Introduced on Jan. 20, 2011, "No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act" (or H.R.3) is a bill intended to cut the amount of tax-payer money going to provide women with abortions. What, of course, is strange is that there is already legislation in place to limit the amount of women receiving tax-subsidized abortions: the Hyde Amendment and the Stupak-Pitts Amendment both place limits on who can receive Medicaid money for abortions and when. What's stranger is that the "No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act" attempts to radically redefine the definition of rape to include ONLY "forcible rape". Forcible rape is that which can be proved by a vast amount of extant physical evidence (namely in the form of blunt force trauma). The rest of rape - coercion by a friend or colleague, rape by drugging, or incest between a child and a full-grown adult - is written off as invalid.
There are two names at the top of the list of the 173 co-signers to the bill: Jason Chaffetz and Rob Bishop. Utah's finest. I don't live in Bishop's district but I do (somehow, even though he lives in Alpine?) live in Chaffetz's district. So I wrote him a letter. It follows below:
Mr. Chaffetz,
Let me make it clear to you. I did not vote for you. I do not like your style of politicking. I'm in the midst of writing an article for the BYU Political Review about how much I dislike your choices and where you choose to place your considerably hefty power.
That being said; I don't think you're all that awful of a person. And I honestly don't think you're in Washington intentionally trying to harm others. Your support for "No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion", however, will do exactly that. Did you know that between 80 and 93% of the reported rapes in Utah are committed by someone that the victim knows(http://health.utah.gov/vipp/rapeSexualAssault/overview.html)? By your signing of HR3, you're cutting out a significant (i.e. 80 to 93% of the 63.7% out of 100,000 women who are raped annually in UT) portion of those who have already been stripped of their right to choose not to get raped, from deciding what to do following their rape. By narrowing the definition of rape to what is defined as "forcible rape", you are saying that the only legitimately accepted definition of rape by the United States Congress is the kind of rape that takes an overwhelming amount of extant physical evidence of blunt force trauma to prove. This totally discounts rape via coercion and drugging.
Utah has some of the highest sexual assault statics in the nation. By sanctioning the narrowing of the definition of rape, you are aiding and abetting continual widespread sexual violence against women. This bill is about more than cutting down on tax-sponsored abortion. There's already the Hyde Amendment and the Stupak-Pitts Amendment to limit the amount of women benefiting from State-sponsored abortions. This bill is not about abortion. It is about the common misconception that, somehow, women are responsible for rape. It is about clamping down the right for a woman to choose what her course of action will be after the traumatic and unthinkably life-altering experience of having someone rape her. This is not about being pro-life. It is about much, much more.
So I would like to cut you a deal, Mr. Chaffetz. If you cut your endorsement with this bill, I will vote for you in the next election.
As an alumni of BYU and a fellow member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, I ask you to please reconsider your stance on this issue. I am a member of your constituency and you are indebted to hear me out. I pay for your stint in Washington. Never forget who you're there to serve. The women of Utah Valley, and the men who stand behind them, need you on their side in this issue.
Sincerely, Alexander Ross Christman
I encourage anyone who cares about the prevention of rape and rape apology to write their Congressmen and the Congressional leaders. You can email them (find their email here), or tweet at them (make sure you use the hashtag #DearJohn), or you can mail them a letter. Whatever. Anything. If you care about breaking down the rigid barriers that protect rapists and further victimize women, please take some time and get involved.
I put this up here originally, but there is no comment feature there in case people want to issue a rebuttal. So here this thought is again.
Rerum vulgarium fragmenta: Thoughts on Mormon Perceptions of Sex
The other day I was in the office of the free cinema on campus (it’s a university program which shows three international films per week, completely free, with visiting lecturers. It’s probably the greatest thing I’ve ever had in my life), talking with a friend. Due to strictures from the university, the films shown for free on campus have to be censored in order to avoid offending anyone, as well as to escape culpability in the event that anything shown in the film might lead to a moral transgression and, thus, a transgression of the illustrious BYU Honor Code. All of the cursing must be removed, any nudity or adult things must be removed, any promotion of drug use or loose morals must be trimmed and hedged. All of this editing is done with clearance from the filmmakers, so there aren’t any copyright laws being broken (don’t worry internetland). The friend I was talking with is the head of the program and ultimately responsible for the smooth operation of the whole thing.
He was telling me how the movies get edited. He and a panel pick the films, which are then viewed. Review cards are made to specify which parts of the film might be offensive and therefore need to be removed. Here’s the interesting thing: no males are allowed to do the actual editing of the film. There is usually one woman who does the editing and if she is not available then it must be another woman. I said that this was interesting (considering the fact that over the centuries, women have been far more associated with the concepts of transgression and lust). He then said said that it makes sense to him due to the Church’s conception of females as being less sexually stimulated by images of pornography. He even quoted a General Conference remark pertinent to the subject.
To me, this is striking. The LDS Church prides itself on its historicist view of Christianity - that it is the inevitable, late incarnation of the original church of Christ - and thus it has a huge mix of thematics that range from Classical antiquity to early modern moralists. The LDS Church’s stance on lust is a great example of the church’s historical borrowing, and its overall views of sexuality. Every year in our university sanctioned wards (congregations organized upon geographic location and marital status), we have the so-called “sex talk”. In it, the bishop (the pastor, or priest to normalize the term) speaks to the congregation both at large and in closed, gender-specific meetings. He speaks to the general congregation about sexuality and the pitfalls of pre-marital relations (with others and with yourself). Then, in your gender-specific meetings (Elders quorum for men, Relief Society for women), he goes into further detail regarding what is correct sexual conduct for the gender roles in the context of the Church. Normally, men get the “don’t coerce girls into sex” and “it’s your job as the male to set the boundaries” line. I don’t know what the women get, but from what I’ve heard, it’s more of a “your body is a temple” idea; A.K.A. don't let anybody into it without a temple recommend. The stress, then, is one of passive resistance, predicated on the idea of women as less interested in sex and lest tempted by immorality and carnal desire.
