Sorry this got posted so late. Technical difficulties. Which you will have to put up with if you're going to be an editor, because our computer SUCKS. Just click, print, fill out and send in!
Friday, March 13, 2009
Thursday, March 12, 2009
Right Crazy Newz!
by Nicholas Bailey, Senior Editor and Craziness Expert
Wait. You mean to tell me that not only did Sarah Palin not get elected VP, but Bristol Palin’s engagement to her one and only love is over? What a topsy-turvy year it’s been for the Palins. I did not see either of these things coming. *Blink. Blink blink.* Apparently the split was mutual, which I can only assume is code for “That boy wanted OUT and was only staying with her because her mom was running for Vice President.” And to think that now poor Tripp’s home life will be even more fucked up.
Living, breathing, roundhouse-kicking trump card, Chuck Norris, has announced his plan to run for the president of
Student-Teacher Sexuality!
Two middle/junior high/what have you school teachers in
Radiohead is Touring this Summer and Working on a New Album!
This isn’t funny, just really fucking awesome. Radiohead, if you’re reading this, go to
Three Deer Spotted Eating Grass on the Hill During Daylight on Wednesday!
What?! Crazy, right?!
Dear…proche_r, Sarah Bender, MK, and Courtney Baxter,
First off, why are you all attacking me? I am trying to present a solution to the issue. Take all of your anger, passion, and annoyance and attack the rapists. Not me, I aint did shit to you.
Second, since when was it ok to disrespect me? I guess since I responded so “nicely” to Courtney Ego, Sarah Bender took my kindness and ran with it. I have not disrespected you so do not disrespect me.
Third, why are you so angry with me? I did not once say that what I say is law. I just presented my opinion and a possible solution. All you all had to do was simply say that you disagreed and presented an idea you felt was better.
Fourth, do not read my articles and take bits and pieces out of it and frame it into something that you want to attack.
Now with that said….
To proch_r: I am sorry to hear that you were raped and I appreciate your courage to speak up about it. This was also something that I suggested. I asked about 2 articles ago for people to submit stories to my mailbox anonymously or by name if they would like, so that I could create a book of stories, to inspire other women and make our campus aware of the issue. Nothing came of it which is understandable which is why I commend you. I understand that both times alcohol was not involved. My possible solution was in reference to the type of sexual assault that happens most frequently on Denison’s campus, which, according to other women on our campus and Whistler, involves alcohol. Also, I am not saying that you should lock yourself in your room, not have fun, or not dress as you please. You would be able to do these things safely and freely without having to worry about a man sexually assaulting you, even if he wants to, if there are other women in the party who are looking out for you. If they are keeping an eye out they will notice if a guy is being forceful, trying to sneak off with you, etc. I am not saying that the way a woman dresses, drinks, or behaves makes her responsible for her sexual assault. If you would have read my other articles, it’s plainly stated in all caps, just like you did in your article. This is where you are misinterpreting me. I am not saying that because you do these things the man is excused because he was not able to control himself. No. He is definitely at fault. He has no right to do anything to you that you don’t want done. Simple as that. BUT, how are you helping yourself? proch_r, if you say
“We are all responsible and should act as if everyone else around us is responsible (even though this is obviously not true) because if we don’t we are just giving those other people a license to feel as if they are not expected to act with respect towards other people. I will continue to live as if the world is filled with these people no matter how matter how many times it makes me the victim, in hopes that one day, I will no longer have to.”
Those were your exact words, even the words in parenthesis. This makes no sense. All that does is make “those other people” think that there actions are not wrong. That’s like saying that, we should not have any laws because people shouldn’t be breaking them anyway, however, people are breaking the law, but we are going to continue to not have any laws in hopes that people will start to obey them.
Dear Sarah Bender,
Do not curse at me or refer to me as anything besides my name. In response to some things from your article, there is no need for me to make disclaimers in order that I get off of the hook for ridiculous statements, because they were not any ridiculous statements in my article. I started to just skip over you, since you decided to skip over my article and take what you wanted out of it so you could direct some undeserved anger towards me. You say, “If women should look out for each other when it comes to drinking, men should hold each other accountable when it comes to rape.” Sounds like plagiarism to me. Did you take that from my last article? And then you say something that tells me that you did not understand my article at all, whatsoever. You say, “If women were to begin to hold each other accountable for their own incidents of assault…” When did I say that? I said women should be accountable for each other. Meaning that they should look out for each other, take care of each other, and have a concern for each other. Which further means, make sure that your friends get home safely, make sure that if you know that there is something in the drinks at a party, that you tell ALL the women in the party ; not just your friends. That means if you know that someone has had too much to drink, keep a watchful eye on her and do not let some guy take her in the backroom. And who “gave me the authority?” Your silence gave me the authority. If nobody cares enough to speak up about it I will because I care. I did not insinuate that I am the only man that cares about this issue; I said that most men do not care about this issue. And I never said I was “saving” anyone, so I do not know where you got that quote from. You do not know me so do not refer to me as a dick or a sexist. Sounds like you are the sexist for applying those stereotypes to me. If you read my article, you would have been able to see what I was saying, quote properly, and make an appropriate argument. Your article is based on misquotes and misreads. Good job.
Dear MK,
Do not write to me as though I am a child. I know who is capable of being raped and committing rape. Stop stating the obvious. Also, I did not demand their stories; I requested their stories, and when I presented my idea in the forum about sexual assault, the three men and all the women who were there, thought that it was a good idea, which they stated verbally. I did not order anybody to do anything; it was just an idea to create awareness. And if you have been studying the climate of our campus for 3 years why haven’t you figured out how to create awareness about this issue? I did not even know that rape happened so often until recently and I have been here for three years. I know why women do not report rape as well as why they do not want to talk about it. I do not know everything, but I would not dispute an issue or attempt to create a solution for our campus if I did not know what I was talking about. Since I have been writing about this issue, I have researched on the internet, interviewed sorority members, written a research paper on this issue, and interviewed the counselors in Whistler. There is much more to know but I am not ignorant.
Dear Courtney,
I am not thee voice, nor am I attempting to be a voice for all women. I am not a voice to express hurt, pain, guilt, etc. You say that you do not need me to be your voice and I agree. I do not want to be, nor am I attempting to be your voice. I meant that I am attempting to be a voice of awareness, which I do through the bullsheet. Prior to me writing into the bullsheet, this issue was not talked about and I am not saying that to be self-righteous or get credit or whatever. I wanted to voice my concerns and create awareness so I did.
Now, to Courtney and everyone else who believes that the solution to this issue is to stop men from committing rape and sexual assault. YOU ARE ABSOLUTELY RIGHT! Now, tell me how are you going to do that? How can you stop men who rape women and brag about it to their friends (who obviously are not in objection to his decision, otherwise he would not have told them)? How do you stop men who kick a guy out of their fraternity because he tells on his “brother” for raping a woman but asks the rapist to stay? How do you stop men from raping when most of them do not give a damn? My issue with this solution is that, yes it is the PERFECT solution. The Perfect solution is not to drink less, its not to take care of each other, is not to wear less revealing clothes, not to not go to parties, not for men to be respectable, or for the campus to be aware, etc. The Perfect solution is for men and whoever to stop raping. My question is, How realistic is it to think that all men will stopped raping? And how would you stop them? This is why I propose simple things to do like drink less and take care of each other. That would decrease the amount of rape and sexual assault on Denison’s campus. It is easy to do and it does not require the help or assistance of anyone except you. It is a START.
To all of you,
I appreciate your entries and concern. I am not your enemy, I am just attempting to be an ally and make the campus aware. Attack those who are the rapists; from my understanding, you know who some of them are anyway. I am not challenging you, but maybe you all should get together and come up with a solution. You all seem passionate enough so sit down and come up with something. Good luck.
Everett D.
P.S. DON’T NOT RESPOND TO ME UNLESS YOU READ MY ENTIRE ENTRY. I KNOW ITS LONG BUT IF YOU DON’T CARE ENOUGH TO FINISH IT, THEN IT SHOULD NOT BE WORTHY OF A RESPONSE FROM YOU.
First off, why are you all attacking me? I am trying to present a solution to the issue. Take all of your anger, passion, and annoyance and attack the rapists. Not me, I aint did shit to you.
Second, since when was it ok to disrespect me? I guess since I responded so “nicely” to Courtney Ego, Sarah Bender took my kindness and ran with it. I have not disrespected you so do not disrespect me.
Third, why are you so angry with me? I did not once say that what I say is law. I just presented my opinion and a possible solution. All you all had to do was simply say that you disagreed and presented an idea you felt was better.
Fourth, do not read my articles and take bits and pieces out of it and frame it into something that you want to attack.
Now with that said….
