a handful and high five their friends to show how virile they are. Still, these potential sex-havers reinvigorate you. You’re giving away condoms with catchy “get consent” stickers on the wrappers, and you are proud.But no distribution would be complete without the people who go to the effort to return your gift of contraception. They are downright offended that you would ever hand them a piece of latex covered in lube.All of these reactions reflect societal discomfort with sex even though it is a necessary, natural process without which most of us would not exist. Those distributing condoms are often half-hearted and embarrassed because, despite our own attempts at sex-positivity, we are acutely aware of being judged. The enthusiastic groups have to make sex a joke to be OK with it. The final group seems to think that by handing them a condom, I am accusing them of being immoral sex fiends who cannot control themselves. The roots of these attitudes are complicated, but I suspect Indiana’s abstinence-only sex education policy is partially to blame. Abstinence-only education is problematic because it does not work. It encourages a deep-seated fear of sex. Instead of putting condoms on bananas, my high school health class looked at an STD slideshow, watched a video of a woman giving birth, and were told if we had sex before marriage, we would be broken shells of people.Yes, sex can lead to both STDs and pregnancy, but these effects are not inevitable, especially if you know how to properly put on a condom. Instead of getting us to wait, abstinence-only sex education tells us we are bad people because we have totally normal impulses to do it. It makes us ashamed to ask for contraception for fear of harsh judgment.— casefarr@indiana.edu
(11/16/12 5:00am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>Now that the election is finally finished, we can discuss the real issue facing this country: our impending doom.For all the haters who doubt the world is ending, you are obviously not paying attention. Look at the weather. Look at the politics.Look at the popularity of “Fifty Shades of Grey” and its abhorrent misrepresentation of the BDSM community.Wake up, America. Come Dec. 12, some shit is definitely going down, and it’s about time we make real preparations.Like any prudent American who has rightly acknowledged Armageddon’s approach, I have the basics all set. I distributed ham radios to all of my friends with extra batteries, reserved a place in a doomsday shelter, exchanged all of my currency for gold, stockpiled months of canned and dry foods, collected disparate strands of rope, pieces of wood, sharp rocks and, of course, lots and lots of guns.Living through the apocalypse, however, is not the same as surviving in a post-apocalyptic society. It takes more marketable skills than an ability to write sassy opinion columns.This aspect of doomsday is most worrying for me. I am a Japanese and political science major. I’m not going to be in Japan when the shit hits the fan, so my ability to communicate in that language is pretty useless. Knowledge of international relations will be completely irrelevant in the immediate aftermath.After all, then there will be no more nations and instead only anarchy, where physical strength reigns supreme and he or she with the most supplies survives.I took one semester of Judo and I was really bad at it.If I die during the apocalypse in a deluge of hellfire and plagues, at least it will be pretty quick. I’ll have lots of company, but rejection by whatever small post-apocalyptic society that gives itself a dumb name and allows polygamy for some reason that springs up nearby wherever I end up would be pretty embarrassing.“I couldn’t even make the dumb-named polygamists like me?” is what I’ll be thinking as I starve to death, cold and alone.How do you light a fire without a match? Is there really more than just one kind of knot?Is it OK to eat those orange-spotted mushrooms?The Girl Scouts did not prepare me for this. I guess I didn’t watch enough of that Bear Grylls guy. Or the other guy. Which one drinks his pee all the time? One of them was fake, right? These are the questions that haunt me.With only a month left before the 2012 apocalypse, I am running out of time to actually develop these skills, so I’ve been forced to come up with another tactic: befriend those who already have them.So, to all of those wilderness and survival experts out there: Hi, my name is Casey Farrington. I am super great to hang out with and not a leech at all. I would make a good companion in a post-apocalyptic society because look at this smile.Besides, did you read the part about all the supplies I have?Awaiting your replies. Spend Armageddon with me. — casefarr@indiana.edu