The Church, as I’ve mentioned, draws from a huge array of classical and romantic influences in its outward expressions of gender, gender roles, and cultural perceptions of sexuality. I find it most closely limning the Renaissance’s idealization of the feminine form in art (an outward manifestation of a nearly timeless societal strata). It is no secret that women in the LDS Church are held to a standard that, at almost all times, higher than the male standard. The male standards are explicit, stated in all texts, often with an eye to “prevention” of moral transgression. Though the Church doctrinally does not believe in the concept of original sin, it does profess belief in a deep strain of constant and overwhelming temptation. What’s more interesting is that it almost without question that this temptation (sexual, substantive, credible) is male-centered (I must stress that this isn’t a doctrinal concept, but a cultural reaction to the doctrine). The temptation is for men, as are most of the rules. As an example: when we discuss homosexuality in the Church, we are discussing male homosexuality.
Thus, the Church’s primary disciplinary job, it seems, is to regulate the behavior of men. They are, after all, the ones responsible for the eternal sanctity and salvation of their families. The rules for women, however, are far more open-ended. Women are not constantly told to not look at pornography or to cheat on their spouses because, it seems in the eyes of the members of the Church, women are not as susceptible. The disparity in guidelines and rules between the sexes, as well as the general idealization of women in the Church, leads to a Pygmalion-like existence for women within the Church. Men make women, who then make men, who then are responsible for the sanctity of the marriage, which is between man and a woman, and all of which is forever and ever. Sounds like a pretty standard summation of the perceived history of the world.
N.B.: Sorry for no sources, links, or evidence. This is more of a thought exercise than a total dissertation and is open to total logical destruction. In fact, total disproving is encouraged. Make your comments politely in the comment section please.
I passed out everywhere. I passed out in the arm chair, sitting straight up. I passed out in the arm chair with my legs tucked around me. I passed out on the couch. I passed out on the floor, with my arms shoved straight under me. That's the position for nappin'. I passed out at the beginning, middle, and end of a game of Life. I passed out during a commercial break. I passed out in a quiet house.
In short, and again: I passed out everywhere. I ate a ton of food, thought about calling my parents, and fell asleep. I rode the food train to crazy dream town. And it was good.
A good post-turkey nap is essential to Thanksgiving. I didn't have to think about how far away I was from home. I didn't have to think about the ethics of the holiday. I didn't have to think about how the turkey got to the table, or about how bad turkeys are for mass confinement. A turkey is a very bad bird to factory farm. They are large, proud, and have very fragile immune systems. Aside from pigs, they are the worst animal to factory farm because they do not conform well to the system of crippling, force-feeding, and denaturalization. Every year, turkeys are held hostage in internment camps to be slaughtered and placed on our tables to be consumed, greedily and happily. Sometimes chickens and ducks are put in the stomachs of turkeys. It's sort of funny, like the turkey ate the chickens and ducks before it was killed, and you just cooked it and surprise! Poultricide! Poultranibal! Gobble!
When you pass out after a good, humongous, filling meal, you don't have to answer questions, you don't have to ask questions, you don't have to yell at the television, "Why are you on? You cannot be on! I cannot have you running your mouth all day, every day, for hours at a time! You are the reason Black Market Friday happens! You are the reason my head aches in the middle of the night!" You don't have to do anything but feel warm and sleepy and content.
A good post-giving nap is crucial to understanding the holiday. It's what makes you thankful. It's cathartic. Some people say sleep is akin to death. When you eat a turkey, pass out with flesh grease still shining on your lips, and wake up, you're reborn. You can preen your feathers the whole drive home. You're new. You're beautiful.
Ok! So, most of you saw my editorial in the Salt Lake City Tribune. Wasn't that fun! I've gotten word from a staff writer, actually, that the Trib wants to a more in-depth piece on the whole thing. Press is good because press equals press-ure. And not pressure to get our demands (this isn't a hostage situation by any means) but pressure on the University to understand that it needs to do something about this issue. It needs to recognize that transportation lies at the heart of a stable, economically vibrant community. So that's exciting!
Also, a lot of people have been asking about the symposium we put on. Well, below are the links to all of the talks given that night. Each link is to a video, and the whole thing ran less than two hours.
Brother Jared Doxey, Worldwide Director of Architecture, Engineering and Construction for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints: Sustainability and the LDS Church (Part One; Part Two)
We're getting a lot done! This is exciting and fantastic and thank you all for being so supportive and interested. We'll be posting more soon, hopefully; this semester plus getting all of this stuff together has been time consuming. We appreciate your support and readership and will see you soon!
It takes a very peculiar disposition to tolerate constant patronizing. I honestly must say that I didn't expect to find so many with this particular trait in one of the nation's most revered private institutions. However, BYU administration seems to understand most of their students quite well; the majority of Brigham Young University's undergraduates are easily handled.
Let me back up. Some have asked how the Transportation Symposium went. It went wonderfully. We had no complaints from the attendees. In fact, most everybody I saw, presenters and audience alike, left the room in a buzz of excitement.
We did have one minor complaint though. This came namely in the form of the administration trying to shut us down. About halfway through the day of the event we were, in effect, barred from presenting on campus. We were saved by a professor with tenure who, after voicing his endorsement and reserving us a room, was asked to attend a "meeting to discuss some concerns" in the ASB. Whoops!
So I guess we pissed some people off. And yesterday Jan Scharman, our lovely patron saint of Student Life, issued this. What does this say? Here's the breakdown:
- The EdPass is over. - The door is always open to UTA to restrike a deal! - It takes two to negotiate (AKA it's UTA's fault everybody!) - Bus passes and parking permits are not the same thing. - Our tuition doesn't include extraneous fees beyond our education. - It would be too hard to talk to the Board of Trustees about this issue.
Ok! So! What have we learned here: BYU knows that it can, basically, say anything it wants to and the student body will not care.