To proch_r: I am sorry to hear that you were raped and I appreciate your courage to speak up about it. This was also something that I suggested. I asked about 2 articles ago for people to submit stories to my mailbox anonymously or by name if they would like, so that I could create a book of stories, to inspire other women and make our campus aware of the issue. Nothing came of it which is understandable which is why I commend you. I understand that both times alcohol was not involved. My possible solution was in reference to the type of sexual assault that happens most frequently on Denison’s campus, which, according to other women on our campus and Whistler, involves alcohol. Also, I am not saying that you should lock yourself in your room, not have fun, or not dress as you please. You would be able to do these things safely and freely without having to worry about a man sexually assaulting you, even if he wants to, if there are other women in the party who are looking out for you. If they are keeping an eye out they will notice if a guy is being forceful, trying to sneak off with you, etc. I am not saying that the way a woman dresses, drinks, or behaves makes her responsible for her sexual assault. If you would have read my other articles, it’s plainly stated in all caps, just like you did in your article. This is where you are misinterpreting me. I am not saying that because you do these things the man is excused because he was not able to control himself. No. He is definitely at fault. He has no right to do anything to you that you don’t want done. Simple as that. BUT, how are you helping yourself? proch_r, if you say
“We are all responsible and should act as if everyone else around us is responsible (even though this is obviously not true) because if we don’t we are just giving those other people a license to feel as if they are not expected to act with respect towards other people. I will continue to live as if the world is filled with these people no matter how matter how many times it makes me the victim, in hopes that one day, I will no longer have to.”
Those were your exact words, even the words in parenthesis. This makes no sense. All that does is make “those other people” think that there actions are not wrong. That’s like saying that, we should not have any laws because people shouldn’t be breaking them anyway, however, people are breaking the law, but we are going to continue to not have any laws in hopes that people will start to obey them.
Dear Sarah Bender,
Do not curse at me or refer to me as anything besides my name. In response to some things from your article, there is no need for me to make disclaimers in order that I get off of the hook for ridiculous statements, because they were not any ridiculous statements in my article. I started to just skip over you, since you decided to skip over my article and take what you wanted out of it so you could direct some undeserved anger towards me. You say, “If women should look out for each other when it comes to drinking, men should hold each other accountable when it comes to rape.” Sounds like plagiarism to me. Did you take that from my last article? And then you say something that tells me that you did not understand my article at all, whatsoever. You say, “If women were to begin to hold each other accountable for their own incidents of assault…” When did I say that? I said women should be accountable for each other. Meaning that they should look out for each other, take care of each other, and have a concern for each other. Which further means, make sure that your friends get home safely, make sure that if you know that there is something in the drinks at a party, that you tell ALL the women in the party ; not just your friends. That means if you know that someone has had too much to drink, keep a watchful eye on her and do not let some guy take her in the backroom. And who “gave me the authority?” Your silence gave me the authority. If nobody cares enough to speak up about it I will because I care. I did not insinuate that I am the only man that cares about this issue; I said that most men do not care about this issue. And I never said I was “saving” anyone, so I do not know where you got that quote from. You do not know me so do not refer to me as a dick or a sexist. Sounds like you are the sexist for applying those stereotypes to me. If you read my article, you would have been able to see what I was saying, quote properly, and make an appropriate argument. Your article is based on misquotes and misreads. Good job.
Dear MK,
Do not write to me as though I am a child. I know who is capable of being raped and committing rape. Stop stating the obvious. Also, I did not demand their stories; I requested their stories, and when I presented my idea in the forum about sexual assault, the three men and all the women who were there, thought that it was a good idea, which they stated verbally. I did not order anybody to do anything; it was just an idea to create awareness. And if you have been studying the climate of our campus for 3 years why haven’t you figured out how to create awareness about this issue? I did not even know that rape happened so often until recently and I have been here for three years. I know why women do not report rape as well as why they do not want to talk about it. I do not know everything, but I would not dispute an issue or attempt to create a solution for our campus if I did not know what I was talking about. Since I have been writing about this issue, I have researched on the internet, interviewed sorority members, written a research paper on this issue, and interviewed the counselors in Whistler. There is much more to know but I am not ignorant.
Dear Courtney,
I am not thee voice, nor am I attempting to be a voice for all women. I am not a voice to express hurt, pain, guilt, etc. You say that you do not need me to be your voice and I agree. I do not want to be, nor am I attempting to be your voice. I meant that I am attempting to be a voice of awareness, which I do through the bullsheet. Prior to me writing into the bullsheet, this issue was not talked about and I am not saying that to be self-righteous or get credit or whatever. I wanted to voice my concerns and create awareness so I did.
Now, to Courtney and everyone else who believes that the solution to this issue is to stop men from committing rape and sexual assault. YOU ARE ABSOLUTELY RIGHT! Now, tell me how are you going to do that? How can you stop men who rape women and brag about it to their friends (who obviously are not in objection to his decision, otherwise he would not have told them)? How do you stop men who kick a guy out of their fraternity because he tells on his “brother” for raping a woman but asks the rapist to stay? How do you stop men from raping when most of them do not give a damn? My issue with this solution is that, yes it is the PERFECT solution. The Perfect solution is not to drink less, its not to take care of each other, is not to wear less revealing clothes, not to not go to parties, not for men to be respectable, or for the campus to be aware, etc. The Perfect solution is for men and whoever to stop raping. My question is, How realistic is it to think that all men will stopped raping? And how would you stop them? This is why I propose simple things to do like drink less and take care of each other. That would decrease the amount of rape and sexual assault on Denison’s campus. It is easy to do and it does not require the help or assistance of anyone except you. It is a START.
To all of you,
I appreciate your entries and concern. I am not your enemy, I am just attempting to be an ally and make the campus aware. Attack those who are the rapists; from my understanding, you know who some of them are anyway. I am not challenging you, but maybe you all should get together and come up with a solution. You all seem passionate enough so sit down and come up with something. Good luck.
Everett D.
P.S. DON’T NOT RESPOND TO ME UNLESS YOU READ MY ENTIRE ENTRY. I KNOW ITS LONG BUT IF YOU DON’T CARE ENOUGH TO FINISH IT, THEN IT SHOULD NOT BE WORTHY OF A RESPONSE FROM YOU.
In Response to Christoffer Stromstedt:
I'm sorry, but I have no capacity to feel remorse for the perpetrator as a second victim. He isn't one. There was no crime committed against him, nobody forced his actions on him. He is only a victim of his inability to treat women like human beings. For an example, I'll compare to cheating. Now say this person whose been in an exclusive relationship for a long time goes out, has sex with someone else, feels bad about it the next day, and tells their partner what happened. I would find it hard to feel bad for the cheater simply because his conscience kicked in after the fact. The cheater broke the loyalty in their relationship, and they should feel guilty for it. That's what you (should) get for doing something wrong.
To bring it back full circle, I hope the perpetrators feel bad. I wish they did, it would be more of a comfort to me to know that they had a conscience, and weren't just a spineless bag of shit that deserves to spend the rest of his meaningless existence in the most excruciating version of his personal hell. Unfortunately, my rapist lives on, smoking and drinking his way through life and preying on teenage girls. I am left with what is termed 'Rape Trauma Syndrome', a form of post-traumatic stress disorder, which in summary means nightmares, panic attacks, flashbacks, persistent fear and anxiety, and a "damaged sense of personal security". (My panic attacks come from the smell of Jack Daniels and some quality Metallica songs. It's fascinating how the mind can rewire your memories into triggers for danger instincts.) Rape Trauma Syndrome is actually pretty common, and can take years to get to the "renormalize" stage, where you can take it out of a central focus in your life. So no, I don't have any remorse for a rapist with hindsight guilt. So I wish that rapists would realize the effect of just wanting to get it on, as you put it. Rape is defined as having sex without consent, so if she isn't explicitly telling you she wants it, it's rape. It's something that can destroy women's lives, so if you care at all about the woman you're sleeping with, respect her enough to ask.
And as for Jayme's response, I know that not all feminists are man-haters, and most of the time I would call myself a feminist. It was just meant light-heartedly; I just didn't want people to ignore what I had to say because they thought I was just saying that all men were horrible, and was just writing an angsty rant about how much I hate them. In writing about such horrible things I try an keep it from being too scary- my boyfriend finds my jokes in the middle of rape conversation really unnerving, so I'm not surprised it came off the wrong way. Thank you for the correction and support.
Courtney Ego
ego_c/ 8686
I'm sorry, but I have no capacity to feel remorse for the perpetrator as a second victim. He isn't one. There was no crime committed against him, nobody forced his actions on him. He is only a victim of his inability to treat women like human beings. For an example, I'll compare to cheating. Now say this person whose been in an exclusive relationship for a long time goes out, has sex with someone else, feels bad about it the next day, and tells their partner what happened. I would find it hard to feel bad for the cheater simply because his conscience kicked in after the fact. The cheater broke the loyalty in their relationship, and they should feel guilty for it. That's what you (should) get for doing something wrong.
