88 items found for your search. If no results were found please broaden your search.
(10/19/12 4:00am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>I watched the presidential debate Tuesday night. What else does a self-respecting procrastinator do when attempting to put off schoolwork? I
was frustrated. Which self-respecting Midwesterner wouldn’t be
uncomfortable seeing two candidates rudely get in each other’s faces?
One of the most discouraging interludes included the half-baked discussion of women’s issues.We
discussed the necessity of a woman’s paycheck for the family. We
discussed the importance of equal pay and access to women’s health
services. We discussed the oft-forgotten issue of storing our women in
binders.
Though these issues are important, they are talked about begrudgingly and in an annoyingly gendered manner.Women’s
issues are still thought of as special interest. Though women make up
51 percent of the population, our interests are thought to be secondary
to jobs or the economy.
Politicians talk as though a woman’s access to birth control and equal pay does not affect everyone.In
the United States, birth control remains a largely female
responsibility because the burden of child rearing still falls
disproportionately on women.
There is a 15-minute shot in production that will render a man’s sperm
useless for up to 10 years. It is also easily reversible. You have probably never heard of it.Why
would you, when it is doubtful anyone would use it? Why would men
protect themselves from getting some woman pregnant when she’s the one
who will have to deal with the consequences?
If child rearing was actually a dual-parent activity, not only would
contraception be a universal issue, but the reasons women are denied
equal pay would dissipate.Republican presidential candidate Mitt
Romney bragged about how he knew it was important to allow his female
employees more flexibility with their schedules.
Women do need flexible schedules because they are disproportionately the
ones picking kids up from school, readying dinner and making sure
homework is done.Often the pay gap is blamed not on sexism but on women’s choice of fields.
But women get lower-paying jobs because of unfair gender expectations. A
woman can be passed as a new hire or for a promotion because employers
know that when she starts a family, she will split her time between two
jobs, her professional career and her job as a mom.
There is no such expectation for men. When men start families, it means it’s time for a promotion because he has more people he needs to support at home. It means he is more dependent on the company and has more at stake if he loses his job.
What if we expected child care to be split evenly between mother and father? There
would be no difference between hiring a woman and hiring a man. There
would be a level playing field. Maybe men would work a little bit less,
women a little bit more and their pay would finally even out.
I’m not surprised that our presidential candidates refused to question
America’s fundamental assumptions about gender, but I really wish they
would.— casefarr@indiana.edu
(10/15/12 4:00am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>Every year, IU sponsors an event called “Take Back the Night” during which students are encouraged to rally together against rape culture. This year, though I couldn’t march, I was able to hear a few speakers remind us why this is a fight worth fighting. These heartbreaking stories reminded me that rape in all its various forms is real and can happen to anyone. Even if we can escape the physical trauma, it is almost impossible to escape the fear.Rape culture does not always manifest itself in violence, but it is always lurking in the form of fear.It was jarring when I realized I was afraid. Talking about rape, looking at the statistics and knowing that rape is severely under-reported, listening to the stories of my friends and role models, it seems I was doing more than just educating myself. I was preparing. I was waiting to be raped. I assumed it would happen. Should people expect to become victims because that’s what the data points to? According to Robin Warsaw’s seminal book “I Never Called it Rape,” college women have a 25 percent chance of being raped. When I was younger, I was convinced that rape was worse than murder. I though that I would like to die if I were raped. I didn’t know if I would be able to live with the idea that someone could overpower my physical agency, conquering and perverting my body. Now, in our culture of fear, the worst thing I could imagine as a kid seems a thing most assuredly going to happen. If not to me, then definitely to one of my friends. I can’t make my friend get a rape kit when it happens, but I’ll ardently recommend it. I want to see the tables turned and see a rapist become just a number, a thing, rendered helpless in the face of our justice system. I’m definitely going to report it, I tell myself, if it happens to me. And, more times than not, I’m afraid that “if” looks suspiciously like “when.”How did I get like this? Why am I so afraid?It’s probably because rape victims are treated like liars, especially those who don’t fit conventional beauty standards, or because gender norms have become so ingrained in our society that many have found “science” to back up these notions. Perhaps because women’s issues are considered a special interest. Perhaps because, even today, some consider women to be things, not people deserving of the respect and sense of security that decent living conditions should afford. And you can screw a thing whenever and however you want.— casefarr@indiana.edu
