101 items found for your search. If no results were found please broaden your search.
(11/06/06 3:24am)
"Baby girls with a passion for fashion!"\nSuch is the slogan for Bratz Babyz, a very progressive and educational toy targeting young girls by MGA Entertainment. \nExcept, that's an enormous lie.\nThe dolls don heavy eyeliner, bright pink lipstick, long hair (it's as long as their entire body ... ?) and midriff-bearing tops. And, for Pete's sake, they look tanned. They are supposed to be 2 years old. \nYeah, gross.\n"Look sexy." From early on in recent years, little girls have received this message loud and clear. From the toys created for them. From the TV shows they watch. From the clothes produced for them.\nBut another very contradictory message persists as well: Don't talk about sex, and certainly don't engage in such activities. Then, of course, you'd be a big, fat slut.\nHistory tells us women's sexuality has been regulated across the world since the beginning of time. When Latin American countries were being colonized in the 16th century, ideas about "purity of blood" were essential for a family's honor. Men largely had the freedom to cheat on their wives without persecution; women were responsible for maintaining honor. \nIn the Victorian era, women were called upon to be beacons of morality, to uphold ideas about sexual purity -- and to influence men to do so, as well.\nAs late as the 1970s, Puerto Rico had one of the highest rates of women's sterilization in the world. Most of the surgeries were conducted between the 1930s and 1960s, when the country underwent a massive campaign to control a "population problem." Many of the women sterilized weren't informed of the consequences of the procedure. In some cases, the government had women's husbands sign the papers. \nAnd constraining ideas about women's sexuality perpetuate. A recent qualitative study from the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine indicated that, while young women (in many countries, including South Africa and Sweden) are aware of the necessity of condom use and other sexual protective practices, they are wary of carrying condoms because of what it would imply for their reputation.\nThey could be known as sluts.\nI don't support irresponsible sex or promiscuity, but I do support one's enjoyment of her or his own sexuality without being chastised, judged and persecuted or ... sterilized. \nWhat's at stake for women and men in sex is the same.\nIt is true that women have the whole "potential to have a human growing in her uterus" thing to think about. But it took equally a man and his sexuality to create such a thing.\nBasically, it takes productive discussion and open minds to challenge culturally constructed ideas about gender and sexuality. We must take responsibility for our actions and our bodies, unlearn and deconstruct limiting ideas, and, if you're bold enough, talk to your friend about what they mean the next time they call someone a "ho-bag."\nAnd passing value judgment should always be avoided. \nUnless it is upon those Bratz dolls. They are so creepy!
(10/30/06 3:42am)
On the occasions I'm up in time to watch it, rarely does NBC's "The Today Show" present me with any new or meaningful information -- but last week I was more annoyed than ever at a segment America's prom king Matt Lauer hosted called "Obesity: Living Large in America."\nThe messages posed in that particular "news" segment included, but were not limited to, the following:\n"Be aware of the hidden fats in your fridge!" "Childhood obesity is an epidemic!" "Portion sizes and our appetites are out of control!" "Food is Satan's nectar; run for your lives!"\nWell, the latter one is by me, but the rest were actual claims the show's featured guests -- health nutritionists and chefs -- made. And, of course, some of the information they pointed out was important. After all, The Washington Post reported Sept. 3 that for every two people who are malnourished across the globe, three are now overweight or obese. Also, 35 percent of low-income Americans are obese, while for high-income Americans it is 29 percent. \nSo, a lot of us are fatties.\nBut the stigmas that come along with being fat -- as perpetuated by dynamic journalism of "The Today Show" -- are completely regressive.\nPart of the segment involved a nutritionist visiting the home of a nauseatingly normal-looking family of five. The family's matriarch and the peppy, blond (Aren't they always?) nutritionist stood in front of the home's refrigerator and picked out all the items that could "secretly be making the family obese." \nAmong the items picked out were yogurt, applesauce and milk. \nNot even kidding! Yes, it was true that these items contained high-fructose corn syrup (mmm ... I'll have seven) and fat, but the nutritionist cast the information in the most threatening light possible, leaving both the on-screen mother and viewers frazzled.\nI support knowing the truth about food products' nutritional info and having healthy bodies but resent this perception that eating sugar or fat is inherently bad with detrimental effects for one's health and character.\nThis sort of propaganda fuels eating disorders. And I don't mean just anorexia and bulimia -- I mean "eating disorder" in a way that refers to any warped ideas about food and eating. With this as the definition, I can't say I know anyone without an eating disorder. \nAs far as recommendations go, I wouldn't go along with the old "everything in moderation is OK." We know from nutrition facts what ingredients directly relate to diseases that can kill us. We must regulate our intake of trans fats and too much cholesterol and partially hydrogenated delicious things likes cupcakes.\nI'm also an advocate, however, of enjoying life. And if that means eating a donut once a month, cashing in on 15-cent buffalo wing night or partaking in cake at your nephew's birthday party, then by all means, eat up. Deprivation will never make for an effective diet or a fun life!\nAnd lastly, mad props if you can watch "The Today Show" without puking.\nAnd that's not a bulimia joke.\nOK, it is. Eat your fiber!