To bring it back full circle, I hope the perpetrators feel bad. I wish they did, it would be more of a comfort to me to know that they had a conscience, and weren't just a spineless bag of shit that deserves to spend the rest of his meaningless existence in the most excruciating version of his personal hell. Unfortunately, my rapist lives on, smoking and drinking his way through life and preying on teenage girls. I am left with what is termed 'Rape Trauma Syndrome', a form of post-traumatic stress disorder, which in summary means nightmares, panic attacks, flashbacks, persistent fear and anxiety, and a "damaged sense of personal security". (My panic attacks come from the smell of Jack Daniels and some quality Metallica songs. It's fascinating how the mind can rewire your memories into triggers for danger instincts.) Rape Trauma Syndrome is actually pretty common, and can take years to get to the "renormalize" stage, where you can take it out of a central focus in your life. So no, I don't have any remorse for a rapist with hindsight guilt. So I wish that rapists would realize the effect of just wanting to get it on, as you put it. Rape is defined as having sex without consent, so if she isn't explicitly telling you she wants it, it's rape. It's something that can destroy women's lives, so if you care at all about the woman you're sleeping with, respect her enough to ask.
And as for Jayme's response, I know that not all feminists are man-haters, and most of the time I would call myself a feminist. It was just meant light-heartedly; I just didn't want people to ignore what I had to say because they thought I was just saying that all men were horrible, and was just writing an angsty rant about how much I hate them. In writing about such horrible things I try an keep it from being too scary- my boyfriend finds my jokes in the middle of rape conversation really unnerving, so I'm not surprised it came off the wrong way. Thank you for the correction and support.
Courtney Ego
ego_c/ 8686
So I’ve thus far gotten two counter submissions from individuals and another from a group of sociologists. Cool. Let’s get back into it then:
As the issues they brought up were very similar, most of my response for the two individuals also falls under my response to the sociologists, but those two still warrant some personal attention.
In response to Peter Zimmer: Thanks for calling me “Sir Nogay”. That was great, and made me really frikin’ happy. You’ve done your part to make someone’s life better today. Otherwise, I can see that you read my article with “general confusion and disinterest”, because you missed most of the point of it, and focused on some relatively trivial descriptors to contrive an experience where I am insulting the student body instead of writing in trying to protect them from having their time wasted and having the college’s resources squandered. I hold little hope for people who don’t even find my last name mildly amusing, and won’t take comic relief when it’s handed to them on a platter, so I think we’re done here. Any further discussion between us would undoubtedly turn into a pissing contest, and get us nowhere.
To Alana Slezak: Again, not even mild amusement from my last name/email? I put it in there for you, I’ve heard it all to death. Just trying to lighten the mood after a (mostly) serious submission. Meh, no reason to beat that horse anymore, I guess.
Now, for the meat and potatoes of my response:
Michelle Oyakawa & assorted sociologists,
What I find most prevalent throughout your submission is an overall aura of self-righteous indignation that is shockingly similar to the very attitude you implicitly accuse me of having. Additionally, your argument on more than a few instances diverts from the issue of the J requirement to an analysis of me as a person. When I went into a discussion of sociology, it was used as a means of highlighting the issues that would be inherently problematic in the J requirement; when you go into a discussion of me, it is used as a means of discrediting me while not actually analyzing my evidence or argument. I’d just like to ask that the readers forego forming an opinion on me or the sociologists personally, and instead evaluate the debate at hand as objectively as possible based on the arguments presented.
Michelle, you begin by saying that “we all arrive at
In your fourth paragraph, you go on to say that every class to some extent tells us how to think, which is very true. You seem, however, to miss the point by saying I am “unqualified, as a Chemistry major, to dictate unilaterally what does and does not contribute to legitimate debate in a sociology classroom”. First, when did I ever mention being a Chem major in my article, or mention that shaping my views on sociology? Secondly, and more to the point, who is qualified then? Are you, as a sociology major or potential future PhD, more qualified to determine what is legitimate to discuss about people than people themselves? What is “unproductive” to some is legitimate to others, and that is the problem I was highlighting, that in a field where so many PhD’s are driven by social activism, and a huge majority are progressive/socialist liberals, what is keeping them objective, honest, and legitimate? The J requirement would not likely boil down to “let’s hear all viewpoints”, as much as “let’s change the minds of the people who don’t agree with the premise of instituting this requirement”. It is almost impossible to claim that the J requirement would have gotten much serious thought if not for the events of last year, so how can you then go and claim that such a driving force is not going to present a very large bias towards one-sided acceptance, tolerance, and understanding. Tolerance is a two-way street, and we need to understand that some people just won’t buy into it, regardless of how much information we give them, in the same way that conspiracy theorists deny accepted knowledge of major events; us sinking to their level and being intolerant of them doesn’t make us more right, it just makes us more militant and hypocritical, and usually does nothing but make them dig in more and shut off lines of communication.
This carries on into the next paragraph, where you state that “because a few people on campus are unreceptive to learning about and trying to understand the experiences of others does not mean that it is a futile exercise”. First of all, does that not agree with my point? The ones who are unreceptive are the ones the J requirement claims to be catering to, and yet they would get the least out of it, if anything positive at all. The receptive ones already have the option of taking such a course, and probably already are. You read into my argument incorrectly by assuming that I am implying that the receptive people are worthless. My only implication is that they are not the people who need the requirement in the first place, while those who do “need” it will gain nothing from it. Thus, the requirement is worthless as a means of achieving its goal, and will waste the time, effort, and by extension the money of many future students.
Your next statement is that “you can’t make generalizations about a population based solely on the biased opinions and experiences of one or two people”. So, when can we then? What arbitrary sample size is large enough? My claim was based on the experiences of about 14 people from different ethnic, religious, social, environmental, and college backgrounds, two of whom are sociology majors themselves, and only 9 of whom I consider friends, another two of whom actively despise me. I think that is a good enough sample to be considered legitimate data, though obviously not all-encompassing. Doesn’t sociology require some leeway in making generalizations about populations based on the available evidence? Additionally, aren’t we making sweeping generalizations about populations of gays, blacks, women, etc. simply by asserting that they share a common experience that must be learned about and that warrants a class dedicated to their specific issues? Whether or not you believe that they do share experiences is irrelevant, it is the fact that we make that generalization and then perpetuate it, while simultaneously decrying perceived harmful generalizations, that is so astoundingly ignorant and hypocritical. If we must generalize, then we cannot selectively decide which ones to count and which to ignore. So, I agree, the experiences of one or two people are not enough to justify generalizations, but your implication that the generalizations I was working off of are inadmissible for evidence is patently insulting and “generally” false.
Next, I am so very, very sorry that I had to resort to using the word “normal” in my anecdote. How terrible of me to try and save space by not going into excruciating detail to qualify everyone I talked about. You say that my “definition of normal is entirely socially dictated by [my] position as a white mostly straight male in the United States, which [I] would have learned had [I] been receptive in my soc/anth classes”. Ah, the assumptions abound. You again assume that the way sociology subjectively interprets data must be treated as an absolute method. You assume that the way people perceive things is formed through social construction absolutely. You say with certain authority, the truth of the universe behind you, that social environments “entirely” dictate one’s social positions. Only the disciples of pure mathematics can also say with such certainty and conviction that they can determine the fundamental truth behind things. Why do you waste your time, my time, and readers’ time by using this to charge me personally while saying nothing about the J requirement itself? I am required to defend myself and show that this issue is irrelevant just so that we can focus back on the issue of the J requirement. Additionally, I’m not attacking queer/black/women’s studies directly because that is not the issue at hand. I am trying to focus on the single matter of the J requirement, and you are trying to dilute the discussion and shift the debate to other things instead. This discussion is about the J requirement and its merits and pitfalls, so try and keep the discussion relevant to that, please.
Finally, you say that I am at a liberal arts college, and therefore should be willing to expand my horizons and accept the J requirement. You miss the point. We go to classes to have our views challenged and horizons broadened, yes, but the J requirement is about embracing a certain view. Theoretically, it is being pushed as a way to expand knowledge and promote discourse, but practically it is being considered because of the issues of last year, and most people on this campus are intelligent enough to see that, had last year not happened, the J requirement would not be talked about. The link is not just correlation, it is admitted causation, and therefore the requirement would exist to push an agenda. It’s re-emergence was a result of a lack of tolerance, and it is being considered to try and force an embrace of tolerance. That is not expanding horizons, that is force-feeding ideology, and it is a waste of time and effort in a liberal arts institution, as well as being counterproductive to the stated mission of a liberal arts education. The information on black/women’s/queer studies can be, and is, presented and available for all, but that does not mean we should have to embrace it. The J requirement would be taking a class away from students and attempting to narrow their view to better fit the view that supports the requirement’s existence, while the students could be out taking another class they want to learn about, and actually being mentally stimulated rather than stifled and funneled. Resentment and radicalization among many students are inevitable results.