As I've said, it takes a very special attitude to tolerate patronizing. And BYU has that in spades. Here's what's wrong with everything the administration is telling us:
1. Jan Scharman's assertion that bus passes and parking passes are not "apples to apples" is absurd. It's absurd because it's based upon the fact that parking is used for the "multifaceted needs" of the campus. For football and so on. Ok, cool. Why is that an argument that they should be free while bus passes aren't even touched? And how does that not signal, in the most overt way, that students are not the focus of Brigham Young University? Isn't it a travesty that some students aren't able to afford bus passes because every once in a while BYU actually wins a game and people want to park sort of on campus? Is that really the question we have to ask right now?
Not only that, but her statement is in reference to how money is spent to fund these two forms of transportation. She isn't saying that they are two different issues; at least I hope she isn't. Because if she is then I have reason to honestly fear how our money is being spent. Anyone in a position of power who doesn't understand that TRANSPORTATION IS TRANSPORTATION IS TRANSPORTATION doesn't deserve to make decisions about transportation. Mainly because they have no clue what they're doing.
2. UTA isn't being cooperative. Well, from all my talks with Mountainland and Provo City and UTA, it seems as though BYU has been kind of the worst business partner possible. In fact, they actively restricted the BRT line from coming up to the Wilk. No buses on campus, period, is the policy. How is it that UVU payed over $200,000 per year for their EdPass Program this last year but BYU payed around $500,000 (information from Stacy Adamson and Dawn Burgess, thanks ladies)? Sounds like somebody just doesn't do good business around here!
Really though, it's not even a matter of pointing fingers. It's the most childish thing in the ENTIRE WORLD to say that someone is really difficult to deal with. You are currently the administrator who services 30,000 undergraduates dude. Gird your loins and make a decision that will BENEFIT YOUR STUDENTS. Life is hard, but the Church ain't cheap. You're going to have to bite the bullet sometimes.
3. Which leads me to the BYU Board of Trustees thing. Really? You are seriously saying, to any one and everyone, that you aren't going to talk to your bosses, the heads of the Church, because it would be difficult? Is anyone else appalled that our Student Life VP is afraid to talk to her brother? Oh and I don't mean that in the Church sense. Cecil O. Samuelson. Brother to Janet Scharman. Whoops!
4. Our tuition doesn't pay for anything other than our education. Ok, I don't know if I believe that whatsoever, but let's just say I do. What about our tithing then? Doesn't that go towards subsidizing every aspect of University life? In a sense, then, we're already paying for everything else. It's not a big deal to tack on five extra bucks to our tuition if it will benefit the students. Are you really being that petty?
And it all leads back to this. The article up there mentions that the Student Advisory Council voted to negate the pass on Tuesday. Thanks BYUSA, you really helped us out didn't you? What happened to SERVE MORE? What happened to BELONG MORE? What ever happened to your Charter?
BYUSA is charged with the two-fold responsibility to serve and advise, and is granted administrative support and funding from the University's President's Council... The Student Advisory Council, or SAC, helps to perform the organizational mission in advising the administration and students across campus... Under the Peterson-May (2010-2011) Administration, the SAC Vice President role was reorganized. Responsibilities previously assigned to the SAC VP, are now performed by the Executive Vice President.
The last time I talked to Sterling May (Student head of BYUSA) about all of this (he's, by the way, a paid employee of the University), I was told that he, and BYUSA, couldn't do anything about the situation. Well looks like they just did.
It's just absurd. It really is. And the message is sent over and over and over again that BYU students should shut up and be quiet about what they want and need on campus.
I raise this question: there are around 200 physically handicapped students on campus (this does not include those with short-term physical disabilities, like a broken leg). If this is a "walking campus" as the administration so often reminds us, what is someone supposed to do if they can't walk, let alone drive? Is there even an answer to that?
I don't really think the majority of BYU students enjoy doing kowtows to Janet Scharman and BYUSA. But it doesn't really matter what I think. It matters what happens, and I guess the message is pretty obvious: BYU students will eat anything and everything that's shoved down their throats.
To Janet Scharman, Sterling May, Cecil O. Samuelson, and the BYU Board of Trustees:
You are not currently serving your students. The disparity between the amazing aspects of the University and the nonexistent ones is impoverishing your image. Suck it up. Stop shortchanging us. Stop favoring the rich, white, and able. Just be the loving, equitable, educational institution you profess to be. Because, honestly, it's incredibly insulting to the students who would like to be on equal terms with their Sisters and Brothers in the Church.
I will be giving the opening remarks to the Transportation Symposium. Followed by a bunch of other people who can speak better and know more. Fun right?
Just a reminder; we're talking all about sustainability and transportation tonight in room B190 of the JFSB. It starts at 6:30 PM and will go until 8 PM.
Please come and join in the discussion. These are big and important issues.
1. Intense cult of self. Wagner fancied himself the savior of German culture and identity in a predominantly effeminate world. His writings portray an artist intensely struggling with his own sense of mastery. Wagner really was a big dickhead. Kanye’s twitter is pretty much the equivalent of Wagner’s correspondence with Franz Liszt, and when Wagner proclaimed, “God save me from all of these Napoleons!”, Kanye sang, “Let’s have a toast to the scumbags, everyone of them that I know.”
2. Both use a synthesis of art forms and technology to create a dilettantish composite piece of genius. Wagner brought together mythology and opera, with music used as narrative and technical innovations raising the bar of live performance in leaps and bounds (ascendancy to Valhalla is kind of a big deal, technically speaking, you guys). Kanye is doing exactly the same thing. He’s bringing together hip-hop, electro, auto-tuning, film, the internet, ballet, pyrotechnics, as well as a huge variety of other musical forms (spoken word, whatever it is that Justin Vernon is, Mozart, etc.). Both Wagner and Kanye betray a sense of dilettantism; Wagner’s prose, poetry, and intellectual treatise were less than stellar. They are often confusing, misguided, and deeply convoluted. Likewise, Kanye’s individual enterprises aren’t bad but they also aren’t deeply impacting. Both artists need to merge all of their faulty expertise into one product in order to excel.