(10/23/06 2:56am)
It was recently brought to my attention that many of my peers -- even some I consider very thoughtful and intelligent -- understand feminism and feminists as something inherently bad or, at least, scary and aversive.\nSo I am here today, friends -- boys and girls alike -- to dispel some unfortunate myths about what it means to be a feminist. I hope to do so as sarcastically and arrogantly as possible (not because feminists are arrogant -- only yours truly). \nA complimentary snack of unsalted cashews and Diet Sprite will be distributed halfway through. Sit back and enjoy!\nMyth #1: I can't be a feminist because I like dudes.\nIt is false to presume all feminists are lesbians. Take me, for example. The American Heritage Dictionary defines feminism as "belief in the social, political and economic equality of the sexes" -- not, as you might presume from media texts depicting feminists as crazy women who eat men, kill babies in the name of freedom and have sex with other women. Of course, some feminists are lesbians. But some feminists are also Spice Girls.\nMyth #2: I can't be a feminist because I am a dude.\nNot true -- one needn't have a vagina to be a feminist. Any human advocating total equality of the sexes is a feminist, whether he likes it or not.\nMyth #3: I can't be a feminist because I wear makeup and midriff-bearing attire.\nThis is reminiscent of Myth #1 and media depictions suggesting that only women who don't care about their looks, carry a shrubbery of unshaved hair under their armpits and are averse to anything feminine can be feminists. \nFalse, but funny.\nIn fact, all of the women I know who identify themselves as feminists shave the parts of their body society prefers hairless. Are we conforming and being regressive as we do this? Only if we are shaving so we can pose for Playboy and capitalize on our sexuality.\nMost feminists aren't against that which is feminine -- only that which is feminine and also submissive, weak and powerless.\nMyth #4: I can't be a feminist because gender equality already exists and it's not necessary to advocate it.\nFor me, this one is the worst of all. I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but if you believe full equality has been reached, you are living under a false consciousness. Working women in the United States earn less than men in the same professions. Women are still vastly underrepresented in Congress, thus laws regulating their bodies (e.g., abortion) are made largely without their voices. \nOne of my male peers recently expressed his disregard for many feminists because they don't seek equality, but rather superiority to men.\nFeminist scholar and writer Gloria Steinem probably has the best response to this suggestion: "The first problem for all of us, men and women, is not to learn, but to unlearn. We are filled with the popular wisdom of several centuries just past, and we are terrified to give it up"
(10/16/06 2:50am)
With fall come crystal blue skies, football games, apple orchards, pumpkin patches and arguably the best holiday of the year: Labor Day.\nJust kidding -- it's Halloween!\nThis Halloween, I am wearing to festivities some very stereotypical "mom jeans" (read: the top of my pants end at my breasts), a very large and unflattering T-shirt my father was given for donating blood and some stark white high-top tennis shoes I found in my mother's closet. With a wicker belt and thick, hair-sprayed bangs, I plan to make many a friend laugh with my ridiculous and very wonderful costume.\nI might be an anomaly among college women, however, when it comes to my outfit -- mostly because I'll be wearing one.\nIn "Mean Girls" (one of the most provocative and meaningful media texts of our time ... sort of), Lindsey Lohan's character explains that Halloween costume politics are vastly different for young adults than for children -- especially women. \nLittle girls -- appropriately -- wear full-body bunny costumes or dress as Minnie Mouse with adorable big ruffly skirts and painted noses. Meanwhile, college women resemble their favorite exotic dancer (whom they might claim is a "'50s pin-up girl" -- making it more respectable?) or, as we see in Mean Girls, don a headband with animal ears and a string for underpants, calling it a kitten or some other baby animal.\nStill, I don't think there is anything intrinsically "bad" about (un)dressing so scantily in public -- I just like to make fun of it a whole lot. \nI do think it's important for women who choose such noncostumes to consider their motives. \nIf it is because knocking men off their feet by unabashedly baring your body is something that appeals to you and is essential for your self-esteem, well, I'm sure you're not the only one.\nIt's really not a woman's fault that sparking male interest is essential for her well-being. From early on, little girls are trained to "desire to be desired" by movies and television shows depicting heterosexual romance. \nIf this is the reason you're wearing pasties and a lace thong to a party, please keep in mind that you're only reinforcing the idea -- so loved and continually generated by the popular culture -- that a woman's body is an object to be gazed at. \nYou're reinforcing the idea that women are primarily sex objects.\nNow, this is not to say that anyone should be permitted to use your outfit as an invitation for sexual assault. You have the right to wear whatever the hell you want without being violated.\nYou also have the right to contribute to changing constraining and negative ideas about femininity and womanhood by avoiding stripper-esque costumes.\nIs it unfair that I'm asking only women to regulate their costumes? Yes. Is the binary system of gender that dominates our culture also unfair? Yes.\nSo let's all wear clothes on Halloween together!\nOh, and I'll trade you my Snickers for your 3 Musketeers.
(10/09/06 2:53am)
"Men can be feminists."\n"Cultural conceptions that blame women for their own sexual assault are devastatingly inaccurate and must be erased from society's thinking."\n"Raising awareness about the prevalence of sexual assault -- especially imposing that knowledge upon men -- is essential to make occurrences diminish."\nThese major themes of IU's Take Back the Night held Thursday evening are incredibly progressive and necessary, especially in our culture where one in eight women on a university campus will experience sexual assault, as Carol McCord, assistant dean for the Office of Women's Affairs, pointed out in her address to the crowd.\nStill, as I sat on the cold grass in Dunn Meadow in front of the stage -- shivering but enthralled -- I couldn't help but think about the disconcerting implications of some of the other rhetoric that is inherently a part of Take Back the Night ceremonies. \n"Tonight we are safe to walk alone," said one speaker at the event, addressing women. \nWhen I heard that, I couldn't help but recall the night before, when, near midnight after a long workday, I'd had the urge to go for a long, exhaustive run. I didn't hesitate; I wasn't worried about my safety on the Woodlawn track that late evening.\nShould I have felt unsafe? \nWas I safe at night only on the eve of Take Back the Night?\nCertainly not. And, in all fairness, I know that the benevolent campus organizations hosting the event weren't implying that idea.\nMy memory was activated that evening, though, as I recalled moments as a high school student and as a freshman at IU, being frightened to my core walking home to Forest Quad late at night, usually after ushering at IU Auditorium events. No way would I have signed up for a night class.\nI avoided walking alone at night at all costs.\nI was too scared.\nCertainly my fear stemmed from my mother's warnings to me as a girl and from watching too many "Dateline" episodes warning parents to help their daughters (never their sons) be safe on spring break or when they go to parties (Hold onto your drink the entire night! Don't wear a skirt the width of a belt! etc.).\nLuckily, a couple of media literacy classes and years of life experience later, the security I've obtained through knowledge allows me to make a conscious choice to not live my life in restrictive, culturally constructed and institutionalized walls.\nSo it was a little disturbing Thursday evening when ideas about women inherently being victims were reinforced by some of the language at Take Back the Night.\nAnd this is not to say that women aren't inherently victims. Under a false consciousness, we probably are. This is not to chastise or attempt to cancel any future Take Back the Night ceremonies. The awareness generated from such an event is invaluable.\nI suppose the ideal, then, as mentioned that evening by guest speakers, is to live in a culture where Take Back the Night ceremonies aren't necessary at all.