“Sir” Stas Nogay,
I'm writing in response to Courtney Ego's letter from Friday. Courtney, I think you have great and totally valid points - rape is not going to stop until men stop raping, period. I agree that focusing on women (self-defense, safe party behavior, etc), while it could on occasion help a woman avoid an attack, is ultimately not going to create significant change - if a woman has been able to escape a situation in which she was in danger, there was still an asshole who was trying to assault her, and that's where the problem lies.
The only issue I had with your letter was in the last paragraph, where you clarified your statements with, "I'm not a feminist man-hater." I know a ton of strong, amazing, bold feminists (both men and women), and none of them hate men. That's not what feminism is about - it's not about hate, it's about equality and justice and freedom for everyone. If you think women should be able to party and go on dates without fearing they may be sexually assaulted, that's a feminist perspective.
Your whole letter took a feminist stance on the horrific problem of sexual assault and rape - you called out some of the stereotypes, assumptions, misconceptions, and social inequalities that feed into rape culture. I don't want to tell you that you're a feminist, I think that's something that every person has to decide and choose to embrace for him and herself, but it sounds to me like you very well could be - and to me, that's something to be proud of.
If you or anyone reading this is interested in discussing feminism and women's issues, come to Women's Emphasis (WE)! We meet Tuesdays at 7PM in the women's studies library on the second floor of Knapp, and everyone is welcome.
Jayme Hughes
The only issue I had with your letter was in the last paragraph, where you clarified your statements with, "I'm not a feminist man-hater." I know a ton of strong, amazing, bold feminists (both men and women), and none of them hate men. That's not what feminism is about - it's not about hate, it's about equality and justice and freedom for everyone. If you think women should be able to party and go on dates without fearing they may be sexually assaulted, that's a feminist perspective.
Your whole letter took a feminist stance on the horrific problem of sexual assault and rape - you called out some of the stereotypes, assumptions, misconceptions, and social inequalities that feed into rape culture. I don't want to tell you that you're a feminist, I think that's something that every person has to decide and choose to embrace for him and herself, but it sounds to me like you very well could be - and to me, that's something to be proud of.
If you or anyone reading this is interested in discussing feminism and women's issues, come to Women's Emphasis (WE)! We meet Tuesdays at 7PM in the women's studies library on the second floor of Knapp, and everyone is welcome.
Jayme Hughes
Stas,
I find myself at almost a loss for words at your submission. I think your logic for why the J requirement would not “solve any of the campus’s [campus’] woes” is, simply, a reason to reinstate the J requirement.
You reason, as a white, “(mostly)” heterosexual male, you will never be able to “understand what it is like to be black/ a woman/gay.” As a white, heterosexual, middle-class, fully able, twenty-year old feminist woman, I will never be able to be of another socially constructed race or ethnicity. However, I can actively try to understand the social locations “different” than my own. Individual experiences can be remarkably significant in understanding oppression and privilege, however, all individuals, regardless of social location, can examine institutionalized power structures and systems that serve to oppress socially “othered” individuals while simultaneously privileging socially selected individuals. Your submission is full of “othering” rhetoric in which you construct and define yourself based on “who you are not.” By doing this you objectify individuals and essentialize certain characteristics with socially constructed groups while upholding a privileged “norm.”
J requirement courses may not change people’s perceptions, but these courses have the potential to expose individuals to new concepts that highlight systems of power all people participate in, regardless of social location. A person may think because s/he does not make blatant racist, sexist, homophobic, classist, albeist remarks, that s/he is not racist, sexist, homophobic, classist, or albeist. But these courses often challenge society to question how individuals, intentionally and unintentionally, uphold these power structures. You will never be able to separate your social location from who you are, Stas, but you can attempt to understand how it privileges/oppresses you while simultaneously affecting others. Education and academia are full of “social conditioning programs.” Life is socialization. History classes you took in elementary school told certain narratives of selective people, privileging or silencing individuals. The J requirement courses offer counter narratives or alternative ideas to hegemonic discourses. As an academic feminist of three years, I do not have many answers or solutions to oppression and privilege, but I believe that the J requirement is a powerful agent silenced on Denison’s campus.
I don’t understanding the logics of your last paragraph. You are at a liberal arts college, and consequently, you have to take courses in various departments or programs.
Most importantly, your statements regarding homosexuality are dehumanizing. You state, “I’m fairly confident that had I come here and been forced to take a queer studies course, I would have grown to resent gays, partially because their existence had caused such a course to exist, robbing me of my already too few electives. It would have made it harder for me to embrace the more ‘progressive’ stance on homosexuality.” I really don’t know how to respond to that other than I’m sorry learning and knowledge curtail your ability to accept and love individuals.
I disagree. Your email isn’t “fucking hilarious.”
-Alana Slezak
Slayter Box 7824
I find myself at almost a loss for words at your submission. I think your logic for why the J requirement would not “solve any of the campus’s [campus’] woes” is, simply, a reason to reinstate the J requirement.
You reason, as a white, “(mostly)” heterosexual male, you will never be able to “understand what it is like to be black/ a woman/gay.” As a white, heterosexual, middle-class, fully able, twenty-year old feminist woman, I will never be able to be of another socially constructed race or ethnicity. However, I can actively try to understand the social locations “different” than my own. Individual experiences can be remarkably significant in understanding oppression and privilege, however, all individuals, regardless of social location, can examine institutionalized power structures and systems that serve to oppress socially “othered” individuals while simultaneously privileging socially selected individuals. Your submission is full of “othering” rhetoric in which you construct and define yourself based on “who you are not.” By doing this you objectify individuals and essentialize certain characteristics with socially constructed groups while upholding a privileged “norm.”
J requirement courses may not change people’s perceptions, but these courses have the potential to expose individuals to new concepts that highlight systems of power all people participate in, regardless of social location. A person may think because s/he does not make blatant racist, sexist, homophobic, classist, albeist remarks, that s/he is not racist, sexist, homophobic, classist, or albeist. But these courses often challenge society to question how individuals, intentionally and unintentionally, uphold these power structures. You will never be able to separate your social location from who you are, Stas, but you can attempt to understand how it privileges/oppresses you while simultaneously affecting others. Education and academia are full of “social conditioning programs.” Life is socialization. History classes you took in elementary school told certain narratives of selective people, privileging or silencing individuals. The J requirement courses offer counter narratives or alternative ideas to hegemonic discourses. As an academic feminist of three years, I do not have many answers or solutions to oppression and privilege, but I believe that the J requirement is a powerful agent silenced on Denison’s campus.
I don’t understanding the logics of your last paragraph. You are at a liberal arts college, and consequently, you have to take courses in various departments or programs.
Most importantly, your statements regarding homosexuality are dehumanizing. You state, “I’m fairly confident that had I come here and been forced to take a queer studies course, I would have grown to resent gays, partially because their existence had caused such a course to exist, robbing me of my already too few electives. It would have made it harder for me to embrace the more ‘progressive’ stance on homosexuality.” I really don’t know how to respond to that other than I’m sorry learning and knowledge curtail your ability to accept and love individuals.
I disagree. Your email isn’t “fucking hilarious.”
-Alana Slezak
Slayter Box 7824
Dear Everett,
I know that you must care deeply about these issues, because you've written in several times, and went to the trouble to talk to different groups to learn about the causes, and how to fix it. But I think that either you didn't present your ideas clearly, or you just really don't understand the issue, because your entry seriously pissed me off.
Despite your best efforts, you are perpetuating the problem. I don't believe that
women's education or awareness is the issue. I know far too many friends who have been sexually assaulted. I have nearly a dozen close friends who confided in me about having been sexually assaulted, if that helps you judge how widespread rape is. Personally I think statistics are irrelevant. See, the problem is women already know all about it. We know about the judgment that comes with this kind of violence. No matter what the woman is blamed- she shouldn't have drank so much, she shouldn't have agreed to go back to his room, she should have fought back. Most of the time rape isn't an attack in an alleyway or involving a date rape drug. It's the girl that goes home with that boy she dances with at that party, when he was just a little too pushy, and she sort of said no, but then things kept moving forward. They are in the grey area, and many women don't even realize that it was rape.
