| Written by Jamie Levi |
| Friday, 24 October 2008 09:18 |
|
I picked up the Branding Iron on Tuesday because of the front page. I am a member of Step-Up, a peer education group for the prevention of violence against women, so I was pleased to see that the event, Walk a Mile in Her Shoes, made the front page. But after reading the “Tuesdays with Queries” article, I was more angry than pleased.
While the front-page story detailed men walking in high heels to raise money to stop violence against women, Noelle Lopez is giving out advice about how to emotionally abuse a woman.
Her comments about whether or not a guy should pay for a date do nothing but support the rape culture that is prevalent in the United States.
Three statements stand out from the rest, as being forcefully abusive. The first: "If you buy a girl dinner, she'll generally be indebted to you. And that's a really good thing, because once you have something to hold over her head like that, you can totally get her to do cool stuff." Sounds a whole lot like coercion to me, and that’s a form of harassment.
The second statement: “It’s really important for a girl to feel all catered to, because she’ll get all power drunk, and a girl that’s any kind of is usually really good for business.” This statement sounds like Miss Lopez is endorsing the use of alcohol as a date-rape drug, which, it should come as no shock, is the number one date-rape drug.
Then the final comment: “I can think of one [free activity] right off the top of my head, and everyone likes to do that.” And while at this point Miss Lopez could be talking about Friday Night Fever events, given the nature of the article, I don’t think that was her point.
My overall summation of this article was that a guy should buy a girl dinner so that she will have sex with him. Again, coercion is not consent. It is this kind of thinking that sanctions a rape culture. That is, thinking like this allows for the people of our society to believe that raping a woman is tolerable, and it is her fault if she is a victim of sexual assault. So my question: why does the front page seem to condone sexual assault while its inside pages support it?
Jamie Levi
Senior
|
| Last Updated ( Friday, 24 October 2008 11:37 ) |
| Written by Charlie Wheeler |
| Friday, 24 October 2008 09:15 |
|
A question to the massing political-minded students out there: Did you watch the presidential debate the other night? If you did, I have to say, congratulations! You are now officially capable of being a nanny, pre-school teacher or pediatrician.
I tried, being the political opinion writer, to watch the debate between McCain and Obama. After approximately 10 minutes, I gave up and switched to “House,” whose main character of the same name is by far the most entertaining character on the USA channel.
I know that watching something entertaining rather than intellectual is the typical teenager thing, but I did learn that “House” prefers his Reuben sandwiches without pickles and cold; that has to count for something.
However, I digress. It seems to me that political campaigns are no more efficient than when my sister and I used to try and get out of trouble with our parents. First, she would call me a booger-butt, followed by me jump-kicking her in the chest. At this point, she would run off to mommy and tell her about my wicked martial attack. I would then defend myself by saying how it was provoked by a rude comment about my rectal region.
This game of “point the finger” would resume until we both were sitting in a separate corner of the living room, thinking about what we said. Personally, I think Obama and McCain need a time out themselves. Watching their campaign commercials and their debates is like trying to ignore your kids while they are playing “I’m not touching you” in the back seat of the car.
One minute I’m being told that Obama is associated with terrorists and the next Obama’s saying, “Oh yeah, well McCain pulled my hair and said he was going to give tax breaks to oil companies!!” I finally pity my parents; it only took me 19 years, but I’m finally there.
I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again: The heathen death match is the only fair way to settle this. But, until then, I’m forced to listen to the relentless whining of two old farts who have so few good things to say about themselves that they have to find weaknesses in each other to make themselves look good.
Granted, that’s how politics have always been, right? But now that I think about it, the Webster definition of politically savvy is the ability to pull one’s opponents underpants further over their head than they can yours; or the ability to say “nuh uh” in rapid succession until the opponent ceases their attempts at rebuttal.
I’m going to attempt to initiate another debate between the two foes and call in a challenge where the victor will be the one who can hang from the monkey bars the longest without dropping or passing out. It’ll certainly assist in my decision and will be far more likely to draw me away from the cynical wonders of “House,” that clever bastard.
Email the author
|
|
| Written by Noelle Lopez |
| Tuesday, 21 October 2008 11:29 |
Got a burning question? Send it to Dr. No at:
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it
. Feral ‘til 8 and baptized by fire, Dr. No has been doling out advice and solving problems since 1999. Her areas of expertise include sex, drugs, rock ‘n’ roll, Wesley Snipes movies and outer space, but she can answer pretty much any question.
Q: I’m a really good-looking guy. I get good grades, have a good job, etc. and overall, I’d say that I’m a really great catch. Only problem is, no girl seems to think so. Every time I approach a girl when I go out they just aren’t into it. What am I doing wrong?