(11/02/12 4:00am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>New jobs — 12 million, to be precise — has become the battle cry of Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney’s campaign. Like Oprah, Romney would gesticulate wildly at America, shouting, “You get a job, and you get a job. Everybody gets a job.” Cheers ring from sea to shining sea. Chants of “Mitt. Mitt.” echo across the purple mountain majesties. Amber waves of grain do the wave.The economy is what really matters, and Romney is a job creating machine. Elect him, and let him do what he was made to do. But here’s an awkward secret: it is predicted that regardless of who is president, 12 million jobs will be created by 2016. Either candidate will create jobs. A lot of jobs.Romney is running on the idea that he is good for the economy, and your pocketbook, but it seems Obama would be just as good. With Republican vice presidential candidate Paul Ryan, R-Wis., as his running mate, Romney was supposed to be the quarterback of the economy. He was going to lead us to victory and make out with the hot cheerleader at Homecoming. As far as taxes, the Romney camp wants to cut taxes for everyone by 20 percent, which, with no further details, would shrink projected government revenue in 2015 by an estimated $900 billion. I know the government is supposed to be bad and everything, but it kind of needs that money to pay for things. Everyone keeps harping about the deficit, but cutting government revenue, especially by a projected 24 percent, does the opposite of assuaging that problem. We all know Romney wants to cut spending for certain programs, like NPR and PBS, which amount to a whopping 0.014 percent of the federal budget. Supposedly, there are other spending cuts he would like to make, though these remain shrouded in mystery. He wants to increase defense funding, which is the largest single category of federal spending. For some reason, fiscally minded businessman Romney really does want to spend $2 trillion the military never asked for. For those of you who have yet to vote, are still undecided, or forgot Election Day is next Tuesday, think about what Romney is really offering.He has failed to show compelling evidence that his presidency would be better for the jobs or economy than a second Obama term. His views on important social issues have been anything but consistent. He has chosen one of the most socially regressive politicians in the known universe as his running mate. His dealings with foreign leaders so far have been clumsy and embarrassing. His foreign policy seems to be “follow Obama’s lead.” He would never in a million years decriminalize marijuana. Need I say more?— casefarr@indiana.edu
(10/26/12 4:00am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>There is a myriad of things I have yet to understand about IU and its students, some I doubt I will ever fully grasp. One of these mysteries is why you would drive to class when, in most cases, it is just a short bike ride away.I love biking around IU and Bloomington. It might not be as quick as driving, but there is always better parking.I don’t have to worry about making it to the gym, because my exercise is built into my day.I get to spend more time outside, which is especially great when beautiful Bloomington summers turn into even more beautiful Bloomington falls.Still, there are ways our community could be bike-friendlier.In the last month I have been accosted twice by people in cars. Sometimes it can be intimidating to share the road with giant machines that can easily squash you. It is more intimidating when it seems like the people controlling those machines want to squish you. Just because I can hear you yelling at me does not mean I want to listen. My riding a bike is not an invitation to talk at a stop light, especially when you just want to make me feel uncomfortable and vulnerable.I should mention, both incidences were deeply rooted in sexism.It’s street harassment, except this time we’re both in the street, and you can easily run me over.Harassment is always inappropriate, but for a biker it’s a different kind of scary. The advantage harassers have facing you is tenfold. The first time this happened to me, I was afraid the car would start following me. Needless to say, I made it home in record time.The second time, the driver recklessly sped past me after asking if I was “eye-fucking” him. If he had been just a few inches closer, I could have been road kill. My friend conveyed a similar experience to me, except her harasser was a pedestrian. He ran at her, shouting. What if he had knocked her off of her bike? What might have happened?Another time some guy yelled from his yard, “Ride that bike like a dick, yeah!”We can’t be the only two bikers in Bloomington who have experienced this kind of harassment.We cannot tolerate this kind of behavior in our community.If you’re thinking about accosting someone — anyone, anytime, ever — just don’t. Nothing at all comes from doing it.It’s not that hard to not yell at someone. It’s not that hard to not make people feel bad. If you’re with someone who is a harasser, tell them to stop. Punch them in the arm. If they don’t stop, or they dismiss you, stop hanging out with them. Uninvite them to your birthday party. When they call to make plans, just say you’re sick. Be sick all the time.I don’t want to stop biking just because some people are terrible. — casefarr@indiana.edu