The problem that needs to be fixed here is male understanding and accountability. Why is there a fraternity that is joked about being rapists, but nothing happens? It's not just speculative- I know accounts of women raped by these assholes. The "nerdy" fraternity on campus stood behind a known rapist in their midst, even when it meant that several of their members left in protest. Why isn't something being done about that? Because every time I have to see him around campus I am infuriated at how they get to run around laughing and unharmed, while as a woman who had been raped, I have to live in fear, worrying all the time about whether I am "protecting myself" well enough. I shouldn't have to, and no other woman should either. The men should be holding each other accountable. All of those rapists have roommates and friends who knew what was happening, who saw when his forward advances were not warranted or appreciated, but he kept pushing her. The responsibility is not only on our shoulders. Men can drink as much as they want and never have to worry about being able to fend off someone much larger and stronger than them. Unless a woman is explicitly telling you that she wants to have sex with you, the answer is no. Just because you go back to a room together does not mean that she wants to sleep with you, and women who drink, even who drink recklessly are not all whores, and are definitely not asking for it.
And just to clarify, I'm not a feminist man-hater, I actually have a boyfriend and most of my friends are guys. They even threw me a party to commemorate an anniversary of sorts of when I was raped to come together and support me and what I've been through. There are amazing boys. I think generally most guys have good intentions and just don't realize that the women are not that interested. So just ask. Ask if it's okay, if they're sure they want to have sex. You'll come off as considerate and cute and the girls will love you for it. So next time just think before it happens. Just talk about it.
Courtney Ego
8686- ego_c
I know that you must care deeply about these issues, because you've written in several times, and went to the trouble to talk to different groups to learn about the causes, and how to fix it. But I think that either you didn't present your ideas clearly, or you just really don't understand the issue, because your entry seriously pissed me off.
Despite your best efforts, you are perpetuating the problem. I don't believe that
women's education or awareness is the issue. I know far too many friends who have been sexually assaulted. I have nearly a dozen close friends who confided in me about having been sexually assaulted, if that helps you judge how widespread rape is. Personally I think statistics are irrelevant. See, the problem is women already know all about it. We know about the judgment that comes with this kind of violence. No matter what the woman is blamed- she shouldn't have drank so much, she shouldn't have agreed to go back to his room, she should have fought back. Most of the time rape isn't an attack in an alleyway or involving a date rape drug. It's the girl that goes home with that boy she dances with at that party, when he was just a little too pushy, and she sort of said no, but then things kept moving forward. They are in the grey area, and many women don't even realize that it was rape.
The problem that needs to be fixed here is male understanding and accountability. Why is there a fraternity that is joked about being rapists, but nothing happens? It's not just speculative- I know accounts of women raped by these assholes. The "nerdy" fraternity on campus stood behind a known rapist in their midst, even when it meant that several of their members left in protest. Why isn't something being done about that? Because every time I have to see him around campus I am infuriated at how they get to run around laughing and unharmed, while as a woman who had been raped, I have to live in fear, worrying all the time about whether I am "protecting myself" well enough. I shouldn't have to, and no other woman should either. The men should be holding each other accountable. All of those rapists have roommates and friends who knew what was happening, who saw when his forward advances were not warranted or appreciated, but he kept pushing her. The responsibility is not only on our shoulders. Men can drink as much as they want and never have to worry about being able to fend off someone much larger and stronger than them. Unless a woman is explicitly telling you that she wants to have sex with you, the answer is no. Just because you go back to a room together does not mean that she wants to sleep with you, and women who drink, even who drink recklessly are not all whores, and are definitely not asking for it.
And just to clarify, I'm not a feminist man-hater, I actually have a boyfriend and most of my friends are guys. They even threw me a party to commemorate an anniversary of sorts of when I was raped to come together and support me and what I've been through. There are amazing boys. I think generally most guys have good intentions and just don't realize that the women are not that interested. So just ask. Ask if it's okay, if they're sure they want to have sex. You'll come off as considerate and cute and the girls will love you for it. So next time just think before it happens. Just talk about it.
Courtney Ego
8686- ego_c
Dear Mr. Nogay,
There are many things that are misguided about your submission from yesterday regarding the J requirement and sociology. They are too numerous to deal with comprehensively in this format, however I will respond to several of your points that, as a soc/anth major, I found to be just plain wrong.
"Wouldn't we be adding the requirement in an attempt to force a viewpoint onto people, instilling that mindset so deeply into them that they don't regard other positions as viable?"
You don't seem to recognize the fact that we all arrive at Denison with varying viewpoints and mindsets that have been forced upon us and deeply instilled in us through cultural learning. Soc/anth classes, in fact, encourage us to think critically about those mindsets and viewpoints that have been deeply instilled in us by our parents, our home communities, and the media. If you are not comfortable critically examining your own ideas about issues, then yes, sociology is not for you. We have ideas and viewpoints forced down our throats all the time from various sources, so why are you singling out sociology as the problem?
Also, what classes don't tell you how or what to think? If I raise my hand in a chemistry class and express the viewpoint that NaCl is not salt, no one is going to be very receptive. If I argue against evolution in a biology class, the professor will shoot the debate down because it directly contradicts the material presented in class. If you think that you can debunk a well-established theory on the basis of reading one or two articles and having a gut reaction, then you would be wrong. There are legitimate criticisms to be made of many of the ideas to be taught in sociology classes, however your assumption that the point that you brought forward in class was a step toward 'legitimate debate,' to me, is suspect. You are unqualified, as a chemistry major, to dictate unilaterally what does and does not contribute to legitimate debate in a sociology classroom. There is such a thing as an unproductive line of thought in sociology and even though you may not think you are wrong in relation to the world, you might be wrong in relation to the material being discussed.
"some folks can't be 'taught' to be tolerant and socially responsible or to care about being so"
The argument that you present here is actually a favorite of segregationists: the idea that because a segment of the population is not receptive to being exposed to (gasp!) black people, we shouldn't try to desegregate. Obviously, reinstating the J requirement isn't going to solve all the problems on this campus, that is not what anyone is arguing. But just because a few people (like you, apparently) are not receptive to learning about and trying to understand the experiences of others does not mean that it is a futile exercise. You are correct to think that you can never completely inhabit others' perspectives, however this does not mean that learning about others' experiences, hearing their stories, and critically examining structures of oppression in society is useless.
"Here, an anecdote to illustrate [implied: prove] my point"
One of the main things that sociology teaches us: you can't make generalizations about a population based solely on the biased opinions and experiences of one or two people. While no one can tell you that your experience is wrong for yourself, you cannot assume that your experience applies to other people.
"Then, I met gay people. They tended to be nice, relatively normal, and a few of them were actually pretty cool"
When I read this, I nearly cried when I realized that Harvey Milk did not live to see his dream come true.
Relatively normal? One of the most disturbing things about your submission is that it seems to be masking a deeply-seeded set of prejudices about others. Your definition of "normal" is entirely socially dictated by your position as a white mostly straight male in the United States, which you would have learned had you been receptive in your soc/anth classes. Question: Why are you not attacking women's studies, black studies and queer studies classes directly? Would that be too controversial for you, too overtly racist/sexist/homophobic? It might seem, to a careful reader, that while you are attacking an academic discipline (sociology), you perhaps really intend to attack groups of people on this campus.
"I'm fairly confident that had I come here and been forced to take a queer studies course, I would have grown to resent gays, partially because their existence had caused such a course to exist"
This logic, if followed to its extreme conclusion indicates that we should try to not take any classes about anything because we will inevitably resent the thing we are learning about. You win, let's just give up on this whole 'education' thing. What does it matter anyway?
If you did not want to take classes that expand your horizons, then why are you at a liberal arts institution? It is sad to me that there are people here who did not come to Denison to have their worldviews challenged and their perspectives broadened. That there are people who think that our classes shouldn't challenge us to think in new and different ways about ourselves, others, and the world we live in.
Michelle Oyakawa
Class of 2009
oyakaw_m@denison.edu
With contributions from: Kim Lewis, Todd Callais, Megan Nitzsche, Trish Brauer, and Menphasis (Men for Sociological Solidarity): Chris Becken, Tom Mitchell, John Murphy, Xander Acheson, James Davis
There are many things that are misguided about your submission from yesterday regarding the J requirement and sociology. They are too numerous to deal with comprehensively in this format, however I will respond to several of your points that, as a soc/anth major, I found to be just plain wrong.
"Wouldn't we be adding the requirement in an attempt to force a viewpoint onto people, instilling that mindset so deeply into them that they don't regard other positions as viable?"
You don't seem to recognize the fact that we all arrive at Denison with varying viewpoints and mindsets that have been forced upon us and deeply instilled in us through cultural learning. Soc/anth classes, in fact, encourage us to think critically about those mindsets and viewpoints that have been deeply instilled in us by our parents, our home communities, and the media. If you are not comfortable critically examining your own ideas about issues, then yes, sociology is not for you. We have ideas and viewpoints forced down our throats all the time from various sources, so why are you singling out sociology as the problem?