(10/05/12 4:00am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>I hate to break it to anyone who still hasn’t finished “The Grapes of Wrath” in the last 70 years, but it is most certainly not about the wonders of California, land of opportunity and prosperity. Spoiler alert: the Joads, the protagonists of Steinbeck’s 1939 novel, do not find happiness or prosperity upon reaching California. Instead, they lose everything. Case in point: the final scene features a woman breast feeding an old man so he does not starve to death. This is the milk she would have given her stillborn baby. I’m sure at this moment she was thinking, “Thanks, unregulated capitalism!”“The Grapes of Wrath” can teach us what not to do in a recession, which includes destroying unions and deregulating business.Upon reaching California, the Joads do find jobs, but they are few and far between. Nothing lasts very long, and nothing pays enough. California has been inundated with good, hardworking people just like the Joads, so employers don’t bother to pay a living wage. The situation is exacerbated by attempts at unionization, which are strictly forbidden and violently put down. Today’s right-to-work legislation does the same thing, limiting unions’ bargaining power and pushing wages down. Sure, in these states union membership is no longer required for certain jobs, but there is even less chance these jobs will pay enough to support the workers, let alone their families.Lack of regulation contributed to the hostility of the California in “The Grapes of Wrath.” Unregulated capitalism led to a boom-and-bust economy that plagued the United States for years, culminating in the Great Depression. The regulations instituted by President Franklin D. Roosevelt are what stabilized our economy for the next few decades, during which we experienced unprecedented economic growth.I suppose it could be a coincidence that, following the repeal of many of these regulations, we entered our own Great Recession.When regulations are weak or nonexistent and workers are unable to organize, things do not get better. Instead, income inequality increases and standard of living plummets. How demoralizing is working hard for a wage that will not consistently feed you, clothe you or keep a roof above your head? How terrifying is the prospect of barely getting by until your body gives out from physical deterioration and you have nothing to show for your hard work? How frustrating must it be to work shift after shift without being able to escape government dependency, and then being called lazy and entitled by the people who set you up to fail?Read “The Grapes of Wrath” and you will see that sometimes we need a little government in our capitalism to prevent people from being treated like expendable pieces of machinery. — casefarr@indiana.edu
(09/28/12 4:00am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>Ah, the American dream: the idea that anyone, no matter where they started, can achieve success through hard work, dedication and a little bit of luck. Of course, even the best of ideals have a dark side.Victim blaming, the modus operandi of criminals, sleazy lawyers and misogynist politicians everywhere, is at least as American as apple pie. Ingrained in the American dream is the idea that good things happen to those who work hard and keep their noses clean. Success is the result of virtue.By the same logic, then, people with failures get what they deserve. We tend to believe bad things can happen only to bad people.This is a part of the dream that desperately needs to change.Look at some icons of success who embody the American dream: Bill Gates, Oprah Winfrey, Steve Jobs. Not only have these people succeeded, but there is a sense that they deserve their success. Through the virtues of hard work, self-discipline and self-reliance, they succeeded.What about Americans at the opposite end of the spectrum? Welfare recipients are often considered short-sighted, irresponsible and probably on drugs. There is a sense that their poverty is their fault due to a lack of virtue.This system allows us to delude ourselves with the belief that if we are good enough, we can escape failure. It also causes us to kick others when they are down.Victims’ failure to not get mugged, assaulted or battered must point to a personal moral failing on their part. Bad things happened to these people, so we want to believe these people were bad themselves, because if bad things can happen to anyone, bad things could happen to us. Though this line of thinking makes us feel better, it does nothing for the victim who actually needs help. Blaming victims for the unpredictable and antisocial actions of others is not right, and it is not productive. Victims are victims. They do not deserve our moral judgment. The perpetrators do.Perhaps if we were more concerned about criminals, fewer people would become victims. Telling women to wear turtlenecks or pedestrians to stick to the good part of town does not have any functional value. These “prevention techniques” do nothing to actually prevent crime, and they give us a false sense of security. Instead of chastising the victim, we need to focus on who committed the real wrong. Rewriting part of the American identity and ripping off this psychological blanket may be hard, but it is necessary to affect the right kind of change. By thinking about how we can stop criminals from committing crime, perhaps there would be fewer victims to blame.— casefarr@indiana.edu