A: Your problem is that you use phrases like et cetera and that you think you’re a catch. And while there’s a chance you might be right and you are a babe, there’s just no way that you’re going to get a girl if she knows you know. I’d bet my Magic Bullet Mixer that what you’re doing when you sidle up to a girl is looking her in the face, squinting one of your eyes and giving her a look that says, ‘Hey, don’t you think I’m a catch?’ What your face should be saying is, ‘You’re the babe-most babe in all the land, and if I spend another minute wasting my time using my eyeballs on anything but you, I will punch a hole through my stomach.’ You’re welcome.
Q: The other day I went out to dinner with a girl. We had a really great time, but right before the bill came, she went to the bathroom, leaving me to pay for the whole thing. It felt really weird to me. I mean, with the whole women’s equality thing, shouldn’t we be going dutch? What should I be doing? Who pays for dinner?
A: You do, guy.
Now, I know what you’re thinking. You’re thinking, ‘That’s totally unfair and kind of sexist. Shouldn’t we be on equal planes?’ Well, sir, you kind of are. Women are the invisible contributors to fun. You have to remember that they’re spending an awful lot of time and money trying to look really nice for you by paying for $40 bikini waxes and stuff to make their hair smell really good. They also sometimes spend money on washing certain clothes to wear if they know they’re going out with you, even if that means they’ll be spending an extra four bucks mid-week for not even a full load. If you spread it all out, it’s probably pretty close to what you’ll be spending on her dinner for a month and you don’t even really have to shower.
What you seem to be forgetting is that currency is your currency. If you buy a girl dinner, she’ll generally be indebted to you. And that’s a really good thing, because once you have something to hold over her head like that, you can totally get her to do cool stuff, like watch your stupid band or cut your hair. It’s like a tipping scale; the more you put on your side, the more she will, too. Think about it as a mid- to long-term investment; it gains value over time. Just like your money would gain appreciation in a bank, so will your nights out.
It’s really important for the girl to feel all catered to, because she’ll get all power drunk, and a girl that’s any kind of drunk is usually really good for business.
Now you’re probably thinking, ‘But wait, what?! I’m a broke college student. I can’t afford to pay for dinner all the time!’ and you’re right, you can’t. That’s why you shouldn’t take a girl out to dinner, unless you’re willing to pay. In addition, you shouldn’t pay for a girl’s dinner unless you plan on doing it for the rest of your life. The same goes with flowers. Don’t ever buy a girl flowers unless you plan on popping up from behind the couch with a bouquet for the rest of your life together. Buying dinner is like practice for being married. Have you ever seen your dad make your mom pay for her own dinner? No, you haven’t. He pays for it, like he always has. So, you have two choices: either suck it up or find an activity that you can both do for free. I can think of one right off the top of my head, and everyone likes to do that.
|
| Written by Brandon Bishop |
| Tuesday, 21 October 2008 11:26 |
For the past few weeks I’ve pointed out that generalizations about China are at best only partially correct and at worst completely inaccurate. This is especially true in culture, development and economics. What is often most surprising to Americans when they first arrive, however, is how inaccurate our generalizations about the views of China’s public are.
From what I’ve seen, these generalizations come from two large factors: the tendency we all have to try to make complex issues simple and the assumptions we make about a society with state-run media.
The first factor, oversimplifying, is a tendency that comes from not realizing the diversity of China’s cultural and economic life. This makes us try to group all of China’s public into only one or two groups. Frequently, we portray China as split either between the rural poor and urban rich, or between the government and the general population. In the case of writers with ideological axes to grind, we portray China’s 1.3 billion people as either a faceless mass of the oppressed or the faceless hoard of a rising threat.
In reality, the views of China’s public are as varied as the views of the American public. The views of a rural farmer are radically different than those of an urban businessman or a local government official. Local conditions and situations shape the views of people here just as much as they do in the United States, and that is something that is often overlooked.
Thinking in terms like “Southern Rice Farmers,” “Big City Businessmen” and “University Students,” is a much better way to understand China than to think only of the Chinese.
The second factor, our assumptions about the Chinese state media’s influence over China’s population, is a larger problem. Many Americans believe that simply because there is a state press in China, and since most Chinese have no official access to other media, the Chinese have no choice but to believe their own media.
This is incorrect. Many Chinese are at least somewhat skeptical of the state media, with a significant number of modern university students being cynical about what is and is not reported. This skepticism also appears in the way some university students view Western media. These students often find our trust in our media reports to be naïve.
Beyond this skepticism of state media, the belief that the Chinese people have no access to foreign media is completely untrue. I know this firsthand. The computer I’m writing this article on is subject to the same censorship as any other Internet access point in China, and I can access nearly anything on Fox News, CNN and The New York Times in English as well as both Taiwanese Newspapers and Wikipedia in Chinese and English. While there are occasions when access is reduced and some topics are blocked entirely, the Chinese public has much more access to Western media than we often believe.
If we fail to look past these generalizations, we cannot ever hope to understand China or its diverse population.
Email the author
|
|