3. 35 minutes on the internet is basically the 21st century equivalent of 4 nights of opera.
4. The focus on the occult and intrigue of the night; the sensual and exquisite. Kanye’s interest in the power of mythic symbolism is distinctly Wagnerian. One mustn’t be intensely well-versed in all of the obvious Judeo-Christian, Grecian, and scientific myths to understand the emotional and cognitive connections in the piece. Not only is there a plethora of traditional mythic symbolism, but cultural mythology (the cult of Michael Jackson in the beginning) works in much the same way. Kanye is combining traditional mythic structures with cultural signifiers of the past 50 years (the guy wears a doo-wop suite). This is as revolutionary as Wagner’s use of traditional Germanic and Nordic myth in operatic context. Not only that, but Wagner, like most of the 19th century Romantics, was interested in the beauty of the night. He had a massive hang up for exquisite and foreign things; luxurious fabrics, feathers, gold and silver. Orientalism was at its high point and there was a mysterious sensuality to most serious art works. There is a definite cultural parallel in today's world. One only has to look at any number of photo-based tumblrs (example, example, example, example) to see this self-serious obsession with the dark and occult. This is twee and juvenile yet intensely attractive at the same time. Kanye has captured this feel perfectly in his strange, Bergman-like festivities, the perfectly selected color palette, and the frequent returns to the forest. It's that inborn, bourgeois preoccupation with something distinctly alien to our culture, that return to nature, that pagan construct, and it's ever-present in the work of both artist.
5. The creation of a mythical story within a single piece. As I’ve stated above, one mustn’t be totally knowledgeable about the allusions in the piece for it to work. The whole of “Runaway” is created in its own plane, on its own time, from the beginning of “time” (Kanye’s life begins with the muse’s landing on Earth) to its logical end with the bird woman returning to the stars (Twilight of the Gods anyone?).
6. There’s no way the phoenix isn’t directly related to the concept of a Valkyrie. I mean, come on. She’s even wearing a metal corset at the end. All she needs is a horned helmet and a spear.
7. Each artists’ eclectic oeuvre. Wagner went from being a celebrated traditionalist in the opera to being a revolutionary. He worked on a variety of projects, always singularly focused on creating something worthwhile, even to the detriment of a consistent and solid career (until after his 40’s, at least). Kanye has been everywhere and back. From The College Dropout, he’s been on top in the rap game. He’s been both in the public’s favor and decidedly out of it, all the time creating new and intriguing things. “Runaway” shows a concerted effort to focus and perfect his new, culturally intangible art.
8. The one thing that Kanye is lacking is a political base as intensely invested as Wagner’s. That might be a good thing, however. Kanye’s politics are certainly obvious and innocuous, while Wagner’s politics were, in the end, used for decidedly nefarious purposes. Where the two diverge on matters of politics through art, they are certainly on the same page when it comes to politics OF art. They are both dedicated to the use of art as a cultural informant, with the power to change and influence people the world over. Kanye’s politics of art alone work here in a positive way; who would have thought the guy who wrote “Stuck my dick inside of life until that bitch came” would lend legitimacy to hip-hop and the youtube video?
Basically what its saying is that recently the Provo Municipal Council met and voted to reduce the number of parking spots that are mandatory for property owners to offer their tenants from 1 per resident to .7 per resident (I don't really believe those numbers though. I've heard its more like 1.5 spots per home or apartment, but that's neither here nor there).
This is due, in BIG part, to the new great and spacious building being built off of 400 N. Originally this land held an elementary school, but as the student community south of campus grew, the school was shut down and permanent residents began to spread out across the city. When the land was bought by a developer, no comprehensive plan for parking in Provo had been proposed. A parking garage could have, theoretically, been built here. One was not.
A plan has been drafted and ratified to systematize parking south of campus. This would involve "zones" for streets that only residents can park in. Here is an article detailing some of the reasons that this plan has been tabled. Here is the official page for more information on parking permit programs in Provo (alliteration never hurt anyone).
The bottom line though?
'Citizens were given the opportunity to voice their concerns about the resolution.
“Averages are great at smoothing out rough spots in a big picture,” said Charles McElwee, a Provo resident. “But this is a little picture.”
McElwee questioned the propriety of the bus system and the lack of a viable grocery store in the area, using the latter concern to show that students who make up a big part of the area’s demographic still need to drive at times, and therefore need a place to park their vehicles.
The resolution passed with only one council member in opposition.'
Did anyone reading this go to the meeting? I sure didn't. I'm sure I could have if I'd been paying attention.
A huge problem in our community is this moral indignation over the City making decisions that affect us students in ways we don't appreciate. But what are students doing about it? If we feel we have the right to complain, shouldn't we also feel like we need to get involved?
Stay informed, go to City council meetings, and SAY you disagree with the plan to limit parking in Provo. SAY you need better UTA routes. SAY you need zoning changes to facilitate accessible grocery stores. SAY you want a walkable community and bigger bike lanes. But SAY it in a City Council meeting. Here is a City Council meeting schedule with past meeting minutes.
There are resources at your fingertips and there is work to be done. Get involved or stop complaining. Often enough, "getting involved" is just complaining to the right people. Imagine that.
On that note, somebody tell Sterling May that we need a student on the Student and Young Adult Advisory Board who will actually help students and young adults in Provo. Email that cat because I'm sick of the guy who ruins student-administration mediation at BYU also ruining student-city relations in Provo as a whole.
You may not totally understand the Troubled Asset Relief Program (or TARP); many don't. But here are some relevant facts that may bring you to a better understanding of the past two years:
1. The TARP, originally passed with funding up to $365 billion during the Bush Administration and then increased to $700 billion during the Obama Administration, officially ends this Sunday. That's tomorrow.