(09/21/12 4:00am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>An aging piece of papyrus recently sent to Harvard researchers for translation and authentication asks the titillating question, “Did Jesus have a wife?”I ask, “So what?”The Coptic text has given added legitimacy to the theories touted in Dan Brown’s “The Da Vinci Code.” Though the scholars have just a fragment, they were able to translate the words “Jesus said to them, ‘My wife’” and “she will be able to be a disciple.”The scrap, which is being called “The Gospel of Jesus’ Wife,” is declared authentic, as its author had poor penmanship, which is perhaps characteristic of persecuted Christians in 400 CE Egypt. Obviously, the idea that Jesus was married or even allowed a female disciple flies in the face of many conventional Christian, and particularly Catholic, teachings.It questions the Catholic limitations on who can join the clergy. More radically, it removes much of the religious justification for the subservience of women.“Beyond internal Catholic Church politics, a married Jesus invites a reconsideration of orthodox teachings about gender and sex. If Jesus had a wife, then there is nothing extra Christian about male privilege, nothing spiritually dangerous about the sexuality of women, and no reason for anyone to deny himself or herself a sexual identity,” said Michael D’Antonio, a Huffington Post blogger.Sorry, Mike, but I wouldn’t count on any reconsideration of anything anytime soon.The excitement surrounding this discovery is frankly somewhat lost on me. As if a Harvard historian’s discovery is going to work itself into next Sunday’s sermon. I imagine there will be a lot of talk in the Harvard Divinity School, but not so much in the church down the street.Traditional Christian teachings are already too ingrained in people’s lives. If churches suddenly pivoted and told their congregations to change how they view themselves, stopped asking wives to obey their husbands and insisted that sex was OK outside of procreation, I’m sure many people would stand up and walk out.The belief that Jesus was celibate is too widespread to be overturned with this flimsy piece of evidence. Postulating a world in which Jesus was married is an interesting thought experiment but has little practical value. No matter what is historically true, we do not live in a world where Jesus was married because it is not a conventional belief. Maybe this scrap of papyrus will get some play on “Jeopardy” or its own card in the newest versions of Trivial Pursuit, but however scintillating the discovery seems now, I doubt it changes anything. — casefarr@indiana.edu
(09/14/12 4:00am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>Do you remember that guy from “Survivor?” He was from Indiana and wore lots of tie-dye shirts? Rupert Boneham, right?I bring this up only because he’s running for governor in Indiana, a state in which you might just be registered to vote. Survivor Guy for Governor may seem a little far-fetched, but I looked at his website, rupertforgovernor.com, and it turns out his candidacy is not as wild as his bushy beard might indicate.As governor, Boneham wants to reinforce welfare-to-work programs.He wants to reaffirm Fourth Amendment rights that were weakened last year in the case Barnes v. Indiana. He wants to help parents become involved in their children’s education. He wants to change how we treat prisoners, and he wants abortion to be safe, legal, rare and privately funded. Admittedly, I got a little bit excited about his candidacy. He looks like a real person. He was speaking my language. He was great, a glimmer of hope, a chance at something better.He was a Libertarian. The spell was broken. I cannot vote for a third- party candidate. I can’t just throw my vote away.In our two-party system, that’s what voting for the Libertarians, the Green Party or the Anarchists comes down to: nothing.Except in rare cases, the only viable candidates are Democrats and Republicans. They are the only ones with enough money, name recognition and airtime to be elected. Sometimes third party candidates can win smaller elections, but they are hardly ever elected governor. They are a joke when it comes to the presidency. Of the third party governors in the history of the United States, only five are alive today. Only one is currently in office. This points to a massive problem in the U.S. political system. If Democrat or Republican is the only viable choice Americans have, do we really have a viable choice at all?There is A or Not A. Choose one.Voters who are fiscally conservative but socially liberal are forced to value one more than the other. There is no Moderate Party. There is no real choice, and we can forget about fair. There is blue or red. Choose one.The only way we can open up the field to candidates of other parties is by electing officials who want to do so. Do you see the problem? The only electable candidates are from the parties that benefit from our current system. There is donkey or elephant. Choose one. I’m thinking about all the problems we could solve, such as the polarity of this country, political apathy and helplessness, the economy, our society and the world, by actually giving third parties a chance and allowing new ideas into the political sphere. I am angry that we have become so entrenched in these two dumb parties.What’s a responsible voter to do? — casefarr@umail.iu.edu
