Feminism is Everyone's Issue

Emma Watson, UN women ambassador and actress, recently gave a speech on feminism and launched a campaign called HeForShe. She addressed several problems, one of which has become increasingly apparent. That the title, "feminist", has become something of a taboo, a word that many women and men alike are are afraid to be associated with. It is unfortunate that such an empowering concept has such a negative connotation.

Watson said that one reason for this is that many people think the word means anti-men. This is false. As Watson stated, “Feminism by definition is the belief that men and women should have equal rights and opportunities. It is the theory of political, economic, and social equality of the sexes.”

Yet still many women shy away from the concept of feminism and many men feel threatened by it.

Soon after delivering her speech, a website popped up threatening to expose nude photos of Watson. Although the threats turned out to be a hoax, after a reaction like this, it is no wonder that people are hesitant to voice their opinions on the subject for fear of being personally and emotionally attacked.  That has to change.

In her speech, Watson pointed out to men that “gender equality is your issue too.” This speaks to the fact that female empowerment isn’t about disempowering males. It’s about becoming stronger as a human race. Both men and women must get on the same page. If not accept the title “feminist”, they must at least embrace the concept. Only then will gender equality be achieved.

Op-Talk: Society's View of Tattoos

This summer, my family discussed different forms of personal artistic expression, such as body piercings, hair dying, and tattoos. My grandparents and uncle expressed their utter distaste for all of these, talking about vandalizing the human body and limiting opportunities for future jobs. My cousin and I, on the other hand, had a different view. These forms of artistic expression, in moderation, are additional ways for people to show their individuality.

Tattooing was done throughout history all over the world. We see tattoos on ancient Egyptian mummies, Roman soldiers, and warriors of the Crusades. Historically in America we see tattoos on circus performers, sailors and gang members. But, increasingly, we see tattoos on all sorts of people in America. Currently 14% of Americans have tattoos and 36% of people ages 18-25 have tattoos.

The question is, why judge these people? Yes, full body tattoos are distracting and arguably distasteful, but what is the harm of a few small, meaningful tattoos? I have thought about getting a tattoo of an inspiring phrase my grandfather often says, This too shall pass. I have friends who have ideas of images or phrases they want tattooed on themselves. We are not people upon whom to look down. We are not criminals. It seems that the choice to get a tattoo, like any other art form, should be respected. There is nothing wrong with not wanting a tattoo, but why judge a person who wants to express themselves through this medium?

One common societal view is that people with tattoos are more likely to be criminals. And there is some correlation between tattoos and crime. Dr. Jerome Koch, a professor of sociology at Texas Tech University, did a study on college students with tattoos. He surveyed 1753 students at various colleges in America on their tattoos (or lack thereof) and their “history of deviance.” 8.5% of students with no tattoos, 18.7% of students with one tattoo, 12% of students with two or three tattoos, and 70.6% of students with four or more tattoos surveyed said they had a history of one or more arrests (not including traffic crimes). It is safe to assume, based on this study and others like it, that disregarding people who are heavily tattooed, tattoos and crime have a low correlation. Heavily tattooed people, however, do seem to correlate with increased levels of crime. Another thing to remember about criminal activity and tattoos is the type of tattoo. I think we can all agree that someone with namaste tattooed on their wrist is probably not in a gang. A tattoo, like anything else, should not be the sole deciding factor in the workplace or social world. Employers should judge based on an applicant’s history, education, and personality, regardless of whether or not they have a tattoo. Tattoos do not necessarily mean that a person is a lower class, uneducated criminal. I strive to live in a world where this form of personal expression can be accepted. To be clear though, I am a firm believer in the saying, “everything in moderation.” I respect the choice to get one or two tattoos, but full body tattoos seem to be excessive and distasteful. But, hey, that’s just my opinion.

Taking a Lack Of Inspiration and Working With It

Sorry, this post isn't about how you can work with your lack of inspiration right now.
It's me working with my lack of inspiration.
So, now, you ask yourself, 'Daniel, why don't you have inspiration?'
Well, I kinda did. But I didn't get too far with it. Everything in the New York Times op-eds already seemed really overplayed in this blog, and I didn't want to echo more opinions that are already here. I could have written about the protests that my sister is taking part in at her school in upstate New York, but I don't really know what to say about it, since it's specific to her school. (check it out here, if you want to. Pretty cool stuff, I just don't know what to write about it without it being about race. Which is EVERYTHING on this blog.)
But really, I don't have any inspiration right now because, honestly, I'm rushing through this assignment, I'm rushing through the rest of my homework tonight, and my head is muddy as hell due to lack of sleep and too much running over the past few weeks. I feel like I really got nowhere to turn right now, I got a bunch of homework to get through and so little time if I want to get any sleep at all. So I'm here, sitting at my laptop, writing about nothing.
I guess it isn't nothing, though, because what we all need to do some times is take a step back, chill out, relax. Maybe meditate a little. Let our brains recover. Find a day to not do anything. Finish your homework in school, go home, watch T.V., read a book because you want to, listen to some new music. Try to do this once a month. Or don't. It's not my life, right? Just do what you can to click that little 'refresh' button in your head and reinvigorate that inspiration. Because it's there. You're just rushing.