2. The total cost of the program to the Federal Government will be $50 billion dollars, at most. (This estimate is based from economists and analysts in the Treasury and private think tanks like Brookings Institution.)
3. If AIG stays prosperous and the Treasury can cut good deals in selling off its shares in the private sector, then best case scenarios involve TARP breaking even or even turning a profit.
5. Some have drawn parallels between the savings and loan crisis of the late 1980s (under the Reagan and Bush Administrations, respectively) and our very own Great Recession. If you want to buy into that (hey, why not) then realize that the total damage done from that economic hellhole was around $160 billion, or more than three times that of our recent recession.
The "bail-out" has been despised throughout its existence, spawning the Tea Party and, in general, national anxiety. To some it is a symbol of insidious government power. However, to those in the know, like Utah's very own Robert Bennett, the TARP was something entirely necessary. He told the NYTimes:
"... I do hope that we can get the word out that TARP, number one, did save the world from a financial meltdown and, number two, did so in a manner that, I believe, won’t cost the taxpayer anything. And even if it did not all get paid back, it was still the thing to do.” [sourced]
Also remember that you, as a citizen of the United States, vote in the people who make the decisions on a local and state level, as well as the national level. Sure you vote for the president. But if you want that guy to be successful, you should also vote in the people who make him successful. Don't be mad if you don't show up to the voting booth this November.
Also, don't vote Chaffetz. That guy is a douche.
Sources: NYTimes article on the issue (clicky click!), info on the Savings and Loan Crisis (clickety), info on TARP (clickkkk). All others are sourced in article. Let me know if I've missed anything.
This is a condensed list (without commentary) of Jan Scharman's defense against reduced cost bus passes at Brigham Young University. Given Sept. 20, 2010, and found in full here.
1. “…the number of BYU Ed Pass holders has decreased through the seven previous years of the program, including this past year by 21 percent. BYU student and employee usership of the discounted bus passes has reached 20 percent in past years, however, last year approximately 13 percent of students and 6.6 percent of employees used the passes.”
It's not clear if Sister Scharman is saying that student pass holders have decreased by 21% within the past year, thus making the number of student pass holders 34% for the year previous to the decline OR if she’s saying that over the 7 years of the pass’ existence, the student use has decreased 21%, making it an average loss of 3% per year.
2. Students used the bus pass only for local riding (primarily).
3. Bus pass price with the UTA has been raised too much for the system of self-sustaining to continue without University funding (something that it has done the past two years, including this year).
4. UTA is not willing to negotiate a lower price.
5. BYU has already tried charging for parking and future attempts would “not be successful”. Citing the fact that students wouldn’t be discouraged from parking near campus on residential streets, often to the dismay of residents, Scharman closed the door on that option. Additionally, “In surveying the campus community, we found that many said they still needed to drive to campus because riding the bus was not an option, either for a lack of bus routes or scheduling challenges.”
6. The school has 6,000 bike racks and a Hertz Rental car program which allows those 21 and up to rent a car from campus on a reservation basis at $6 per hour.
Do these sound like good reasons to cut off a service which would help all students (read: those with disabilities as well) get to school, cut down on needless driving, and reduce your chances of getting hit by a caroncampus?
EDIT: Ok, so I spent some time talking to a lot of people on campus, including student government reps about this issue. So, we talked. Turns out that the Hertz plan was in the works before the UTA renegotiation took place, which means originally this plan was supposed to be a supplementary service in connection with the UTA bus passes. HOWEVER, those who I talked with were pretty uncertain about why exactly the UTA passes were dropped. The main reasons cited were "money" related, which, ok, maybe that's valid. I don't know the University's finances. But what I don't consider valid is the fact that the University has very, very little to offer students who have trouble getting to campus. The University Accessibility Center operates kind of solely on volunteer work, which is great because it means there are a lot of giving and loving people at BYU who offer rides and tutoring to those with disabilities. What's not so great is that, well, it's almost solely based on volunteerism. There isn't really a huge, uh, ahem, monetary commitment to this aspect of the University, and that means that there is a lack of readily available services for students who probably need it more than anyone else. Connecting that back to the Hertz debate: the reason I am still pissed off is because as soon as it was announced that the UTA pass subsidization was canceled, it was announced (rhetorically) that the solution was rental cars. Cars for everyone! That has since been played down, obviously, but not really because in light of the fact that this isn't a service to supplant the UTA bus pass, there still remains the fact that there IS not service to supplant the UTA. So we are left bus-less, shuttle-less, car-filled, and walking. What do you think? Should we have buses back?
1. Drive more. A LOT more. I mean, I’ve basically been landlocked at my apartment for the past two years, what with all of that strenuous walking I had to do. Walk to the store, walk to the bus stop, walk to school: it never stops! I would have to exercise some sort of forethought about how I would conduct my day, often waking up early in order to shower, eat, and get to campus on time. However, now I can simply wake up five minutes before class and roll up to the building in style – and time! The days of inefficient pedestrianism are over. God created us bipeds, but he didn’t intend for us to stay that way! That’s why he gave us the wheel. The glamorous, oil-fueled wheel. It’s a gas!
2. Park on campus. This is vital because in order to even use one of the four available rental cars that Brigham Young University purchased in order to eliminate the subsidized bus pass system, you have to actually go onto campus and rent them. And then return them to campus. The cars will be forever parked on campus, which means that I have to walk up to campus in order to get to the car so that I can then drive to campus. This is far more efficient and useful than offering a free bus pass to students of the University because buses are totally gay. Also, you get a specialized spot that only YOU are allowed to park in! Which is the perfect solution to those nasty, overcrowded parking lots. I mean, often times there are no spots at all to park in! Who wants to deal with that? Not you, the proud semi-owner of a rented car.