(09/07/12 4:00am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>Write down five good things about yourself.This was an exercise an elementary school health teacher forced upon our class one day in an effort to encourage high self-esteem and positive self-image.We wrote down things like “smart” or “good friend” or “athletic” or “really big Beanie Babies collection.” Conspicuously absent were words like “pretty” or “attractive” or even “cute.” Even in the fourth grade, we’re not supposed to know how we look, and we’re definitely not supposed to feel good about it.Despite parents’, teachers’, and Christina Aguilera’s best efforts, there seems to be some unwritten rule about saying we are beautiful.If we say that we’re good-looking, our peers turn up their noses and immediately start cataloging our ugliest characteristics. This is an exchange that usually happens indirectly and dramatically, reminiscent of middle-school locker rooms and cafeteria-table seating politics. Last April, it happened viciously and virally when Samantha Brick wrote an article for the Daily Mail about how hard it is to be pretty. While the premise of her article was somewhat nauseating — saying “People treat me poorly because I’m just too awesome” is never that compelling — her appearance was ruthlessly bashed across the Internet. #SamanthaBrickFacts trended on Twitter, usually paired with a snarky remark about her looks. Several sites declared her exceedingly average, including Jezebel writer Lindy West, who wondered if the Daily Mail was playing a trick on the poor woman. Any woman who can wade through a societal climate that disallows women to value themselves and can truly believe she is beautiful is an anomaly. We’re told we’re intellectually inferior, emotionally unstable and so ugly that we need to pick at and paint ourselves to feel normal.Society, particularly other women, ensures this is the case.The consensus that no one should actually like his or her body is also evident in every celebrity interview ever. Stars show how normal and down-to-earth they are by declaring their insecurities to the world. Kim Kardashian hates her thighs. Megan Fox cannot bear to look at pictures of herself. Sophia Vergara and Katy Perry are ashamed of their buxom bosoms.When these women’s insecurities are published alongside glossy photoshopped pictures of their hot bods, they perpetuate a culture of self-hate. If women famous for being beautiful are convinced they are monstrosities, what are average women supposed to think? It is really hard to get to the point where you can even think about being beautiful. Make it easier for other women by avoiding attacking their looks when you disagree with their ideas. Make it easier on yourself by consuming woman-positive media and avoiding publications that encourage an unrealistic standard of beauty. Make it easier for everyone by recognizing that you live in a society that expects certain things from you because you’re a woman, and it’s okay to say “screw you, society” every once in a while.— casefarr@indiana.edu
(08/16/12 4:00am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>Dear China,I don’t know what’s wrong with me. I have always thought of myself as loving and inclusive. Especially toward you, with your delicious General Tso’s chicken and frustratingly fun finger traps. I think of you often, especially when I check the tags of my consumer goods. I never thought it would come to this, but ever since the torch was lit earlier this month in London, I have felt a change within me.The truth is, China, I think I might hate you. The reason is this: since the Olympic Games began, I’ve heard myself saying things like, “I don’t care if we win as long as we beat China,” and “I don’t care who wins as long as it’s not China” and “I hate China.” I’m not sure how this happened. I never wanted to hate anyone, least of all you, especially in light of our very intimate economic arrangement.Why would this emotion flare up within me during the Olympics of all things? A time when different countries are meant to come together and celebrate each other, when we are expected to put political conflict aside, when international unity is supposed to be forged. I long for the days of the 1936 Berlin Olympics, 1980 Moscow Olympics, and the 1984 Los Angeles Olympics. I do not understand how a sports competition could have come to this.Yet I know that there is a motive, a reason to these seemingly irrational feelings. It all started during the medal ceremonies, when I realized that sometimes I did not have the highest vantage point. I looked down at my feet and saw a two or a three. Sometimes there was no number at all. But there you were, China, standing at number one.I’m terribly sorry for bringing this up, but I’m afraid you’ve been standing in the wrong place. You see, dear, I’m number one. That spot is reserved for me. I worked hard. I earned it. I’m special.I hope that following the correction of this error, all of this hostility will subside. That we can return to the healthy, symbiotic relationship our countries have shared since the 1970s. One in which I, America, can still be number one, and you, China, can be whatever else there is. Doesn’t that sound nice? Please, let us continue the relationship started all those years ago by Nixon, good, honest man that he was. I do not want to hate you. We should not be enemies.So, to inaugurate a new beginning, I have a proposal: You should just give me back the gold medals you stole from me and we can put this silly “hate” nonsense behind us. Sincerely,USA— casefarr@indiana.edu