Also, what classes don't tell you how or what to think? If I raise my hand in a chemistry class and express the viewpoint that NaCl is not salt, no one is going to be very receptive. If I argue against evolution in a biology class, the professor will shoot the debate down because it directly contradicts the material presented in class. If you think that you can debunk a well-established theory on the basis of reading one or two articles and having a gut reaction, then you would be wrong. There are legitimate criticisms to be made of many of the ideas to be taught in sociology classes, however your assumption that the point that you brought forward in class was a step toward 'legitimate debate,' to me, is suspect. You are unqualified, as a chemistry major, to dictate unilaterally what does and does not contribute to legitimate debate in a sociology classroom. There is such a thing as an unproductive line of thought in sociology and even though you may not think you are wrong in relation to the world, you might be wrong in relation to the material being discussed.
"some folks can't be 'taught' to be tolerant and socially responsible or to care about being so"
The argument that you present here is actually a favorite of segregationists: the idea that because a segment of the population is not receptive to being exposed to (gasp!) black people, we shouldn't try to desegregate. Obviously, reinstating the J requirement isn't going to solve all the problems on this campus, that is not what anyone is arguing. But just because a few people (like you, apparently) are not receptive to learning about and trying to understand the experiences of others does not mean that it is a futile exercise. You are correct to think that you can never completely inhabit others' perspectives, however this does not mean that learning about others' experiences, hearing their stories, and critically examining structures of oppression in society is useless.
"Here, an anecdote to illustrate [implied: prove] my point"
One of the main things that sociology teaches us: you can't make generalizations about a population based solely on the biased opinions and experiences of one or two people. While no one can tell you that your experience is wrong for yourself, you cannot assume that your experience applies to other people.
"Then, I met gay people. They tended to be nice, relatively normal, and a few of them were actually pretty cool"
When I read this, I nearly cried when I realized that Harvey Milk did not live to see his dream come true.
Relatively normal? One of the most disturbing things about your submission is that it seems to be masking a deeply-seeded set of prejudices about others. Your definition of "normal" is entirely socially dictated by your position as a white mostly straight male in the United States, which you would have learned had you been receptive in your soc/anth classes. Question: Why are you not attacking women's studies, black studies and queer studies classes directly? Would that be too controversial for you, too overtly racist/sexist/homophobic? It might seem, to a careful reader, that while you are attacking an academic discipline (sociology), you perhaps really intend to attack groups of people on this campus.
"I'm fairly confident that had I come here and been forced to take a queer studies course, I would have grown to resent gays, partially because their existence had caused such a course to exist"
This logic, if followed to its extreme conclusion indicates that we should try to not take any classes about anything because we will inevitably resent the thing we are learning about. You win, let's just give up on this whole 'education' thing. What does it matter anyway?
If you did not want to take classes that expand your horizons, then why are you at a liberal arts institution? It is sad to me that there are people here who did not come to Denison to have their worldviews challenged and their perspectives broadened. That there are people who think that our classes shouldn't challenge us to think in new and different ways about ourselves, others, and the world we live in.
Michelle Oyakawa
Class of 2009
oyakaw_m@denison.edu
With contributions from: Kim Lewis, Todd Callais, Megan Nitzsche, Trish Brauer, and Menphasis (Men for Sociological Solidarity): Chris Becken, Tom Mitchell, John Murphy, Xander Acheson, James Davis
Hey Stas Nogay, (which, incidentally, I do not find "fucking hilarious" but based on your submission I can't imagine you have much sophistication for comedy anyways, you probably really enjoy Wesley Willis' "Suck a cheetah's dick" dont ya? youtube it. I think its garbage, but who knows Nogay, maybe you'll dig it)
But anyways, back to your initial argument about the J requirement. Honestly, I don't really know where to begin. As I read your article with general confusion and disinterest, unsure about what was more detrimental to my health-- the never ending, unsubstantiated dribble of Denison's own Stas Nogay, damn, it still just isn't funny, what am I missing? Is it irony?...or the dribble on my plate from the dining halls, I couldn't stop thinking about the purpose of a collegiate institution. The argument presented by Sir Nogay is to convince, mold, and essentially brainwash the patrons of University. Stas, you continue by discussing that the J requirement is solely for the purpose of changing all those "haters", to re-work their brains so they think 'right'-- Don't you think the requirement would also enhance the education of those non-haters? Or the lovers by chance? Maybe even those nice, relatively normal, and, astonishingly, "actually pretty cool" gays? I suppose not because they probably already possess the scrubbed brains that the J requirement would implement upon our campus. Blast you progressive non-haters! You dismantle the benefits of the J requirement before we even have the class. The argument about what is right and what is wrong thought, your description of a Catch-22, something about religious folks are oppressive even to the oppressors? I don't really know what you were trying to say. I think somebody was approaching 'full retard' in their theatrics...moving on then. I guess what I'm going to finish with is that the J requirement shouldn't be, and won't be implemented in order to brainwash. Taking a class won't make you understand a whole class, race, gender, etc of people. You don't need to understand something or someone in order to respect them. I don't understand the white man next to me any more or less than I understand the black man next to me but I respect them equally. I don't think you should come to college to absorb and accept all the theologies and practices of an institution. You should be willing to be educated, engage in conversation, not merely about the successes of the weekend but discuss those things your paying to learn, or at least those things your paying to place in your environment. Stas, stop insulting the students here by suggesting that they can so easily be swayed, hypnotized, or convinced by a single class.
The point of the J requirement is to initiate a conversation between students about the issues that the species of human beings deals with constantly. I hope I wasn't to civil, but if I was I'll be blunt...I think the shit you put into publication is fucking dumb. And if it could, my brain would smack me in the face relentlessly for submitting it to such nonsensical bullshit.
Peter Zimmer
8678
But anyways, back to your initial argument about the J requirement. Honestly, I don't really know where to begin. As I read your article with general confusion and disinterest, unsure about what was more detrimental to my health-- the never ending, unsubstantiated dribble of Denison's own Stas Nogay, damn, it still just isn't funny, what am I missing? Is it irony?...or the dribble on my plate from the dining halls, I couldn't stop thinking about the purpose of a collegiate institution. The argument presented by Sir Nogay is to convince, mold, and essentially brainwash the patrons of University. Stas, you continue by discussing that the J requirement is solely for the purpose of changing all those "haters", to re-work their brains so they think 'right'-- Don't you think the requirement would also enhance the education of those non-haters? Or the lovers by chance? Maybe even those nice, relatively normal, and, astonishingly, "actually pretty cool" gays? I suppose not because they probably already possess the scrubbed brains that the J requirement would implement upon our campus. Blast you progressive non-haters! You dismantle the benefits of the J requirement before we even have the class. The argument about what is right and what is wrong thought, your description of a Catch-22, something about religious folks are oppressive even to the oppressors? I don't really know what you were trying to say. I think somebody was approaching 'full retard' in their theatrics...moving on then. I guess what I'm going to finish with is that the J requirement shouldn't be, and won't be implemented in order to brainwash. Taking a class won't make you understand a whole class, race, gender, etc of people. You don't need to understand something or someone in order to respect them. I don't understand the white man next to me any more or less than I understand the black man next to me but I respect them equally. I don't think you should come to college to absorb and accept all the theologies and practices of an institution. You should be willing to be educated, engage in conversation, not merely about the successes of the weekend but discuss those things your paying to learn, or at least those things your paying to place in your environment. Stas, stop insulting the students here by suggesting that they can so easily be swayed, hypnotized, or convinced by a single class.
The point of the J requirement is to initiate a conversation between students about the issues that the species of human beings deals with constantly. I hope I wasn't to civil, but if I was I'll be blunt...I think the shit you put into publication is fucking dumb. And if it could, my brain would smack me in the face relentlessly for submitting it to such nonsensical bullshit.
Peter Zimmer
8678
I read Everett’s submission yesterday, nodding my head along in moderate worry and agreement with what he was saying, hating douchebags who drug girls, etc., and found myself generally satisfied with what he had to say (and his ability to use spell check). Then I hit this little bit at the end: “we need to work together to get the J requirement back”.
Am I the only person who thinks that adding course requirements for black/women’s/queer studies will do little to nothing to solve any of this campus’s social woes? I fail to see how taking a course about the struggles and issues facing blacks/women/gays is supposed to help halt malice and tension. Ok, so maybe you’re thinking, “Hey, we can change some haters to be more accepting if they just knew about these people and had a better understanding of what they go through. We just need haters to get what it is like to be them”. In response to any such thoughts, I have two arguments:
1. I/We/They are never going to understand what it is like to be black/a woman/gay because I’m white, male, and (mostly) straight, as is about 35% of this campus. I may learn about their issues and think “wow, dude, their life is tough and sucks, and this, this, and this are big problems,” but I’ll never be them, and therefore will never truly understand them.