(10/02/06 2:23am)
Hi.\nHey.\nSup?\nNot too much, you?\nNot a lot.\nThanks to AOL Instant Messenger, AIM, if you will, probably the vast majority of us -- college students, adolescents of the '90s -- have had conversations beginning similarly, if not exactly, to that above.\nThanks to the simplicity of the AIM conversation, we never have to face rejection firsthand again. Our vocal chords can rest. We never have to encounter awkward eye contact. We don't even have to wear underpants as we speak to our peers via AIM, nor do we ever need 2 type out whole words. Sleazy and efficient!\nAIM also provides a channel for the most intense passive-aggressive expression known to mankind: the away message. Bitter about an ex? Insert Avril Lavigne song lyrics. Confused about the conclusion of your last date? A quote from "Family Ties." Never had a date? Some obscure allusion to "Star Wars."\nThough sarcasm saturates my words, I fail to believe there is anything inherently "bad" about communicating via AIM. Sure, conversations in person -- and even over the telephone -- are more effective means of communication, as a person's vocal and facial expressions are lost among the lines of text in an instant message box. Plus, over AIM, the poor English language takes a beating with online jargon and the laziness of conversation participants regarding accurate punctuation, verb agreement and capitalization.\nBut like with any form of low-cultured entertainment -- browsing Facebook, watching "Laguna Beach," eating kittens -- people typically speak of their AIM chats with a hint of dishonor and embarrassment (when it's brought up in the public sphere at all). Meanwhile, people who do not partake in such activities often speak with arrogance about their high and mighty lifestyle that excludes such nominal activities. And that's fantastic. You don't fill your days with mindless entertainment -- ever! Congratulations! Unless you're finding a cure for AIDS or passing out sandwiches to homeless children with the free time in your day, you're a jackass -- or at least unnecessarily arrogant.\nTo participate in a low-cultured activity -- that is, to have an AIM chat, to eagerly watch "Grey's Anatomy," to buy a Van Gogh print at Hobby Lobby -- is not shameful, and I resent the stigmas that come along with such activities.\nAfter all, we don't all have the time and money to enjoy ballets, tours of the Met or ... conversations with human beings?\nOK, so talking over AIM isn't quite the same as a HALO marathon. And I would never advocate AIM chats over a discussion at the dinner table. Of course, the latter is more meaningful or at least more personal.\nI would, however, advocate the elimination of any feelings of guilt from it.\nOnline conversations, just like reality television and dangerous, unproductive wars, are part of our culture now. Talking online doesn't mean you're a coward or a bad friend, it just means you're lazy. And very, very normal.\nI gtg -- ttyl.
(09/25/06 2:57am)
My eyes produce more eye crust than the average person's -- I could bake pies with the amount I pick from my eyes some mornings.\nAlso, I have a condition called "hyperhidrosis," which means I have more than a normal amount of overactive sweat glands under my arms. I have a prescription antiperspirant to counter the moisture.\nSo, that's disgusting. \nI'm sure I've diminished my chances of being pursued by a male, at least in the next several months. Still, I can think of no more effective way to illustrate the concept and the image of the "laminated body" that the media project and that young people buy into every day -- very unfortunately.\nThe laminated body is the guy on GQ who's dapper and looks sharp even with scruffy hair and "vintage" jeans (that we know came from Banana Republic). Or it's the perfectly tanned and clean-cut teen in Venus razor ads promoting the idea that women who use the product will "reveal the goddess" in her. \nPeople with laminated bodies don't poop or sneeze or eat or fart, and they certainly never sweat. They have perfect bodies. Bodies with no attachment to the outside world. Bodies we want. Bodies we can never, ever have.\nI know I'm not the only one who perspires excessively. I've seen plenty a friend -- even female -- with lovely puddles of salt gracing their T-shirts' underarms.\nAnd we're ashamed of it! We're all devastated when we fart among acquaintances around whom we're not ready to express our small intestines' functions. And I pay tens of dollars for my prescription deodorant every year to hide my sweaty pits (which, very unfortunately, I didn't come across until after middle school. Try being 5-foot-8 and 110 pounds with a sweat problem among 12-year-old boys. Talk about intense character building.)\nIn a culture where ladies are supposed to "glisten" and appear shiny and sexy when it happens and where men are supposed to pump iron daily but never look greasy, the accumulation of sweat beads on the upper lip, having excessive hair on limbs, being gassy, carrying booger crumbs that are stuck in our nose hairs and smelling like 10-day-old Pizza Hut after a long run are cause for some major insecurities, despite their prevalence among just about every human being on the planet.\nThe bottom line: We are people. We are not bodies, and we -- both men and women -- will never obtain the ideal body projected to us in magazines and on television. Always remember not to passively consume such media texts. And keep in mind that it's possible that a person's mind, motivation and personality are more important than his or her physical appearance.\nNever mind. That's ridiculous.\nJust remember that you're not the only one with an appalling hygienic disorder -- if you have one. \nBesides, it can make for a neat party trick. Trust me.