Are Teens Really Talking?

As I have been reading The Things They Carried, there have been so many instances where I realize how hard it is for people to stand up for themselves against someone with more power or experience. While the consequences of not self-advocating in the novel are pretty extreme, hello, going to war and possibly dying, the stories have made me realize how little students actually go and confront a teacher with issues they are having in class. This is the most prominent example that I have observed.

While this is just my experience, I think it is pretty applicable. Everyday, you hear peers complaining about how little sleep they got and how much homework they have. Why are we just blindly accepting these assignments? In The Things They Carried, the soldiers are often stating that they never wanted to be in the war, they only did it because they were told to. Similarly, students do the homework they are given and do not talk to teachers about issues with the amount because of fear for repercussions, myself included. Everyone knows that a person can't change a situation until they begin doing something about it, so why do we stand idle by? I have realized that adults respect a teenager or student a lot more and are more compliant with the request if a young person advocates for themselves. I strongly believe that if instead of complaining, people worked to make things better and put in the effort, they wouldn't have to complain anymore. We need to be responsible for the way we use our time in life.

Women in Major League Sports?

Major League sports have always been discriminatory. Every popular sport; Football, Baseball, Hockey, and Basketball, fail to include women players. This lack of professional female athletes has reinforced stereotypes that women are not capable of competing with men in sports. While the fact that males and females have different body types, even females who are physically capable of competing at the level of their male counterparts are socially "edged out" of sports.

The MLB has never seen a woman on a roster, only one woman has ever played in an NHL game, and  the NFL has yet to see a female player. While many female athletes are plenty skillful, for some odd reason they never really make it past high school playing co-ed. This is because it is not socially acceptable yet for a woman to participate in mainstream sports at the professional level. Women are capable of not just playing, but competing. Unfortunately, until it becomes socially acceptable, we likely won't see many female athletes playing against men on TV.

How Tim O'Brien has now made my favorite book a lot more complicated

Reading Tim O'Brien's The Things They Carried, I can't help but be reminded of another writer by the name of Gary D. Schmidt. Schmidt's writing style is similar to O'Brien's in that it is by turns poetic and blunt, in a way that sometimes sends shivers down my spine. He has a way of turning a sentence, or a paragraph, or a chapter, or a whole plot, that makes me love his books even as I grow out of their target age range.

To be fair, Schmidt's subject material may just appeal to me personally. I'm a Shakespeare nerd, and Schmidt's first book, The Wednesday Wars, is mostly devoted to celebrating Shakespeare's plays. The book is set in 1969, and centers around Holling Hoodhood, a thirteen-year-old boy just trying to make it through life in junior high, while dealing with a controlling, business-obsessed father, a flower-child sister, and a teacher who he's convinced "hates his guts". This teacher does not, in fact, hate Holling's guts, and she introduces him to Shakespeare's plays, which he comes to appreciate and even love.

Gary D. Schmidt's second book, Okay For Now, is interesting because it is set in the same world as The Wednesday Wars, but the protagonist of Okay For Now is Doug Swieteck, who appeared in The Wednesday Wars as a supporting character. Okay For Now is set about a year later than the events of The Wednesday Wars, and deals more closely with the Vietnam War.

Okay For Now is generally a darker, more serious book than its predecessor. Where Holling's father is uptight and controlling, Doug's father is downright abusive. Doug is also a more reluctant narrator than Holling; he is surly and defensive, and many past events in his life are hinted at, but not told outright, forcing the reader to piece together much of his history. Doug's tough exterior makes it even more heartrending when the reader puts two and two together about his past mistreatment and traumas. 

About halfway through the book, Doug's brother Lucas returns from fighting in Vietnam. He has lost both his legs, as well as suffering severe injuries to his eyes. After his family picks him up from the bus stop, they are accosted by a parade of anti-war protesters who verbally attack and denounce him for fighting in Vietnam.  For this reason, Lucas's return, which should be a happy event, is one of the most agonizing scenes in the book.

Before reading Okay For Now, I had no idea that anti-war protestors in the Vietnam era would actually personally attack and blame soldiers for being a part of the war. Doug mentions how the protestors berate Lucas for "killing Vietnamese babies". The Things They Carried, if taken as a factual account, shows that cruelty to civilians by American troops was, in fact, a common practice. I did not know this before reading O'Brien's book, and for me, it's really affected how I interpret that scene in Okay For Now. Previously, I had pretty much sided with Doug, who is irate with the protestors for attacking his injured brother in this way. However, with my new knowledge of many troops' behavior in Vietnam, I am not so sure. 

So thanks to Tim O'Brien, one of my favorite books has gained many more levels for me to think about. I'm pretty sure this is good. But it complicates things a lot. 

“The Man I Killed” -Chapter Analysis From The Things They Carried

In this chapter, O’brien shows his guilty feelings related to the man he killed through a fantasy he makes up in an attempt to face his regret on the subject. He specifically imagines a fictional life for his victim and a life that he could have had, had he not killed him. For example, O’brien states that “He liked books. He wanted to be a teacher of mathematics” when referring to the man he killed. Of course there is no way he could have ever known what kind of life this man had, let alone profession. Although this is a totally fictional life story that is being told, by pretending to know this mans back story, O’brien attempts to empathize with his victim and fully realize what he has done and face the situation head on.