3. Buy more gas. Gas, gas, gas. Oil, oil, oil. I’m going to purchase more oil from the Chevron-Texaco company than I know what to do with, thus fueling my patriotic love of all things in the name of Capitalism. In order to afford both the car and the gas to power it, however, I’m going to need to probably get another job. Which is alright because it’s just another cog in the wheel of society, really, spinning around and around, bleeding money into the economy.
4. Sleep in the car when I get kicked out of my apartment because I couldn’t pay the rent. Priorities first people. Cars first.
5. Wash the car. Every day, for hours. When I’m in class, I’ll day dream about waxing and buffing the fender. It’ll be the perfect outlet for my raging sexual repression and the intense self-loathing I’ll have developed by that point. Standing outside of the Cannon Center, I’ll just wax and buff and wax and buff. Then I’ll harness the power of The Sprinklers, the ever-present, weeping Sprinklers of Provo which rain down upon the earth with life and vitality, bringing forth crop after crop of edible and life-sustaining grass. Yes, The Sprinklers will then bring life to my automobile rented from the Hertz Rental Car Corp., as it shines and sparkles in the midday sun, reflecting back into my eyes the almighty truth of both the Gospel and Capitalism. I’ll blink hard to get the glare from my retina and in the darkness there will shine bright the impressed image of those two great goddesses holding arms and staring at me with infinite wisdom and love. God Bless America and God Bless My Car. But only for $8 per hour.
For more information on how to rent one of the four available (ultra-stylish and devastatingly classy) automobiles from this blessed union of Church and Private Enterprise, go here.
Brigham Young University has the oldest weekly campus cinema program in the country, beginning its operations in 1968. Every week three films from around the world are shown daily, with the exception of Sunday and Thursday. And hey! Every Tuesday there is a 4:00 PM lecture on one of the films from either resident professors or visiting lecturers. Here at Bare Bones, we love the IC. It's so awesome, like woah. That's why we're dedicating Thursday to International Cinema, giving you information about a film not covered in Tuesday's lecture.
Today let's talk about Il Postino.
Il Postino is the tale of a lovesick mailman who stumbles into life of exiled poet Pablo Neruda. Born Neftalà Ricardo Reyes Basoalto, the infamous Chilean communist and poetic Romeo of the 20th century takes the role of mentor and guide to postman Mario; a role that would later prove to be both beneficial and heartbreaking.
Background: Neruda, in addition to being a world-renowned poet from the age of 17, also played the role of statesman. As the Spanish Civil War broke out in 1936, Neruda was acting consul for Chile in Madrid. His experiences in the war indefinitely turned him pro-communist, and he was quite vocal in his support for Pedro Aguirre Cerda, a radical who ran for and won the Chilean presidential office in 1938. What follows is a period of about five years in which Neruda moves about the world, writing and speechifying, while making the acquaintances of Russian assassin Vittorio Vidali, Mexican painter and assumed Communist conspirator David Alfaro Siqueiros, and Soviet leader Joseph Stalin, among other large and intriguingly unpronounceable names. In 1943, Neruda returned home to Chile and was awarded a position of Senator in the northern part of the country. In 1946, radical presidential candidate Gonzalez Videla jockeyed hard to get Neruda to manage his campaign. Neruda followed through and Videla won the election. However, almost immediately Videla turned on the Communist party, alienating the working class as well as influential party members such as Neruda. In 1948, Neruda gave a speech entitled Yo Acuso (lol), which condemned Videla outright. Neruda was then officially exiled as the Communist Party was banned from the state, and he took off on a whirlwind tour of the globe, all the while composing and publishing his observations and poems.
Connection: The movie takes place in 1952, the final year of Neruda's exile. He is with his Chilean singer-lover who also helps out in Mario's education, and basically just sings and twirls in Neruda's bedroom the whole movie. While Neruda's stay on the island is fact, the whole of the story is fiction. The film takes firm hold on Neruda's vibrant and well-known love poetry and translates that into a character who plays wise teacher and affable mentor; more like a living embodiment of Neruda's poems than Neruda himself. It's interesting to note that, though the character of Neruda is, in general, one-sided and dimensionless, some of his less easily understandable aspects rub off onto Mario. The whole movie is a well-executed piece of Italian camp, much in the vein of Guiseppe Tornatore. Mario learns from Neruda, Neruda learns from Mario, there is a bit of sad-faced camera mugging, and cut. However, the ending takes us into a place that is strikingly beautiful and much more bold in its understanding of the effects that poetry, politics, and real life function together. Neruda was an complex and intense man. He ran with a circle of radicals, revolutionaries, and artists, many of whom had blood on their hands. And yet, here he is in the pristine sunlight of Italy, graciously leading a postman to love. It's almost laughable the way the film decides not to deal with Neruda's obvious demons. An American equivalent might be having Hunter S. Thompson coach a pair of young lovers into marriage. However the saving grace for the film comes at the end, which brings us closer to the truth and realization of the man Neruda truly was. I can't help but equate the effect of the film's narrative arc to that of Neruda's poems. We are taken in easily and let go with silence ringing in our ears.
The memory of you emerges from the night around me. The river mingles its stubborn lament with the sea.
Deserted like the dwarfs at dawn. It is the hour of departure, oh deserted one!
Cold flower heads are raining over my heart. Oh pit of debris, fierce cave of the shipwrecked.
In you the wars and the flights accumulated. From you the wings of the song birds rose.
You swallowed everything, like distance. Like the sea, like time. In you everything sank!
It was the happy hour of assault and the kiss. The hour of the spell that blazed like a lighthouse.
Pilot's dread, fury of blind driver, turbulent drunkenness of love, in you everything sank!
In the childhood of mist my soul, winged and wounded. Lost discoverer, in you everything sank!
You girdled sorrow, you clung to desire, sadness stunned you, in you everything sank!
I made the wall of shadow draw back, beyond desire and act, I walked on.
Oh flesh, my own flesh, woman whom I loved and lost, I summon you in the moist hour, I raise my song to you.
Like a jar you housed infinite tenderness and the infinite oblivion shattered you like a jar.