(09/18/06 2:50am)
Ladies get in free!\nLogically it seems wrong for me, a "lady" by society's definition, to question such an offer -- usually promoted by sports bars or any other location that aims to capitalize on women's sexuality. It's easy on my wallet, after all.\nBut free admission, ladies, has a higher price than the $3 cover charge that is waived.\nPubs, concerts and even parties that offer women free admission are doing so to enhance their capital. That is, having beautiful women -- or lots of women in general -- around is a mark of their success. The women are their possessions, to be had by the men who pay their way in. \nSounds like a strip club, but it's really just almost any run-of-the-mill sports bar. \nBut this one marketing scheme speaks to a larger cultural issue I have with gender norms in the United States: that heterosexuality is dangerously empowering for men. \nLet me preface this daunting feminist argument with the fact that I do identify as heterosexual. I heart men! What I don't heart are conventional heterosexual dating rituals that are fundamentally oppressive.\nSome of my female peers express vague resentment when a date doesn't hold open doors or pay for their meals or movie admission or other ultimately conventional (and boring) date activities.\nThere isn't anything inherently bad about being disappointed in a male's lack of "mannerly" behavior -- except that I wonder if my peers understand where ideas about dating and romance stem from.\nNo? I'm happy to share. Modern ideas about romantic love stem largely from the Victorian Era when women were essentially brainwashed by ideas that a man's love will ensure them eternal happiness, so as to limit women's curiosity and maintain their ever-honored "purity" as beacons of morality. \nGross!\nSo, today, when a man buys a woman dinner on a first date and she lets him, probably with the intentions merely of being polite and traditional, the couple is actually perpetuating unfortunate ideas (for men and women) about relationships and gender roles within them. The primary idea here is, of course, that a woman must rely on "her man" for money. The thing is, it used to be that women had no choice but to do this.\nBut also, from a modern viewpoint, how unfair for men it is to be expected to provide food for their date. \nA heterosexual couple must have complete respect for one another as equal individuals. Can that really happen in this sort of dating scenario?\nProbably not. And this is essentially why I encourage abandoning conventional heterosexual dating methods. \nMy words might have potential of portraying me as some crazy or ungrateful subversive feminist, who is ardent about keeping her legs unshaved and hates soccer moms.\nBut I'm really not at all.\nAll I'm doing is thinking outside of the constraining gender box. \nNow go buy your own dinner, and read a book.
(09/11/06 3:21am)
I undressed and climbed into a coffin-shaped vestibule full of cancer-causing light with an angry bee with an enormous stinger painted on the side. \nI'm not describing my experience as a prisoner of war. All I did was "go tanning."\nThis past Saturday was the first time in about five years I'd subjected myself to a tanning bed. The combination of being naked and locked in a 4-by-4-foot room with the knowledge that what I was doing was absolutely negative for my health was oddly satisfying.\nPlus, I couldn't help but enjoy my healthy glow upon exiting the bed.\nBut later that night, as I observed my previously fair but now very, very red belly, it occurred to me that, extremely falsely, U.S. culture conflates health with beauty. That is, a beautiful person is perceived also as healthy.\n'Going tanning' is certainly one of the most evident ways that the illusion of health is prized over actual health -- at least in attempting to obtain white beauty ideals.\nIt is well-known by even the most mildly educated folk that being tan IS having skin harmed by the sun's ultraviolet rays that cause cancer. Where I come from, anyway, having cancer is not being in good health. And, believe me, chemotherapy is no party.\nAnd yet, the images of white celebrities with the bodies and style we worship are mostly tanned or bronzed. If they are not, they are pegged as "a unique beauty." (I'm thinking Scarlett Johannsen here.)\nThis 'beauty as health concept' extends much further. \nTake a look in a grocery store: aisles with cough syrups and headache medicines are the same ones that include teeth whiteners and shampoos. To take care of one's body, this suggests, is to take care of both one's inner and outer "self."\nFat is almost inarguably the physical feature with the least respectability in the United States. Being "fat" is, by mass media and, thus, many Americans, paralleled with being lazy, unsuccessful, ugly and certainly unhealthy.\nThe most dangerous part of the health/beauty conflation are these moral tags that accompany the categories. To be beautiful -- that is, to conform to standard beauty ideals -- is to be successful, a winner, healthy, friendly, good. To be ugly -- that is, to deviate or to disregard beauty standards, especially people who are fat -- is to be unworthy, disgusting, bad.\nThese labels make for a harsh reality. The idea of "beauty on the inside" is lovely but also misleading.\nNot everyone can be beautiful. \nWhat everyone can be, however, is interesting, educated, worthy and meaningful contributors to society. And isn't that what we all want to be, after all?\nWe mustn't judge ourselves or others based on what we see in mass-media images. The people and body parts in magazines rarely actually exist as portrayed.\nAnd it's just not healthy.\nNow go eat your fiber, and wear a wide-brimmed hat when you go out in the sun.
(09/05/06 2:52am)
Ladies, protect yourself from rape. Walk at night in groups. Don't wear revealing clothing. Don't drink too much. \nThis kind of public service announcement, though typically delivered with benevolent intentions, is regressive and devastating for rape victims and ultimately promotes the denial of some substantial personal freedom. \nAnd though many educated people can point this out easily, it's a perpetual way to promote the "prevention of rape." On Saturday, the Bloomington Herald-Times published a small news article about a 19-year-old woman who was raped at a northside apartment.\nThe police officer cited in the article urged people "to lock their doors," almost blatantly putting blame on the sexual assault victim.\nIn our rape culture, this is the essential problem. A popular conception of rape prevention and explanation is that it is the victim's responsibility to protect him or herself from the absolute possibility of rape, that rape is out there -- and we must hide from it.\nIt's so easy to blame the victim in these cases.\nGolly, if that young woman had never kissed her date or wore that tiny skirt or drank alcohol excessively, or if that young man hadn't been walking alone along that unlit path or wearing makeup, they would've been alright.\nIt's absolutely important and sometimes effective, even, to promote responsible behavior. Still, don't young women have the right to binge drink and wear minimal clothing if that's what they choose without being disgustingly disrespected and violated on physical, mental and emotional levels?\nThat's the problem: It's easier to urge potential rape victims to avoid certain activities than to teach potential rapists not to rape. \nI know there are attempts being made. On IU's campus, the Men's Coalition and Raising Awareness of Interactions in Sexual Encounters aims to educate people on the true meanings and implications of rape and sexual assault. This is a very progressive and effective step in the right direction -- but it's not enough.\nThose without the resources to obtain higher education are aware only of the acceptance of rape and gender roles that reinforce ideas about whom to blame for assault. \nThis is devastating not only because of what it means for potential victims' freedom, but also because of what it means for victims themselves. \nSexual assaults are notoriously under-reported because of the guilt victims feel as imposed on them by society, including, as we saw in Saturday's newspaper, the media. It's a vicious and horribly unfortunate circle.\nI, personally, will not live in fear. I will take a care of myself, but I refuse to fear such discouraged things like running alone at night.\nIt's up to all of us to make a change.