Some people, when faced with guilt and regret, attempt to push these thoughts and feelings into the back of their mind so that they can avoid them altogether as a coping mechanism. However, O’brien takes the exact opposite route and in his own way deals with what life has dealt him. O’brien also brings up how those who knew the man he killed will be affected by his death. He plays with the notion that this man had a parents and a wife and children of his own. He elaborates and talks about how he would have lived with them and loved them. This shows that O’brien is not only blaming himself for the death of the man, but also the suffering and loss felt by all those who knew him.

Insincere Apologies Mean Nothing

While I was scrolling through the New York Times Op-Ed page, I came across an article about some new developments in the Ferguson, MO case where the unarmed African American teenager Michael Brown was shot. This Op-Ed featured a video of the Chief of Police, Tom Jackson, making some type of apology to multiple people. There has been a lot of controversy around this case because some people think that this was a case of racism demonstrated by the white Ferguson police, much like the Zimmerman case in Florida a few years ago.

In the article that followed, Rosenthal (the author) brought up many good points about the abundance of flaws in the apology. I agreed with the majority of them. He talked about how weird the setting of the video was. It was filmed in front of an American Flag, and Jackson was wearing a golf shirt instead of his police uniform. I think that because he was not wearing his uniform the message felt more as if it was coming from a normal citizen which is not as powerful as coming from the police unit, where he could have acted as a representative of all the officers who did not properly handle the case. Another odd part of the apology which the author brought up was the timing of when he made the video. Brown was shot in early August of this year, and the apology is just happening. I think that this is an unreasonable amount of time to wait before apologizing for killing somebody and it gives the message a sense of insincerity.

I saw many aspects of the video which I thought he could have improved on, at least enough to make the message seem meaningful. He stood in front of the camera, looking almost bored the whole time and clearly had written out notes about what he was going to say. He held a paper in his hand and looked at it constantly, adding to the phony sense of his speech. I assume that this apology video is merely what he is forced to do to keep his job, and if he really wants to make anything better, he should make a genuine statement of regret, rather than an unfelt one which hardly makes the situation any better.

Is Naked Next?-An op-ed on the influence of sex on past & present female musical artists

It has taken decades for female musicians to gain respect as performers, and they’ve been fighting for this right since they clawed their way through the Rock n’ Roll scene in the early 60’s, however, it seems this type of desire for respect has been slowly slipping backwards in our current American society. It is an undeniable fact that sex sells. Sex will always sell, for women and men. However, it seems that in the music industry, women have had a more focused pressure to stress this in their work than men.

Music started out as a man’s world. Sure, there were female musical artists,but they were mostly there to please the eye: cute-figures with a pretty face, that’s all they were. Early siren-singers come to mind such as the timid and clean Doris Day or Peggy Lee. It wasn’t until rock n’ roll entered the mainstream with a man by the name of Elvis Presley, that sex began to penetrate its way into society’s music culture. You could not tame this lip quiverin' hip shakin' King even if you tried. So if a man could hold this kind of presence on stage and create this kind of reaction, why couldn’t women as well? More and more women began to ask themselves this as they watched this new sexually influenced music take over the world. By the mid-to-late 60‘s and early 70’s women began to take action in being apart of this influential musical movement from a new dominant aspect. Women were shunned, mocked, laughed at, and exploited, but all this was just the fuel for some of America’s most influential female musicians. The struggle that these women experienced to gain the respect they deserved, not only added an extra level of satisfaction on top of their performance, but also greatly influenced their career and image all together. Despite all this history, current popular female artists seem to have lost touch in everything these previous women fought for.


Here you’re presented with four female artists ranging in decade and genre, each highly influenced by one common theme;sex.

Beginning in the 1970’s we were blessed with a pioneer for people of all sorts, Joan Jett.
Joan Jett is not one to shy away from sex. (It’s obvious in most songs, such as, “Do You Wanna Touch Me (Oh Yeah)” or “You Don’t Own Me”.) But it was mostly prevalent in the energy she radiated while on stage. However, something was different about the way she channeled her sex appeal to her audience. It was a very androgynous feel that appealed to many demographics. She played gritty rock n’ roll; the sex appeal followed behind almost unconsciously. With that being said, it never overshadowed her talent. You just can’t have rock n’ roll without a sexual connection. She embodied “sexy” in her power and dominance, in her stance and strong vocals. Jett was a woman who commanded and demanded presence on stage and delivered. That was sexy.


Madonna has always been proud of her gender. Among her many albums, the theme of being a strong and independent woman is often explored. Although she has exposed her body in videos and photographs, her nudity was never intended to be degrading. By allowing her art to synthesize with her strong female ideals, she has set the standard for outspoken women on a global scale. Taking a hard line on feminine equality is a stance that has become synonymous with Madonna's approach to her life and music. Madonna breaks barriers. She is an artist that relied heavily on sex to sell her image. Hell, it was her image. Madonna and sexuality are forever intertwined. Across various media, she has found a way to push the boundaries of what is acceptable.