2. The people who will be affected by understanding are those who are not likely to engage in hurtful or prejudiced actions. Some people just don’t care. Be it due to self-absorption, lack of pity, simple apathy, or any number of other things, some folks can’t be “taught” to be tolerant and socially responsible, or to care about being so, unless you want to revamp our college to engage in flat-out brainwashing.
On that note, I think we have enough shoved in our face without being forced into college-sanctioned social conditioning programs. I hate that socially so much of this campus carries heavy overtones not of the idea that this is how you should act, but of the “fact” that this is the right way to act, as if there is scientific proof of the absolute superiority of the bleeding heart and the “progressive” mindset. I know, I know, welcome to college, but I, and I’m sure many others, resent being told that our viewpoint is “wrong” regarding a subjective matter, especially those who base such beliefs in religion(it’s a Catch-22 for tolerance, folks!).
Some may now be thinking, “but Stas, reinstating the J requirement isn’t forcing people to think a new way”. Oh, I’m sorry, but isn’t that the point? Wouldn’t we be adding the requirement in an attempt to force a viewpoint onto people, instilling that mindset so deeply into them that they don’t regard other positions as viable? I may have some of you convinced now, but others are still thinking “these people ARE wrong, and need to be changed”. If that is you, then touché on being closed minded and hypocritical, but beyond that, have you been in a sociology class recently? There are generally two kinds of people in sociology classes (at least 100-200 level, I know few who can stomach anything further): the bleeding hearts who are vindicated and reinvigorated with a renewed sense of justified moral superiority, and those like me, who sit around, writing papers catered to nothing but what the professor has made abundantly clear he or she wants to see, maybe once branching out to propose a significantly different viewpoint, getting reamed for it with only the most minor nod towards legitimate debate, and never speaking up again. I know some who actually starting becoming xeno/homo/whatever-phobic because of having to take such classes. So, what makes us think a J requirement won’t do the exact same thing, and make the problem worse among those who can actually have their minds changed? I’m pretty sure that artificially induced resentment wouldn’t help Denison much. Here, an anecdote to illustrate my point:
I came into college on the fence about gays and their rights and the nature of homosexuality and all that. Then, I met gay people. They tended to be nice, relatively normal, and a few of them were actually pretty cool. My brain started associating gay people with those things, and generalized it all so that I changed my mind about gays and what they should have the right to do. Now, the flip-side. In high school I had to learn Latin. I didn’t want to, because I could have been taking other courses. I grew to hate Latin, and felt it had robbed me of my time, effort, and GPA. My brain associated Latin with anger, suffering, and annoyance. I had always wanted to learn German, but after Latin, languages in general no longer gave me any enjoyment, they had been tainted for me by association. I’m fairly confident that had I come here and been forced to take a queer studies course, I would have grown to resent gays, partially because their existence had caused such a course to exist, robbing me of my already too few electives. It would have made it harder for me to embrace the more “progressive” stance on homosexuality.
I realize I’m just criticizing and not proposing any solutions, but that’s because I don’t see any problems here that can be solved with institutional programs or initiatives. So, yeah, long story short, the J requirement sounds like a great, well-meaning, ineffective, time-wasting proposal.
Stas Nogay, Slayter Box 8282, nogay_s@denison.edu (Can you see it? Fucking hilarious, right?)
P.S. If you plan on responding, don’t worry about being civil, I prefer bluntness. Also, ranting at me would make me chuckle.
Am I the only person who thinks that adding course requirements for black/women’s/queer studies will do little to nothing to solve any of this campus’s social woes? I fail to see how taking a course about the struggles and issues facing blacks/women/gays is supposed to help halt malice and tension. Ok, so maybe you’re thinking, “Hey, we can change some haters to be more accepting if they just knew about these people and had a better understanding of what they go through. We just need haters to get what it is like to be them”. In response to any such thoughts, I have two arguments:
1. I/We/They are never going to understand what it is like to be black/a woman/gay because I’m white, male, and (mostly) straight, as is about 35% of this campus. I may learn about their issues and think “wow, dude, their life is tough and sucks, and this, this, and this are big problems,” but I’ll never be them, and therefore will never truly understand them.
2. The people who will be affected by understanding are those who are not likely to engage in hurtful or prejudiced actions. Some people just don’t care. Be it due to self-absorption, lack of pity, simple apathy, or any number of other things, some folks can’t be “taught” to be tolerant and socially responsible, or to care about being so, unless you want to revamp our college to engage in flat-out brainwashing.
On that note, I think we have enough shoved in our face without being forced into college-sanctioned social conditioning programs. I hate that socially so much of this campus carries heavy overtones not of the idea that this is how you should act, but of the “fact” that this is the right way to act, as if there is scientific proof of the absolute superiority of the bleeding heart and the “progressive” mindset. I know, I know, welcome to college, but I, and I’m sure many others, resent being told that our viewpoint is “wrong” regarding a subjective matter, especially those who base such beliefs in religion(it’s a Catch-22 for tolerance, folks!).
Some may now be thinking, “but Stas, reinstating the J requirement isn’t forcing people to think a new way”. Oh, I’m sorry, but isn’t that the point? Wouldn’t we be adding the requirement in an attempt to force a viewpoint onto people, instilling that mindset so deeply into them that they don’t regard other positions as viable? I may have some of you convinced now, but others are still thinking “these people ARE wrong, and need to be changed”. If that is you, then touché on being closed minded and hypocritical, but beyond that, have you been in a sociology class recently? There are generally two kinds of people in sociology classes (at least 100-200 level, I know few who can stomach anything further): the bleeding hearts who are vindicated and reinvigorated with a renewed sense of justified moral superiority, and those like me, who sit around, writing papers catered to nothing but what the professor has made abundantly clear he or she wants to see, maybe once branching out to propose a significantly different viewpoint, getting reamed for it with only the most minor nod towards legitimate debate, and never speaking up again. I know some who actually starting becoming xeno/homo/whatever-phobic because of having to take such classes. So, what makes us think a J requirement won’t do the exact same thing, and make the problem worse among those who can actually have their minds changed? I’m pretty sure that artificially induced resentment wouldn’t help Denison much. Here, an anecdote to illustrate my point:
I came into college on the fence about gays and their rights and the nature of homosexuality and all that. Then, I met gay people. They tended to be nice, relatively normal, and a few of them were actually pretty cool. My brain started associating gay people with those things, and generalized it all so that I changed my mind about gays and what they should have the right to do. Now, the flip-side. In high school I had to learn Latin. I didn’t want to, because I could have been taking other courses. I grew to hate Latin, and felt it had robbed me of my time, effort, and GPA. My brain associated Latin with anger, suffering, and annoyance. I had always wanted to learn German, but after Latin, languages in general no longer gave me any enjoyment, they had been tainted for me by association. I’m fairly confident that had I come here and been forced to take a queer studies course, I would have grown to resent gays, partially because their existence had caused such a course to exist, robbing me of my already too few electives. It would have made it harder for me to embrace the more “progressive” stance on homosexuality.
I realize I’m just criticizing and not proposing any solutions, but that’s because I don’t see any problems here that can be solved with institutional programs or initiatives. So, yeah, long story short, the J requirement sounds like a great, well-meaning, ineffective, time-wasting proposal.
Stas Nogay, Slayter Box 8282, nogay_s@denison.edu (Can you see it? Fucking hilarious, right?)
P.S. If you plan on responding, don’t worry about being civil, I prefer bluntness. Also, ranting at me would make me chuckle.
Dear James or whoever happens to belong to Slayter Box 9267,
I’m sorry that my attempt at humor did not amuse you. I hope that you will be happy to know that I am tendering my resignation from the staff of The Bullsheet, effective May 2011. If that doesn’t console you I apologize, but you are going to have to put up with two more months of my weekly drivel until you graduate.
Sincerely,
9191 (Ben Leatherman)
I’m sorry that my attempt at humor did not amuse you. I hope that you will be happy to know that I am tendering my resignation from the staff of The Bullsheet, effective May 2011. If that doesn’t console you I apologize, but you are going to have to put up with two more months of my weekly drivel until you graduate.
Sincerely,
9191 (Ben Leatherman)
Hello All,
This is
Two days later, I met with the counselors of Whistler. Here I attempted to get actual statistics and some professional opinions. However, I was not able to obtain statistics. I could not get statistics because sexual assault is not being reported, therefore, the statistics would not tell us anything because they would not be accurate. Sexual assault is not in the top 5 reasons of why people go to Whistler. I also found that there is no test that cost $500 dollars, something that I kept hearing and that I reported in my first bullsheet article. The test to see if you have been “ruphied” cost 100 dollars. But what happens, according to the counselors in Whistler, is that these test could be ineffective because there can be other things put into drinks that could have the same effect as a ruphie. The ruphie test only detects ruphies. Now, there is another test that tests for 150 different pills, aspirin, etc. that have the same effect as a ruphie. This test is $300 dollars. This is where it gets expensive, especially if a woman wants both test. Also the woman would have to be tested within 3 days or the drug will not be detectable.