(08/31/06 3:09am)
Take care of and respect your bodies. Take care of and respect others' bodies. \nIt is likely -- though, of course, not certain -- that you have several years of life ahead of you. Don't feel compelled to "sew your wild oats" and "have the time of your life" within the next four years.\nTake different paths to your classes once you know basically where your class buildings are; you'll learn campus geography more efficiently that way.\nDon't be afraid to ride the bus, but take a seat quickly, as there are some very antsy and impatient bus drivers who won't wait for you to do so before they take off. This can result in loss of one's cellular phone or an uncomfortable moment in a stranger's lap. Trust me. I know.\nDon't buy into the stereotypes regarding the different residence halls. From my experience, there is a rich diversity of people in each one. Learn to love where you're living.\nThe monster cookies at Sugar and Spice in the Indiana Memorial Union are delicious (and fattening) and filling enough to replace a meal during times when sitting down to eat isn't an option.\nIf the first college party you ever attend scares you out of your mind, you are not the first to feel that way. \nTake a gender studies class.\nGo to your instructor's office hours -- if just once. Sometimes it can result in a better grade, sometimes only in the teacher knowing your name and face. Either way, it's beneficial.\nFind a place on campus you can consider a second home, whether it's among other club or group members or a friend's dorm room. \nTry not to always stay put.\nDon't use all your meal points in one place. Remember that Willkie Quad has a giant C-Store with delicious deli sandwiches and soft pretzels with cheese.\nGo to class.\nListen in class.\nParticipate in class.\nBrowsing Herman B Wells Library's stacks is frightening the first time. And the second through 100th times. Still, you can find there almost any information you'd ever want. \nConsider studying abroad.\nMajor in what you love or in something you have a passion for -- if you're lucky enough to find such an option.\nExplore Bloomington. It's easy to be caught up in the campus bubble and never see the rich diversity and beauty in this small town.\nYour resident assistant is not necessarily a nerd.\nBe careful not to leave your umbrella, ear muffs or gloves in class. \nBe careful not take either studying or partying too seriously. \nTypically cars don't care where or when you need to cross the street. It's up to you to not get your brain smashed in.\nGet a good pair of rubber boots. So what if they're ugly? Your feet will be dry and warm on the many, many snowy and rainy days you will encounter.\nPeople are too concerned with themselves to care what you're wearing, eating, studying, etc.\nDon't worry. Have fun. Be safe.\nWelcome to IU.
(08/25/06 3:43am)
Before they hit it big, Roseanne, Ellen DeGeneres and Steve Harvey were among some of the many nationally recognized stand-up comedians to perform on stage at Bear's Place, 1316 E. Third St., as part of Comedy Caravan.\nStill, only people 21 and older can attend the Comedy Caravan shows at Bear's, which take place every Monday and Saturday night at 7:30 and 10:15 p.m. Younger students needn't miss out on the laughs, though.\nThe first Comedy Caravan show of this fall's season, featuring comedians and husband and wife Lord Carrett and Jennifer Dziura, is 10 p.m. tonight in the Frangipani Room on the Mezzanine level of the IMU.\nComedy Caravan began performances open to all students free of charge at the Indiana Memorial Union in 2001 when the Union Board's comedy committee split off from the concert committee on Friday nights once a month, said junior Scott Carrico, current Union Board comedy director.\nCarrico said he typically expects about 100 people at the IMU shows, but he's expecting much more -- up to 3,000 -- for this Friday's show because it is being held in conjunction with IMU's "Taste of the Union,", a Welcome Week event tonight from 5:30 to 10 p.m. designed to give new students an idea of what the IMU has to offer in terms of both food items and activities.\nWhile Carrico said Comedy Caravan serves as a meaningful way for Union Board to provide free entertainment for students, its tradition at Bear's Place runs much deeper.\nThis is the 24th year Bear's Place will host Comedy Caravan's stand-up comedians. During its history, it has hosted comedians who have appeared on NBC's "Saturday Night Live," including Darrell Hammond, and "Last Comic Standing" and CBS's "The Late Show with David Letterman", said Bear's Place manager Jim Reef.\n"I can turn on Comedy Central or VH1 and recognize a third of the people on there (from Comedy Caravan at Bear's Place)," said Brad Wilhelm, Bear's Place comedy host.\nBear's reputation as a premier comedy club hasn't gone unnoticed outside of Bloomington. A list compiled by USA Today last March names Bear's as one of the "Top Ten Places to sit down and watch stand-up."\nReef said having two venues (Bear's and the IMU) available for Comedy Caravan is beneficial.\n"I believe the healing power of comedy should be available to everybody," he said.\nFor more information on Bear's Place and Comedy Caravan, including upcoming shows, visit www.comedycaravan.com.