Since its beginnings in the 1990s, Riot Grrrl music has aimed to empower, educate, and help women to feel less alienated by a society that can be discriminatory and harmful to them. A Riot Grrl-influenced underground female feminist musical/performance artist started to push her way through the scene with shocking imagery and vulgar feminist anthems. The artist Peaches uses sex to tell a story and make a point. There was a slight discomfort that came with experiencing her works, that the audience (mostly women) felt captivated and empowered.


What we have in this generation, carries the same ideas that the previous women have represented. However, these 21st century pop stars show a very submissive representation of women using the feminist ideologies. Saying they should be able to do these things because this is “groundbreaking” and they are women, women can do anything they want. While this is true, the impact is just not the same. Why? There are a few things that the previous female artists had in common that these new girls seem to be lacking, such as inventiveness and dominance. What Joan Jett and the artists of the Riot Grrl movement had going for them was an alpha female presence. This scared the shit out of men and women. They owned that stage and no man could take that away from them. It was an “I’m here and I’m in control!” kind of attitude. You can see that both in Nikki Minaj’s and Miley Cyrus's performances they seem to be representing the reverse, “I’m here and you’re in control, so take over!”

 “The music industry is so sexualised now. The difference is that the females are choosing it themselves, so you can’t say they are being used by the industry. Nobody is telling these women what to do, so you can’t say it’s the men sexualising them anymore. There are so many semi-naked women in videos. Is naked next? I don’t know. I am hoping it’s gone to a point where the only way is to go back again.”  -Suzi Quatro

Who's Policing the Police?

In light of recent events in Ferguson and New York, it is impossible to go on without addressing the current state that America is in, and more specifically the state of our police. Last month, in a small town named Ferguson in the state of Missouri, we, as the American people, witnessed one of our own towns turn into a police state and put under martial law.

Understand the gravity of this: we are in 2014, the average teenager carries a device more powerful than things that the US has sent into space, we are observing possibilities of human life on other planets; and innocent citizens are being tear-gassed by the police that are paid to protect them. Do not be confused, this is not an essay on what happened in Ferguson, it is much bigger than that. It is an essay on trying to prevent what happened in Ferguson from ever happening again.

Eric Garner, a 43 year old father living in New York, was murdered by the police on July 17, 2014; exactly 2 months before this essay was written. I am not using the word murder lightly, there is no bias here, the death of Eric Garner was ruled a homicide by the city medical examiner. On this fateful summer day, Eric Garner was put into a chokehold by the NYPD, which would eventually render him unable to breathe and therefore causing his death. Not to mention the use of the chokehold by NYPD officers has been banned for over twenty years, yet no criminal charges have been brought against the officer involved. As a part of the general American public, I can say with almost complete certainty that we would have not known about this happening had it not been for those in the crowd who quickly thought to reach for their camera phones.

Ferguson, the hashtag literally heard around the world, is the town where 18 year old Michael Brown was killed this summer. From the start, the details surrounding the killing of Michael Brown are hazy. The story told by the police officer who shot Brown, Darren Wilson, has almost no congruences to the story told by the only eyewitness, who was a friend of Michael and was involved in the altercation. The results determined by medical examiners went completely against what the officer reported as of happening, but in court I guess it’s only the cop’s word against a pile of evidence, an eyewitness account, and the laws of physics. The murder of this innocent teen lead to protests in Ferguson the very next day, and soon after cops absolutely filled the streets for the following days. During one of the protests  a small percentage of people saw this as an opportunity for personal gain. There were short bursts of looting that were in contrast to the large number of peaceful protests that had been held before and were still being held at the time. Also, a local gas station named the Quik-Trip was burned down. This is the gas station that Brown had been accused of robbing by the resident Chief of Police days after Michael Brown’s death. A claim that was incredibly soon after disproved by the limitations of the human body and the speeds it is capable of reaching.  Then the SWAT team was sent in and an American town was officially occupied. Citizens were tear-gassed and shot with projectiles non-lethal projectiles ranging from large wooden bullets to bean bags, people were unjustly arrested, and amendments were stripped away without any sanction to do so (a sanction that does not exist seeing as these are amendments).  Yet even still, Darren Wilson walks as a free man. Our country cannot continue going on with a police force that is policing itself, and doling out the most tender of wrist slaps to their own bad behavior.

The solution is simple and became painfully apparent after the events in Ferguson a few weeks ago: film the police. Get police to wear body cameras, but not just regular police, but SWAT, state troopers, and any other enforcer of the law with the power to carry a weapon. If the government won’t step in and better watch over our nation’s police force, then someone has to. Police being forced to wear body cameras eliminates so much of the ambiguity in such instances and provides hard evidence of what actually occurred in any case. There is nothing we can do to undo the murders of Michael Brown, Eric Garner, Oscar Grant, John Crawford III, Sean Bell, Ezell Ford, and too many others, but what we can do is try to prevent it from happening again.  Know your rights and work for change.

Racial Discrimination is Still Alive and Well

When many of us, including myself at times, think of racial discrimination, we tend to think back to the Civil Rights movement when Martin Luther King Jr. gave his famous “I Have a Dream” speech. We like to think of the Civil Rights Movement of 1964 when racial discrimination was “outlawed” (whatever that means). Many people look at this momentous occasion and view it as a major achievement for colored people. Although I will not disagree with the previous statement, the fact is simply that the different forms of discrimination (social, economic, institutional, etc.) are all psychological issues, and therefore, cannot be easily resolved by a mere piece of legislation. Several recent events that have occurred in the United States over the last few years have led me to this conclusion.