There was the black solitude of the islands, and there, woman of love, your arms took me in.
There was thirst and hunger, and you were the fruit. There were grief and ruins, and you were the miracle.
Ah woman, I do not know how you could contain me in the earth of your soul, in the cross of your arms!
How terrible and brief my desire was to you! How difficult and drunken, how tensed and avid.
Cemetery of kisses, there is still fire in your tombs, still the fruited boughs burn, pecked at by birds.
Oh the bitten mouth, oh the kissed limbs, oh the hungering teeth, oh the entwined bodies.
Oh the mad coupling of hope and force in which we merged and despaired.
And the tenderness, light as water and as flour. And the word scarcely begun on the lips.
This was my destiny and in it was my voyage of my longing, and in it my longing fell, in you everything sank!
Oh pit of debris, everything fell into you, what sorrow did you not express, in what sorrow are you not drowned!
From billow to billow you still called and sang. Standing like a sailor in the prow of a vessel.
You still flowered in songs, you still break the currents. Oh pit of debris, open and bitter well.
Pale blind diver, luckless singer, lost discoverer, in you everything sank!
It is the hour of departure, the hard cold hour which the night fastens to all the timetables.
The rustling belt of the sea girdles the shore. Cold stars heave up, black birds migrate.
Deserted like the wharves at dawn. Only tremulous shadow twists in my hands.
Oh farther than everything. Oh farther than everything. It is the hour of departure. Oh abandoned one!
For those of you who do not know yet (you're about to!!), IsWhat?! is a Cincinnati-based jazz/spoken-word trio that started in the mid-90s. Their lineup has shifted throughout the years, but the set-up and focus remains the same: innovative hip-hop with a strong social message. If you've never heard of them, that's ok, but be aware that at one point KRS-ONE was part of the collective. That was your cue to be impressed and go out and buy their albums.
I was listening to IsWhat?! today and it got me to thinking: are these guys doing what they do because of the conditions that exist in Cincinnati? Or would they be doing what they're doing if Cincinnati was idyllic? Is their stuff so good, so raw, so cutting and intrusive and affecting because Cincinnati is in need of a voice? I wonder, often, what predicates art. Do we need a reason to speak in order for our work to change and inspire others? Or can art, expressive communication, do that all on its own time?
Ponder that and listen to these guys. Cincinnati represent.
I went to see Inception last night and I don't think it could be more obvious about what this movie really was: a metaphor for the economic meltdown of 2008.
Think about it. Even the trailer says that. High rises crumbling. Foreign "power firms" wielding destructive power. A never-ending nightmare. Oh, you thought you had a house? WRONG. THAT'S NOT A REALITY. Oh you thought you had a job? WRONG. FAKE. Want someone to wake you up? Bail you out? Or "kick" them into action?
You know what, I'm kidding around here. But, at the same time, isn't this the perfect time to market a movie reflecting the horrors of the past ten or fifteen years? The bubble bursting, the markets nose-diving, the dreams and plans we'd already lived out in our minds about our solid and familiar future: poof.
Americans have this love-affair with End of the World sagas. One of the largest grossing movies of 2009 (15th, albeit) was 2012, the movie concerned with the prophetic deliverance of Doomsday. Or take a look at The Day After Tomorrow, which was the 7th highest grossing film of 2004. Or we could look back at Omega Man, Last Man on Earth, Night/Dawn/Day of the Dead(s(?)). We've got a big soft spot in our heart for watching the destruction of all that we love and know. I posit that Nolan's insular epic, one which is literally taking place in (possibly) one man's mind, is simply the logical completion of a self-contained cycle.
When the bubble burst in 2000, The Matrix was there to blow our minds with denunciation of this crazy online world. We were disillusioned as a country about this stupid internet crap-shoot and here was our Plato, telling us to wake up and smell the roses.
Well here we are at the end of a rough two year economic crisis. A 2,300 page bill has just been passed to deal with many of the problems that allowed us to fall into this situation. One of the biggest parts of the bill is the stipulation that if a company/financial institution is big enough to disrupt the economic stability of our country if it were to fail, it is dismantled. The main plot point to Inception? A man must be made to dismantle his fathers foreign, monopolistic corporation. And not only that, but when they go within this man's dreams, the constant fear is that the illusions will tower too large and be too unstable, thus sucking everyone into them.
I mean, come on. It's clear as day. Christopher Nolan's muses for this project were Kierkegaard and modern day fiduciary trends. This movie, like those that have come before it, is a purge reaction to economic hardship. When times are tough, Americans go to the movies. And when times are really tough, Americans go to movies where they get to see their worlds destroyed, torn to the ground, and then rebuilt.
The most haunting part of Inception, however, and our economic situation at present is contained within the last shot of the film. What's real? Where are we at currently? How did we get here? Will we ever wake up?
The most pleasing part of Barry Rowen's work is its versatility. In reviewing and providing a quick analysis of Henry, I could discuss its themes (celibacy, alienation in humanity, forbidden love, the struggle of man to know himself, mannequins), I could discuss its medium and its impact on the storytelling (MS Paint is surprisingly expressive in the right hands!), I could discuss the simple story structure itself that somehow sucks the viewer in; I could do anything, really, with this film. Which I think is a mark of Rowen's oeuvre. It says what it wants to say and allows the audience to draw meaning as it sees fit.
And so, as I attempt to delve into Henry, I think it's probably most apt to take the idea of versatility and multiplicity and apply it to another aspect of Rowen's work; that being, mainly, his inward search for meaning.
Henry begins with a Paul Simon song and a stricken priest. The background fades into being, suggesting that at the heart of this story is a man; the rest of his world is incidental. Following the prologue, the second (and only other existent) character of the film is brought in: Barry. Barry is introduced after a reference to a Corey Haim sermon which Father Henry has just delivered.