(08/24/06 5:03am)
Thank goodness for Hardee's.\nWithout its consistent production of unnecessarily large meat creations and individual food items that provide all the calories the average human needs in a day, "some guys would starve." So they claim in their commercials, anyway.\nIn my favorite advertisement, an unassuming, middle-aged white male struggles at cracking and whipping up eggs in a bowl, as in preparation for his breakfast. He does so begrudgingly and unsuccessfully, grunting his way through this very fundamental task.\nHardee's is unabashedly targeting a single demographic in its ads: the heterosexual, rugged man. \nThe men they want to eat at Hardee's don't go tanning or fix their hair with gel, and it's unlikely they're into theater or reading Foucault. Hardee's wants men who like beer, sitting and boobies.\nHardee's men are portrayed as virtually incompetent -- at least when it comes to such traditionally 'feminine' work as cooking -- while women are given little or no reason to eat Hardee's greasy delicacies at all.\nNow, it's unfair to pick on one particular advertisement. The culture of advertising is all about perpetuating stereotypes and planting fears and desires in consumers -- that's just how it goes and how it always will be. How else would marketers get people to buy things, after all?\nStill, the implications of this commercial are particularly unfortunate for both men and women, as it illustrates larger cultural constructions of masculinity and femininity that are degrading. It's because of this that such popular culture texts are important to study.\nThe idea that nonmentally underdeveloped or physically handicapped men cannot adequately crack open and prepare an egg is not only bogus, but also sexist, suggesting that only women -- the perceived masters of the kitchen and home -- can do such things sufficiently. And Hardee's is being condescending to the women and the kitchen, suggesting that "real men" haven't time for "chick" things like cooking and bathing -- they have better things to do, like consume already-prepared cholesterol bits and play football on motorcycles.\nAnything like this Hardee's ad, that contributes to the persistent and limiting dichotomy of gender so deeply developed in our culture, is unfortunate. \nHow free are men in less educated and/or more conservative parts of the country to enjoy cooking, love fashion and makeup or wear a pink shirt? And how free are women to shave their heads, wear giant, baggy shorts or have sex every weekend with a different partner? \nThe law permits the above actions but our society does not without ridicule and chastisement.\nWoody Allen once said, "Life doesn't imitate art, it imitates bad television."\nAnd it seems that, until marketers and mass-media producers are willing to step out of the Happy Meal box, society will take behavioral cues from the media and perpetuate constraining ideas about gender.\nSo, I could really go for 20 pounds of beef on a bun about now. I'll probably wear a jock strap on my way down to Hardee's in a Hummer with 17 20-inch wheels.
(08/23/06 3:39am)
If you're not a self-identified artist, a theater guru or well-versed on Shakespeare, we have at least three things in common. \nBoth myself and the assistant arts editor Andrea Alumbaugh do not identify ourselves as art connoisseurs -- and we know a good portion of IDS readers do not either. Still, we appreciate art and aim to cover arts-related events and happenings on campus and in Bloomington extensively, effectively and in a way that will encourage students to appreciate it, too.\nAndrea and I are incorporating some features into the Arts page that will allow readers to learn art in an easily accessible way. Here's what to expect:\nARTiFACTs\nThis feature will run every Tuesday and provide an image and a brief-but-informative blurb about pieces of art on campus -- primarily from the IU Art Museum and the Mathers Museum of World Cultures. We encourage students to be familiar with art and want to make it as simple as possible for them to do so. With ARTiFACTs, we aim to help students "become more cultured in 30 seconds or less."\nTuned In\nBeware, transportable music device wearers. Every Wednesday, including today, Tuned In will feature two to four students and the song they were listening to at the moment they were approached by a photographer. \nSidewalk Runway\nAppreciating fashion doesn't have to be complicated. Every Thursday, a "model" found on campus (in the form of an IU student) - wearing something bizarre or beautiful - will be photographed and published on the page as a means to encourage fashion appreciation. We believe that it's not only runway models who have great style. Wear something that speaks to your personal style, or something unusual, and you could be our next Sidewalk Runway model.\nGraduARTs\nWe want to see more student artists in the paper. So every Thursday, Arts reporter Lindsey Landis will interview a student with an arts-related major or genuine interest and achievements in fine arts. We believe the arts can include anything from comedy to jewelry making to tuba playing.\nIn addition to the above features, the Arts page feels it's important to cover happenings at the IU Auditorium, IU Department of Theatre and Drama, IU Opera and Ballet Theater, IU Art Museum and Jacobs School of Music -- as well as the many arts groups and organizations in Bloomington. Still, we need help finding out about everything that's worthy of press, so please always feel free to e-mail us at arts@idsnews.com.\nAlso, if you feel like you can contribute to the Arts page, certainly consider applying to be a reporter, photographer or designer. Applications can be picked up in the newsroom in Ernie Pyle Hall Room 120. You can submit story ideas even if you're not on the IDS staff.\nWe hope to hear from you soon. We heart art.
(08/02/06 10:07pm)
With the help of a course assignment, and the knowledge of the recent engagements of some friends from high school, I've come to realize the existence of one of the most lucrative, fraudulent industries in the United States: weddings.\nWhat comes to mind first on this topic is Jennifer Lopez's character in "The Wedding Planner," which I've unfortunately screened more than once (sorry, J. Lo -- more like J. No!). At the beginning of the movie, she talks of her childhood during which she'd have pretend weddings for her Barbie dolls. The plot wants the audience to root for her, so that she experiences her ultimate dream before the movie ends: To be the bride in her own wedding!\nI can't put into the words the blasphemy that is this culturally-created and media-reinforced concept: That a woman's "happiest day of her life" is her wedding day. \nRight. Happy.\nIs it because she gets to spend thousands of dollars (if she can) on food for people she sees yearly and fake pearls for her bridesmaids to wear for a day? Or because she gets to panic about looking beautiful and thin in her constraining white dress? Or maybe because she knows the traditional wedding ceremony places her as a commodity being passed from one man (her father) to another (her husband).\nPlease don't let my feminist jargon scare you. It is the truth, after all.\nAside from the cultural implications, the traditional heterosexual wedding ceremony (oh wait ... that's the only legal kind) is unnecessarily expensive.\nPart of my noted course assignment involved reading "Bridal Guide" magazine and two other wedding planning supplements. The particular issue I had the pleasure to scan was the "Wedding Budget Special." "Gowns Under $1000" was the big story. Finally, ladies! Options you can afford! That is, if you're willing to forego paying for food and lodging for a month in order to purchase a puffball of material. I prefer regular meals to outfits that aren't acceptably worn for more than one day.\nThe magazine also featured very beautiful pink and lacy seat covers for chairs at the reception, and invitations that look like mini holiday gifts with bows. Neat!\nMy sarcasm can be devastating.\nOn that note, I don't think weddings are inherently bad. And I wouldn't chastise my friends or family for holding one in response to their decision to marry -- if that's what they think they really want. \nI'm just not scared to question and discourage an irrelevant, mildly oppressive and gratuitously lavish tradition.\nIt's interesting how long a person can go through life without realizing the meanings behind the things they do: their customary actions and the traditions they uphold. \nI feel fortunate to have developed a sense to question convention of wedding ceremonies before I, myself, blow $30,000 partly so Uncle Bill can dance drunkenly to "We Are Family."\nMaybe I'm too cynical.\nOr maybe you think I'm completely logical, brilliant and hilarious. I do.