The most recent event that most of us have at least heard about are the events that are still occurring in Ferguson, MO. To sum it up for those who have not heard, recently, a young black teeneger named Michael Brown was shot and killed by Darren Wilson, a local law enforcement officer. The significance of this event is that Brown was unarmed at the time of the shooting and many are questioning Wilson’s rationale behind shooting the young man. The event has sparked riots, protest, and looting throughout the local area and many are calling for justice in the situation. To be fair, I have no idea if Wilson was actually using selective profiling and shot Brown simply because he was African-American. Maybe there was justification for shooting Brown, however, even the fact that a large portion of the community believes that Wilson should be charged as a criminal shows that racial discrimination is still quite visible in the world today.

In addition to the events that occurred in Ferguson, MO, there was another incident that occurred a little over two years ago that most have heard of by now. The case of Trayvon Martin is still very much controversial today, mainly due to the outcome of the case itself. On February 26, 2012, Trayvon Martin was shot and killed by George Zimmerman in the gated community that Martin was living in at the time. Like Brown, Martin was unarmed. The details in this case are a little more well known due to the amount of time that has passed since the incident. George Zimmerman was acquitted of all charges because of Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” law, however many believe this was the right decision as it does follow the passed legislation.

It’s obvious that the two incidents shared many different aspects, which makes it easier to see that racial discrimination could have played a factor in the outcomes of the events. Clearly, racial discrimination has not been eradicated by the Civil Rights Movement or even by time, it just exists in different and generally more subtle forms.

The Things They May or May Not Have Carried: Fiction vs. Nonfiction

With his book The Things They Carried, Tim O’Brien decided to label it fiction, despite the many influences the work takes from his real life experience in Vietnam. He even specifically notes in the book that it is mostly fiction. This would not be necessary if the book didn’t feel like reality. J.K. Rowling never needed to point out that England wasn’t full of wizards and witches. This begs the question of why didn’t O’Brien simply make the The Things They Carried nonfiction. Although nonfiction carries with it many pros such as a feeling of importance, fiction is more advantages to O’Brien as it allows him to portray Vietnam in a way that appeals to a deeper emotional truth that the reader can connect with.

Nonfiction is reality, cold hard factual truths that happened. This in itself eliminates the problem of having to ground the reader in a relatable setting, as anyone can relate to the world they live in. Being based in reality also makes the story feel important, as that means it has had a tangible impact on the world that something purely on paper can never have. However, these advantages have somewhat been lessened by books that claim they are based on true stories. In these books, the reader is constantly question what actually happened, what’s been exaggerated, and what is fabricated by the author. This has created somewhat of a public distrust of nonfiction stories, even stories that are rooted purely in fact. By using fiction, O’Brien actually makes his story more believable. Once the reader is no longer worried about what is factual, he/she can focus on whether the story feels true on an emotional level. This is great for O’Brien, as he excels at presenting these emotional truths. So, using fiction makes The Things They Carried much more effective at telling the truth of the Vietnam War than a nonfiction story could.

Refusing to Accept the Paradox of Truth

I like to consider myself odd. Not a unique butterfly, snowflake, or other half-arsed metaphor, but one of the odd ones out. I may just be one of the people desperately wanting to feel special, or I may like the concept of being a lone hero against the world trying to save the day, but I think it's because I oppose an ideology I see everywhere. It goes by many names, but these are the most common: reality vs. fiction, facts vs. falsehoods, right and wrong. The idea that the truth is simple, and more specifically, that in a debate there is only one corrects answer, only one person is right. Of course, the very nature of it makes it impossible to fight against, as I am currently claiming that my idea, that there is no such thing as strict right and wrong, is right. Herein lies the paradox of this truth. How can you argue anything if you don't believe anything can be completely proven?

The thing about paradoxes is, they're very hard to understand. They confuse people. They make people's heads hurt. And, in my experience, people do not like them in the least. The majority of people I know or know of like clean cut truth vs. lies, reality vs. fiction, they want to world to be in black and white. The problem with this is quite clear to me: it leaves people inflexible, defensive, and pitted against one another. Without Accepting the intense complexity of the truth, the need to constantly update your ideas without ever just accepting one source as gospel, people firmly ground themselves in their beliefs, and they teach their children these beliefs, and they distrust those who go against these beliefs. This rigidity refuses compromise, resulting in nothing but an impasse any time an important subject is brought up. This is particularly relevant in America, where politics has devolved into two factions, Republican and Democrat, and you must conform to one or the other. Even worse, these parties are so convinced that their ideas are the correct ones that they would rather fight the other over everything they want rather than stepping back and considering if they would prefer that plan to their own.

I love paradoxes. I love the way I can think about them for as long as I like without worrying about some straightforward solution, and I love that Tim O'Brien acknowledges and accepts the paradox of truth. But I also believe that examining and fully considering the paradoxes of the world is vital in moving forward. By shunning paradox, you leave yourself open to rigid beliefs and unacknowledged hypocrisy.