With that said, I have come to the conclusion that, it is not that the administration does not care, but they can not do anything if people are not speaking up about the issue. I am not saying that women are at fault for this, it is understandable why it is not reported; embarrassment, guilt, fear, etc. SO…..because there is no specific answer to this situation, I suggest that we start with some accountability. When I met with the sororities, one of the women said that sometimes she might go to a party and one of her guy friends will tell her not to drink the alcohol, because something is in it. She said that she goes ok and she does not drink it. My question is, what about the other women in the party? Do you let them drink it and possibly be a victim of sexual assault? I suggest that women on this campus protect each other. I also believe that if a man knows about somebody putting something in drink, he has an obligation to stop him. As well as stop and/or report an assault that he sees or knows about. I also suggest that women and men need to be more aware of how much alcohol they are consuming. I interviewed two men about sexual assault on
When I interviewed the two men (who are both well known White athletes and members of fraternities) for my women’s studies class, I asked what could be done to prevent or stop sexual assault on our campus. They both said education, awareness, and a women’s study course. With that said, here is what I want to do. If you have a story of sexual assault, whether it happened to you, a spouse, friend, or relative, I need to hear it. What I am asking is: If you have a story about sexual assault, I would like for you to write about it and submit anonymously to my mailbox 8538, if you want to include your name that is cool too. It can be as long as 5 pages or as short as one word. I then would like to put all the stories together and distribute the book on our campus in order to make people understand this issue; in order to make people have empathy for this situation, in order to make people understand what it is like. I am asking you to write these so people can understand the seriousness of this issue. I also think that we need to work together to get the J requirement back. This will make it a requirement that students take a black studies course, women studies course, or a queer studies course. The events of last November and the issue of sexual assault on our campus, scream for the need of such a requirement. Any questions or suggestions you can email me.
Everett Daily- daily_e@denison.edu
In response to Leatherman's article on 'Hooking Up:'
While some of your depictions concerning sexual activity are accurate, the page long list you have written is by no means all encompassing. First of all, who says you have to begin by holding hands. Secondly, who says it stops where you cut it off. The sexual experience is something that varies for each person, never uniform for one partner or the next. Finally, I'd just like to add that if any students need awkward sexual advice or a measuring device as to how far we let ourselves delve into sexual deviance, we can count on the Denisonian and its recently heralded column concerning sexuality.
-9267
-9267
Sunday, March 1, 2009
On Hooking Up
So, the other day I was sitting around with a couple of friends. We were wondering exactly what it meant to “hook up” with someone. They decided that since I am an editor for Granville’s largest daily publication that I should write an editorial explaining to all of you what this term and others actually mean. Actually, this may not be anywhere near what they mean, I mean I was raised in a barn, but at least we can all have a common reference point now.
To begin
Holding Hands: This is when two people (I’m sorry if I start to use gender—the article is meant to be gender inspecific) who are somewhat attracted to each other begin to express it. When holding hands with people who are just friends you must refrain from interlocking fingers because boys will get the wrong message. When two people like each other they are allowed to hold hands.
Kissing: Involves the lips of at least one partner. Again, friends may kiss, but most friends should refrain from kissing on the lips, or anywhere other than the cheek, or hand if you live in the 17th century. When kissing on the lips, two people are generally attracted to each other. Kissing can become more intimate than this and any body part can be involved with a kiss.
French Kiss: This is a kiss involving the mouths of both partners and the tongues are used as well
Making Out: Generally when a couple makes out they begin by French Kissing but sexual desire quickly catches hold of them. When making out the hands are often used to grope or caress the partner. Making out can also involve a great deal of dry humping and can be done in either a standing or prone position or anywhere in between. Making out can be done with any amount of clothes on, and if you are not careful it can lead to sex.
Hooking Up: Depending upon the crowd you are running with and the chasteness of the speaker, hooking up can mean different things. However, I like to define hooking up as any action that could quickly lead to an action farther down the list. Typically the first of these is making out even though some do not consider making out to be hooking up because our seventh grade sisters could be making out on the living room sofa right now with no intent on going any further. However, because our 11th grade sister could also be making out in her bed right now and planning on taking it a lot further, making out is considered hooking up.
Feeling Up: I place this after making out because making out can be done without involving any sexual parts. However, feeling up typically refers to the exploration of a woman’s breasts. To kiss the breasts could fall into the category of making out.
Humping: This is usually instigated during making out or dancing and involves two partners going through the motions of sex without actual penetration.
Groping: Involves massaging the private parts of any person, whether the hands are above or below the clothes.
(Note that the following may be sexually explicit and restraint should be used in public places including but not limited to: Movie theaters, malls, public transportation, the room next to your parents, or your grandparent’s house.)
Hand Job: This is the pleasuring of the penis using the hands. Can be performed privately or with a partner.
Fingering: This is the pleasuring of the vulva with hands and fingers; it also can be performed privately or with a partner.
Blow Job: This typically involves the penis and the mouth of a partner. This is in a category called oral sex, and it involves pleasuring the penis with the mouth.
Eating Out: When a partner pleases your female parts with his or her mouth this is eating out. It also falls in the category of oral sex.
Sex: I am not privy to the homo- or bisexual experience, but a heterosexual definition of sex is the insertion of the penis into the vagina. Please use caution when having sex because AIDS and children are serious side effects.
Anal Sex: Can be performed by heterosexual or homosexual male partners. It involves the insertion of the penis into the anus. Children cannot be created this way, so have fun.
TUNE IN NEXT WEEK FOR A STEP BY STEP GUIDE ON PLAYING BASEBALL
To begin
Holding Hands: This is when two people (I’m sorry if I start to use gender—the article is meant to be gender inspecific) who are somewhat attracted to each other begin to express it. When holding hands with people who are just friends you must refrain from interlocking fingers because boys will get the wrong message. When two people like each other they are allowed to hold hands.
Kissing: Involves the lips of at least one partner. Again, friends may kiss, but most friends should refrain from kissing on the lips, or anywhere other than the cheek, or hand if you live in the 17th century. When kissing on the lips, two people are generally attracted to each other. Kissing can become more intimate than this and any body part can be involved with a kiss.
French Kiss: This is a kiss involving the mouths of both partners and the tongues are used as well
Making Out: Generally when a couple makes out they begin by French Kissing but sexual desire quickly catches hold of them. When making out the hands are often used to grope or caress the partner. Making out can also involve a great deal of dry humping and can be done in either a standing or prone position or anywhere in between. Making out can be done with any amount of clothes on, and if you are not careful it can lead to sex.
Hooking Up: Depending upon the crowd you are running with and the chasteness of the speaker, hooking up can mean different things. However, I like to define hooking up as any action that could quickly lead to an action farther down the list. Typically the first of these is making out even though some do not consider making out to be hooking up because our seventh grade sisters could be making out on the living room sofa right now with no intent on going any further. However, because our 11th grade sister could also be making out in her bed right now and planning on taking it a lot further, making out is considered hooking up.
Feeling Up: I place this after making out because making out can be done without involving any sexual parts. However, feeling up typically refers to the exploration of a woman’s breasts. To kiss the breasts could fall into the category of making out.
Humping: This is usually instigated during making out or dancing and involves two partners going through the motions of sex without actual penetration.
Groping: Involves massaging the private parts of any person, whether the hands are above or below the clothes.
(Note that the following may be sexually explicit and restraint should be used in public places including but not limited to: Movie theaters, malls, public transportation, the room next to your parents, or your grandparent’s house.)
Hand Job: This is the pleasuring of the penis using the hands. Can be performed privately or with a partner.
Fingering: This is the pleasuring of the vulva with hands and fingers; it also can be performed privately or with a partner.
Blow Job: This typically involves the penis and the mouth of a partner. This is in a category called oral sex, and it involves pleasuring the penis with the mouth.
Eating Out: When a partner pleases your female parts with his or her mouth this is eating out. It also falls in the category of oral sex.
Sex: I am not privy to the homo- or bisexual experience, but a heterosexual definition of sex is the insertion of the penis into the vagina. Please use caution when having sex because AIDS and children are serious side effects.
Anal Sex: Can be performed by heterosexual or homosexual male partners. It involves the insertion of the penis into the anus. Children cannot be created this way, so have fun.
TUNE IN NEXT WEEK FOR A STEP BY STEP GUIDE ON PLAYING BASEBALL
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