(07/31/06 3:26am)
Women who use the exercise facilities at the School of Health, Physical Education and Recreation building will all use the same locker room starting Aug. 11, as the locker room located adjacent to the basketball courts -- one of two currently open for women -- will close for remodeling. The women's locker room remaining open is located in the HPER's basement, near the swimming pool.\nHPER Director of Program Services and Facilities Larry Patrick said the closing locker room is being renovated to support HPER technology support services, a project which he predicts will be completed in January.\nThe men's locker room on the same level as the closing women's is being closed as well, although two men's locker rooms will remain open while construction occurs.\nPatrick said this change should not create a problem, as the number of rented lockers in the rooms for women has substantially decreased the past few years, noting only 14 of 1,090 lockers available for women were rented this summer. Meanwhile, Patrick said "at least a third" of the men's 1,053 available lockers were rented.\n"Men use locker rooms more than women," Patrick said.\nThe women's locker room in the basement offers substantial locker and shower space, but is not currently accessible for people with disabilities who use wheelchairs or canes, said Director of Disability Services for Students Martha Jacques after an unofficial assessment of the space.\nCurrently the entrance doors have no way to be held back and there is no sink or bathroom stall in which a wheelchair could fit. In addition, the shower heads are too high to be accessible for a person in a wheelchair, Jacques said.\nStill, Patrick said orders to the IU Physical Plant have been made to change those items so the locker room is better equipped for people with disabilities. He said he's "hopeful" they will come in the next two months and that the changes will be made by the end of September, but he said the physical plant operates in an unpredictable way.\n"They could come today, tomorrow or six months from now," he said.\nAccess to the women's locker room that will stay open is currently available for everyone, as there is a handicap entrance on the west side of the first floor of the building and an elevator on the first floor that takes occupants to the basement.\nPatrick said using the locker room as the location for technology support services is necessary, as its current room is "way overcrowded"
(07/26/06 10:27pm)
Last Sunday, a beautiful 18-year-old woman from Puerto Rico, Zuleyka Rivera Mendoza, won the title and a $250,000 crown of Miss Universe.\nAbout 40 minutes later, at a news conference, she passed out. The Associated Press and Reuters News Online reported she'd been standing under hot stage lights for hours "in a stifling auditorium" while wearing a dress composed of metal chains, causing her fall.\nA valid explanation -- but I can't help but think there's more to it.\nUpon studying beauty pageants, their complexities and cultural implications in class (going well beyond the 'they are degrading for women' argument) and screening documentaries about contestants' experiences in the pageants, I can't help but think that Mendoza passed out partly because she hadn't consumed a substantial meal in days -- or even weeks.\nBeauty pageants are not inherently "bad," and their contestants are not (all) shallow or participating with a false consciousness -- that is, being unaware of mainstream pageants' connotations for women and, really, society in general.\nIn fact, I would argue that many pageant participants, especially those in Miss America-esque pageants, are extremely admirable in their philanthropic endeavors and academic ambitions. For example, Miss IU, graduate student Betsy Uschkrat, was reported early this month to have founded a concert whose proceeds (up to $70,000) go to feed hungry Hoosiers. Additionally, Uschkrat is pursuing a masters degree in opera at the Jacobs School of Music, one of the best (if not the best) music schools in the country. \nMeanwhile, Mendoza has aspirations to become "an actress of infinite range," according the Miss Universe Web site. Ambition. Good.\nStill, neither Mendoza nor Uschkrat or any crowned beauty queen would win if she were not pretty. She could be a tenured professor of political science at Yale. She could be a social worker who works daily with children with cancer. But if she's not pretty, in shape, under 25 and thin, she will not be crowned queen.\nThe Miss America pageant tries to hide the fact that an ideal feminine body is crucial for winning. They do this by providing her a scholarship, requiring her to champion a cause and making only women who have never been married or had a child eligible for the crown (because she must be a virgin? yyyyyyeah). But the fact of the matter is that the women are judged upon their bodies.\nMore unfortunately, women in these types of pageants put in effort that sometimes causes them health problems (malnourishment, for one) to achieve the beauty ideal essential for winning. More disturbing is when contestants undergo plastic surgery, perpetuating a beauty standard that is naturally impossible.\nI acknowledge that atypical beauty pageants exist that also may have unfortunate implications: male beauty pageants, drag pageants, pageants for obese women. But those contests aren't broadcasted and viewed by millions.\nBottom line: The beauty of a woman is essentialized in her being perceived as successful and deserving of a title which allows her to "represent" a nation (or a universe?). \nSo, what does that mean for the rest of us?
(07/20/06 1:02am)
Last Saturday I had a sandwich I will never forget.\nIt was the bread that really did it for me: It was soft pretzel-esque, moist and almost sweet. There was turkey breast, melted cheese and just the right amount of Dijon mustard -- none dripped out as I held it to my mouth. It was an enjoyable eating experience on a number of levels.\nI've no groundbreaking argument here, other than sandwiches have been an integral part of my diet all my life, and I've been fortunate enough to consume a variety of delicious ones.\nIt runs in the family. My dad and sister are also huge sandwich fans. My sister and I frequently have conversations about sandwiches; I call her when I've had a fantastic one so we can talk about it. Meanwhile, my dad has been an effective role model when it comes to sandwich-making -- after a large meal, notably Thanksgiving, his custom is making mini-sandwiches by placing bits of turkey meat in a dinner roll. No matter how much was eaten already, there's always room for the mini-sandwich. \nPerhaps most remarkable about the world of sandwiches is its breadth and diversity. A sandwich is acceptable for any meal of the day, and its contents can be virtually anything.\nBreakfast sandwiches may be my least favorite. Maybe I've failed to try the finest of this genre, but all the ones I've had have been mediocre, at best. This may be due to my distaste for sausage patties paired with cheeses (characteristic of breakfast sandwich content), but it could also be because I'm more accustomed to eating breakfast items separately. That is, I would rather eat an English muffin with eggs on the side, rather than directly atop. \nNow, distinguishing lunch and dinner sandwiches is a tricky endeavor, but I feel my extensive sandwich experience grants me the authority to do so adequately. I consider a lunch sandwich to be cold. That is, to include deli meats, meat salads, vegetables, cheeses, spreads (such as hummus or peanut butter) and/or any number of condiments. \nBecause of where I lived most of my life (small town Indiana, where else?), I consider Subway the epitome of the lunch sandwich. Only once have I had an unsatisfying Subway experience, and it was due to rubbery roast beef -- it's hard to talk about. But I've been back since and was pleased, so I consider it a fluke.\nOn the other hand, sandwiches appropriate for dinner are typically hot. Not because they have toned abs and great hair, but because they may include meatballs or chicken breast -- animal bits arguably more fulfilling than sliced meats, like those in lunch sandwiches.\nThere's so much more to be covered here: the importance of quality bread, nontypical sandwiches (s'mores, cracker/cheese combinations, Gummi Burgers), my warped mind. Unfortunately, column space constrains me.\nI'm happy to discuss sandwiches most all of the time, as you may have guessed -- just let me know when.\nNow excuse me while I order a pizza.