Boys Will be Boys? Sexism in School Dress Codes

In today’s society, how we choose to dress tends to say a lot about our character. First impressions are very important, and the way we choose to present ourselves to the world is a key role in that. Dress for success! However, society has become so focused on the way we look, that dress codes are becoming much more ingrained in our culture.

Because of this, it is not surprising that many schools and workplaces have implemented dress codes. You don’t see people walking into a professional business meeting wearing pj’s. But this also delves into a territory that is tricky, and becomes a debate of what is and isn’t appropriate for certain settings, in particular, schools. I would change the pajama argument, because people can and do walk around in pajamas

Middle school is a time in life when pre teens really start to figure out who they are, and what they want to be. I think that their personal fashion sense plays a huge role in that. They are trying to figure out what their unique style is. Yet, in my middle school, we were told that there was a very strict dress code policy. The rules for boys were simple; no showing your underwear, no hats, and no muscle tees. Otherwise there wasn’t much to be said. Girls were a different story. No tank tops with less than 3 fingers worth in width, no leggings as pants, no skirts or pants above the knee, no open toed shoes, no strapless anything, and of course, no hats.

Some might say that there are more rules because girls have more styles of clothing, but it goes deeper than that. The shorts rule did not apply to boys, or if it did, it was never enforced the way it was with girls. The same went for open toed shoes. I once walked into the school wearing a tank top that was 2 and ½ fingers width, and a teacher made me change into my gym shirt.

These dress codes were strict, and was difficult, especially in the summer. Though it wasn’t just a temporary nuisance. The school’s reasoning for such strict dress codes for girls was so as to “not distract the boys”. woah...back it up there. Did they really just say that? (yes that is word for word what they told us)...does this mean that if my shoulder is exposed, I will distract a boy so much that he can’t concentrate on his work? Somehow, I doubt it.

This mindset of men unable to control themselves when a girl exposes certain areas of her body is wildly offensive to everyone. It’s a heteronormative view (a whole other issue in itself), and it tells us that “boys will be boys” and it can lead to more serious things. It promotes dangerous mindsets about how women are viewed as objects to be stared at. It also leads young girls to believe that the way they dress and how they look is more important than their education. And that the views of a male are more important than their own. This ideology is extremely hurtful, and could lead to these men (and women) growing up to believe boys really can’t be held responsible for their actions. These ideas are also insulting to males. Men just can’t control themselves? I don’t think so.

Here in Oak Park, these rules and mindsets came across to me as a young teen as something that was pretty much just really annoying, but what about the schools that ban shorts altogether? And then there’s the fact that this isn’t just an issue for middle schools, but high schools as well. For example, girls at Menihek High School were sent home for visible bra straps. The school rationalized this by saying boys might “take it the wrong way”, bringing us to the big question: what is inappropriate for school, and what is promoting slut shaming and things of the like? I like to think that for boys and girls, no underwear should be showing, and perhaps for middle school at least, no stomach/chest. School dress codes may need to exist, but they shouldn’t be nearly as strict and sexist as they are right now.

Not "So OCD"

“I’m so OCD.” This phrase is commonly used when referring to anxious or meticulous behaviors. I hear it all the time, and it stings. It is misleading and offensive because it diminishes understanding of the devastation caused by obsessive compulsive disorder. There is a difference between being a neat freak and having obsessive compulsive disorder. Having OCD is fighting a war in your head, every day, all day. It is not being able to understand yourself; having irrational thoughts that stick in your head and refuse to leave. The “D” in OCD is there for a reason; OCD is a debilitating disorder.

“I’m so OCD” is a cultural colloquialism, prevalent in speech. BuzzFeed, a popular social news website, posted an article entitled “22 Things Only People with OCD Will Understand”. The article includes behaviors related to organization, hoarding, and cleanliness, about which people with OCD would only understand to be a misrepresentation of a crippling disorder. For example, one of the statements that was supposedly relatable to people with OCD was “your closet is organized by shade and color, because any other way would drive you insane”. I like things to be organized in a certain way, and disorganization can bother me. That does not mean I have OCD. Ignorance about OCD is widespread. The phrase “I’m so OCD” only perpetuates the trivialization of the disorder, which affects over two million Americans.

My brother is diagnosed with OCD. It affects his daily life. Walking down the street, he might have to spit because he thinks the saliva in his mouth has been contaminated by an imaginary evil. He might have to blow on the t-shirt he wears to counteract “badness” that has seeped into it. I have no idea why blowing on something would somehow make it clean again. OCD is not logical. Compulsions and counteractions are inscrutable.

OCD brains are different from normal brains. Imagine a fire alarm system. The alarms are silent unless they detect signs of a fire. Now imagine that the fire alarm system that goes off constantly, fire or no fire. In an OCD brain, the warning system is like that of the alarm system that constantly sounds. There is an ever-present fear that sticks in your head. It starts up and its menacing sound replays over and over, ceaselessly.

People have anxiety. They might rearrange things particularly or double-check things. These are fine, normal behaviors. However, these behaviors are often misattributed to OCD. The normal behaviors commonly associated with OCD are nothing like the real disorder. Washing your hands more than you need to is a lot is different from feeling as though you will die if you do not. It’s different from being terrified of your own sibling, whom you love, because a problematic part of your own mind tells you they are a danger. If you do not have an unbearable anxiety disorder, you are not “so OCD.”