(07/12/06 11:18pm)
I had a great time at the Counting Crows concert last Saturday in Indianapolis. Everything was pleasant: mild, sunny weather; enjoyable music, fun company, air full of disease and cancerous chemicals.\nWhat?\nBloomington has spoiled me because, as it turns out, not every venue, restaurant or city is smoke-free. I'd nearly forgotten this until the concert experience was spoiled for me due to lack of sufficient breathable air.\nI understand that complaining about secondhand smoke is a stale (but still valid and winning) argument: Why should others have to suffer so a smoker can feed his/her addiction? I won't go there, because we all know of the ample evidence that secondhand smoke contains the same cancer-causing agents as that inhaled by a smoker, and can cause the same diseases. The Surgeon General officially attested to this last week, but it's been well-researched for decades.\nMore troubling, the Associated Press reported Monday that tobacco alone is predicted to be the primary cause of death for one billion people worldwide. One. Billion.\nThus, it boggles my mind that there still seems to be a prevalence of cigarette smoking among young people. In this case, by "young" I mean my peers, or people in their late teens or early 20s. From where I was sitting on the lawn at the concert, I seemed to be in the minority being a non-smoker (and not only of cigarettes ... but that's a whole other column.)\nDid we not all grow up with (perhaps less-than-effective) D.A.R.E. programs? Or, at least, some sort of drug awareness program aimed at children? What about those "White Lies" or "Truth" anti-tobacco campaigns pervading television? And I remember being horrified at the sight of blackened lungs in my high school health class -- not that I believe in using fear as an educational tool.\nRegardless, it seems to me that everyone in my age group should be aware of at least some of the devastating consequences of nicotine use.\nIf this is false, I'm happy to dispense the information: \n1) According to the American Cancer Society Web site, cigarette use kills more Americans than alcohol, car accidents, suicide, AIDS, homicide and illegal drugs combined.\n2) Cigarette smoking can cause cancer of: the lungs, larynx, oral cavity, pharynx (throat), esophagus, bladder, pancreas, liver uterine cervix, kidney, stomach, colon and rectum and some forms of leukemia.\n3) Among the 4,000 individual compounds that have been identified in tobacco and tobacco smoke, 60 are cancer-causing agents.\nOn the other hand, those who quit by age 35 avoid 90 percent of the risk due to tobacco use. It's never too late to quit.\nMy goal is not to make anyone feel guilty, and I'm not calling smokers bad people. Also, I acknowledge that there are more pressing issues in the world to consider and advocate (I believe there's a war on?). \nStill, a person cannot make any meaningful contribution to society if they're coughing up their lungs in a hospital bed. \nCandy is yummier than cigarettes anyway.
(07/06/06 12:07am)
Fewer IU students are staying in Bloomington this summer to take classes, according to this year's enrollment figures.\nEnrollment in both summer sessions has declined for the third year in a row. Summer Session I enrollment is down 2.8 percent from last year, and while the official numbers for Session II will not be released until the end of July, Director of Summer Sessions and Associate Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs Leslie Coyne said they are "down a bit," as well.\n"What's interesting to look at (is) over the last 20 years summer enrollment and credit hours have remained amazingly stable ... until the last four years, in terms of enrollment," Coyne said.\nCoyne attributed the enrollment decline to two factors.\nFirst, he said more students -- especially arts and science majors -- "feel strongly" that internships are really important in terms of their resumes.\n"They by and large will take those in the summer, usually not connected to credit," he said. \nSecond, Coyne said Ivy Tech Community College may be creating "significant competition" for students who enroll in IU courses only in the summer and transfer back to Ivy Tech in the fall.\n"We have been a good choice for students who wish to pick up a course or two," Coyne said. "Ivy Tech is now in that business."\nAccording to a press release on Ivy Tech Bloomington's Web site, 1,943 students enrolled for summer classes there, which is more than a 25 percent increase from last summer. The college attributes the increase to its distance education offerings and its new programs, including radiation therapy and elementary education.\nTodd Schmitz, executive director of University Reporting & Research at IU, said in an e-mail that the implementation of the PeopleSoft system has had an impact on summer enrollment.\nHe said University personnel must place "specific sets of courses into Summer I or Summer II based upon registrar assignment." \n"This has been an issue of considerable concern given that we need and want to maintain historical consistency ... we still have some work to do to create a consistent process and outcome for the attribution of courses to the summer sessions," Schmitz said.\nThough head count has decreased, the number of credit hours students are taking is up 1.4 percent from last Summer Session I.\n"Students are taking more of a load," Coyne said.\nCoyne said the University is researching ways to enhance summer enrollment and is revising its marketing strategies for the summer.\n"We market summer extensively as is and we will continue to be aggressive as we have been and look for new ways to communicate with existing students," he said.\nMoreover, Coyne said finding ways to offer internships in conjunction with courses is a priority.\nThe financial loss of summer enrollment decrease is not yet devastating due to effective budgeting, Coyne said. \n"If you see a continued downward trend then you budget accordingly," he said.