The Struggles With Standardized Testing

Standardized testing has been a part of the American educational system for years. According to Columbia University Professor Nicholas Lemann, standardized testing was first created in the 1940s as a way to keep Jewish students out of Ivy League schools. Some schools are starting to move away from standardized testing, and many colleges no longer require a SAT score, but standardized testing is still the deciding factor in many educational tracks children take from kindergarten to 12th grade. Many American students have been personally affected by the score of a standardized test and it has altered their educational path, whether it be over which math class they are placed, in sixth grade or what college they are accepted to. Standardized testing does not accurately represent the abilities of students, and has become a large inconvenience for teachers and administrators. Standardized testing also seems to favor the abilities of Asian and white children.


As a student who has had standardized testing forced upon me through my elementary, middle, and high school careers I am aware that testing in no way captures a child's true achievements and capabilities. A single multiple choice test does not express many of the important skills learned in school that are necessary to become successful outside of a school setting. Testing does not apply or demonstrate the level of ability in the fields of arts, sciences, creativity, or any type of self-expression. Schools seek to strengthen critical thinking as well as problem solving skills neither of which can be accurately expressed through multiple choice responses. Students are a constantly changing variables in the test taking process and children change based on factors outside of a school's control, such as home life and the issues that come with the anxieties associated with test taking.



Students are not the only people that are affected by test taking anxieties. Standardized testing is a way for school systems to track teacher’s success through their students scores. The No Child Left Behind Act seeks to equalize students, but this is done through standardized testing and schools with low scores lose the ability to make decisions that can help students when the government begins to take over a school district. Pressure over school wide test scores cause many teachers to teach ‘to the tests’ and as a result cut out many important subjects such as science and history in order to make more time for test preparation. There is also a correlation between this stress felt by teachers over testing, and cheating in schools becoming more prevalent. I saw this predicament two years ago when teachers and facilitators at a local elementary school gave students extra time and help in order to improve ISAT, a state mandated test, scores.



One of the largest issues with standardized testing is the gap between the test scores of wealthy asian and while children and lower income African American and Latino students. These tests are administered at a very young age making it difficult for lower income children to catch up to the level of more wealthy children. This difference can been in the percentage of diversity in public schools. Although 70% of the students in New York are black or Latino only 11% of the student body in prestigious public schools are not white. The achievement gap between the rich and poor since 1960’s has risen 60%. It seems that tests seem to favor students whose grandparents went to college and are incredibly difficult for first generation college students. Perhaps the most telling sign in the issue of test scores between races is how some schools are lowering the percentages students have to score, for the school still to rank well, based on race. As one might imagine this is not a tactic that boosts the morale of any racially diverse students. A hope of standardized testing is that it allows educators to measure these gaps and makes it easier to address the inequalities of education economically and racially.



In the spring of 2016 a new SAT test is due to be released. According to College Board President, David Coleman, the updated test will no longer be centered around simply choosing the correct answer but having to justify your answers. The college board is also teaming up with Khan Academy, an online tutoring resource, in order to provide all students with free test preparation materials. The new test is trying to eliminate the ineffective and costly test preparations and instead focus the test on ideas and abilities that students have practiced throughout high school. This revision to the SAT is a major step in the progression of standardized testing for the American education system.

I Pledge Allegiance? Two Questions.

Recently it has come to my attention that even though we still say the pledge at the beginning of the school day, no one stands. I would like to know why that is. Sure it's easy to ask myself well why don't you do it? Why don't you stand up and recite the pledge? I don't know if it's laziness that I don't stand to recite the words that I was taught to memorize since the first grade. Or maybe it's as simple as I don't want to be the only one standing.

I'd like to hear the opinions of others because I don't know how we as a class went from thinking saying the pledge daily was mandatory to sitting and talking over it as high schoolers. I understand that there are lines that people may not agree with in the pledge that makes them believe they do not have to recite it, which is perfectly fine. But why do the others who have no problem not stand?

"One nation under God" 
Since the Pledge of Allegiance was written by Francis Bellamy in 1892 it has been modified a total of 4 times. I think about this line a little differently. Since I don't know who believes in a God or several Gods or maybe no God at all, how could we possibly have an alternative in these days of change? Instead of changing the whole pledge why not just change one word? No matter what religion you believe in, or don't believe in, everyone in the world benefits from a good. Why can't the word God in the pledge be changed to good?

I very curious to see what people have to say about this because I've been thinking about this for quite a while. Let me know what you think.

Thanks.

Objectification of Women in Politics

The article, “When the Media Compliments a Female Politician's Looks, She Loses the Election,” addresses the common pattern of Americans to critique the appearances of female politicians. President Obama recently apologized for introducing Kalama Harris as “by far, the best-looking attorney general” in the country. The article goes on to explain that when the media focuses on a woman candidate’s appearance, voters are less likely to vote for the female candidate. . According to the article, a study showed that when voters chose between similar candidates, Jane and Dan, the votes were split between the two candidates. However, when Jane’s physical appearance was described, Dan won by a large margin. This is absolutely ridiculous and a huge disadvantage for women politicians.

Whether they are insulting or flattering, comments about the appearance of female politicians are irrelevant and inappropriate. In fact, similar biases have been discovered in elections such as Sarah Palin and Joe Biden. When there is a woman in power and in the public eye, the American media never fails to critique her appearance. Whether it is the extreme sexualization of Sarah Palin, comments on Hillary Clinton, or a compliment from the president, this is absolutely intolerable. New York Senator Kirsten Gillibrand recently stated that while she was in the House, a representative told her, “You know, Kirsten, you’re even pretty when you’re fat.” Not only is this disgusting, but the comment about her appearance also degrades and disempowers women. Clearly, politics is not based on your beauty, but rather on your ideas and ability to lead.

I feel very strongly about this topic because the sexualization and belittling of women in politics is preventing worthy women candidates from being elected. Not only do women actually lose votes when their appearance is critiqued, viewers are unable to focus on the messages women want to convey. Overall, the critiquing of women in politics is creating a barrier from equality, and it reinforces the idea that men should hold power and women are just around to be looked at. In order to progress as a society, we need women in positions of power, and powerful women role models for young girls to look up to. The media is currently misrepresenting women politicians and this is an injustice to women.

Recreation or Academics?

According to Charles Lane writing in the Washington Post, the market for college undergraduates, in recent years, has become more competitive than ever before. Every college is attempting to create an enticing atmosphere for potential students. The disturbing aspect for American culture today is that far too many students are not as concerned with the academic aspect of college as they are with the social. Universities have responded to this growing desire by introducing deluxe recreational facilities to their campuses that have nothing to do with education. Though it is understandable that academics are not for everyone, the idea of a college shifting its priorities from academics to recreation has to be disturbing . A prospective undergraduate may choose to attend a school with amenities instead of a college that may produce better long term results. College is an opportunity for students to develop as people, and prepare themselves for the “real world”. However, they can’t do that if they are basing their college decision on which school has the nicest facilities.

Personally, I agree with Mr. Lane’s view. I feel that this emerging trend among universities to spend outrageous amounts of money on needless upgrades takes away from student’s opportunities to change as people. To me, the fundamental objective for every college student should be to experience personal growth. Both academics and extracurricular activities offer a chance for students to learn more about themselves and progress as people. However, items such as rock climbing walls, expansive gymnasiums, and luxurious dormitories do not offer these life changing experiences that make college a special place. If student’s begin to base their college decisions based on the school with the most lavish facilities, then the aspect of personal growth is lost.

Of course, not every college needs to experience a transformation like this. Some institutions are so prestigious that students are eager to apply just for the opportunity to attend. These universities do not have to make expensive alterations to their campuses to in order to attract applicants, because prospective undergraduates actively seek out the school. The problem lies with the smaller, more recently established institutions as well as the large state schools who are desperately looking for students. Universities cannot afford to fall behind their competitors, as they are competing for the same students. Therefore, as soon as one school builds a water park, a rival school is sure to follow. I feel that, eventually, this shift away from academics could have a negative effect on students. A prospective undergraduate may choose to attend a school with amenities instead of a college that may produce better long term results.

As a result of this shift away from education, graduates are leaving college having missed the opportunity for personal growth. They don’t know who they are or what they want to do. They haven’t pushed themselves academically, and therefore they are not as prepared as they ought to be to enter the workforce. If college is not preparing people for the workforce or even offering them personal growth, then what is the point of higher education in America?

Psychedelic Drugs

Psychedelic drugs get a bad reputation due to their dissimilarity with all other types of psychoactive drugs. Psychedelic experiences are vastly different than any of the other drug experiences that an average person might have had. The mystery and uncertainty create a stigma that paints an unfair picture of psychedelics. All other psychoactive drugs make the user feel ‘good’ in some way by changing the levels of certain hormones (often dopamine or serotonin) in the brain, while psychedelic drugs only temporarily change the way that the user’s brain interprets sensory impulses. The aforementioned hormone changes caused by psychoactive drugs cause almost all of the negative long-term effects associated with drug use. This difference entails that psychedelic drug-users don’t build up tolerance or experience withdrawal, while risking neither drug synergy, nor addiction. In addition, an overdose is impossible when using any popular psychedelic. Psychedelic drugs avoid the long-term and short term consequences of drug use, so they should be legalized.

Not only do psychedelic drugs lack negative effects, but they are more useful than any other recreationally legal drug. A significant link exists between psychedelic use and creativity level. An entire era of music was shaped by psychedelics, particularly LSD. Steve Jobs, founder of Apple said, “Doing LSD was one of the two or three most important things I have done in my life.”

Most people are uncomfortable with their government supporting any kind of drug with no medical use. And yet, while laws concerning psychedelic drugs will remain unchanged for the foreseeable future, the United States will continue to pump Adderall and other ADHD medications into its future generation. One in ten school-age children is prescribed medication for ADHD. That percentage is over twenty times greater than that of countries such as France. So, rather than encourage creativity, America encourages drug-fueled education that won’t be of any help when graduates find a job and must stop taking the Adderall (as most ADHD sufferers do upon reaching adulthood). So, those who oppose psychedelic drugs must not forget what the government is already doing.While legalization is a long way down the road for psychedelic drugs, the first step is raising awareness.