Let's pause: why Corey Haim? Is it because Haim never married? Is this suggesting that Henry has appropriated Haim as a quasi-Catholic, celibate figure? Whatever the connection, we are never apprised of its true value.
Let's resume: That Barry Rowen has created and projected some sort of affable and well-meaning friend persona onto a paint creation bearing his own name may seem a little strange to those unfamiliar with his work. It is his tradition – nay – his modus operandi to explore these on-screen projections of self in nearly every movie he's made. Barry plays the part of writer, director, lead actor, extras, and narrator in all of his films. Some other people make appearances in his narrative stories: a mannequin, his father, his little sister, a snow man. Yet these other players often get lost in the vast sea of Barry. The most interesting part is that these Barry-filled worlds are not self-aggrandizing in nature. They form a unique sort of self-critique and gentle exploration of the filmmaker's himself. While he's portrayed an array of heroic and grand characters (disillusioned and fed-up husband, dopey investigator, cunning action hero, empowered gay man), in most films he fills the rest of the space around these main characters with clones of himself (literally) that range from cripplingly apathetic to blithely naive. His clone counterparts are often self-defeating and comically inarticulate.
How are we to see these characters? Are they the world Barry projects himself onto? Are other people merely imperfect copies of himself? Or do they serve to represent the overwhelming self-image, the way Barry truly sees himself, and in effect set off the main character as an idealized form of Barry, one which he sees as separate and disconnected from the crowding masses bearing his likeness?
And, with these questions in mind, we approach Henry. Who is Henry in the Barry Rowen universe? And who is "Barry"? Or, is this a different story?
Of all of Rowen's films, this is the most outwardly expressive. Perhaps the MS Paint does something to distance the more shallow aspects of the film world: setting, extras, etc. Henry is remarkably sparse in its population. An almost hilarious amount of the film is simply Henry against a white background. With this simplicity we find ourselves free of the normal, cluttered, Rowen universe. And we don't lose the filmmaker in the shuffle. We know that this is a Barry Rowen production.
And yet, which part of this film is Barry himself? Is he Henry or Barry? Or neither? Is he narrator? The filmmaker? And does all of this analysis sound far too Blade Runner for everyone?
Highlights: -Impressive use of spatial relation within an archaic and oddly aesthetically pleasing medium. -Haunting use of a Beach Boys' song. Always a plus. -So many slow-pans. -A character pronouncing "pipe" as "peep". -Bill Cosby posters.
And, of course, the most exciting part of all of this is that soon enough there'll be a Henry II. So soon enough we'll see what happens to the wayward priest and his luxurious mustache.
Barry Rowen is a recent high school grad and can REALLY wear a hat.
A guy was digging a hole by the side of the road as I walked home. There was a mound of dirt about 3-feet high next to him and he was waist deep in the ground, busting a shovel against the dirt to loosen it up.
“What are you doing?” I asked.
“I’m digging a hole man,” he responded. He took a minute to wipe the sweat off of his brow.
“The air smells like ginger huh?” I asked. It was oven-like outside. Warm and sweet.
“Que?” he asked. He peered down into the hole.
“Why are you digging a hole?”
“To put in a sprinkler.”
“Why are you putting in a sprinkler? This is a desert. It’s supposed to be dry.”
He suddenly looked up at me and stared hard. We stood a few feet apart; him deep in the ground, me on the dusty sidewalk.
“Why do I care if it’s a desert? I get paid to make it not,” he said. And turning back to his shovel, “I get paid to help people lie to themselves!” Alex Christman looks up the definition of 'metaphor' every single day of his life.
Recently I wrote an unintentionally inflammatory and probably not-too-well-thought-out-but-still-applicable-and-well-meaning blog post (found here) that fellow local writer and care-r-about-things, Eliza Campbell, wanted to chat with me about. [transcribed from gchat windows]
Eliza: HEY why don't you believe in the PATRIACHY??? I spell it without the r because it looks like "achy" achy breaky patriarchy
Alex: Because Billy Ray Cyrus told me I shouldn't I think it's silly for anyone, at least in the CURRENT WORLD full of FREEDOM OF SPEECH and FREE THOUGHT to believe that they have to believe anything anybody else says/dictates/tries to foist on others It's just like a general principal (misspelled for more fun) of self-worth etc etc
Eliza: yeah but rape ya know? happens
Alex: Yeahhhh, rape. I understand the rape thing, but that falls more under like, general violence, you know?
Eliza: nope
Alex: Like, life is full of shit. Rape included.
Eliza: yeahh but men don't get raped (a lot)
Alex: True, but do you think that's only because of the Patriarchy? Or is it a symptom of any other number of problems?
Eliza: yes excellent serve volley but on the other hand: it's stupid to call it "patriarchy" because it's a lot of things but most of them are related to male oppression e.g. gential mutilation child brides etc.
Alex: In the United States? like, abroad (no pun intended), I can see how the problem of Male Oppression is like rampant and NOW NOW NOW But when I read about women complaining about what IMAGE AND FASHION dictate when they reside in D.C. or Naw Yawk, well then I just think that's silly
Eliza: yeah that's true except eating disorders? huh? those are real
Alex: Eating disorders, drug addictions, self-mutilation are equally applicable to males as well as females.
Eliza: true except that men don't have eating disorders (a lot)
Alex: I'm sure that this sort of insecurity and self-obsession has been a human trait for like, oh all time. And just because males don't have as high of a rate of REPORTED eating disorders, doesn't mean that they don't have them/aren't affected by them/etc. Just because it isn't reported, doesn't mean it doesn't happen.
Eliza: true
Alex: My thing is that, I think it's silly to call fie against the GREAT MALE OPPRESSOR, at least here in America, because the issue is about empowering yourself
Eliza: where did all of these feelings burst from? out of curios?
Alex: Well, I think these feelings have been 4ever. But as of late, I just sit at work and read blogs and blogs and blogs.
Eliza: oh boy bad idea
Alex: Not so much. At least it stimulates my mind. (in some way)
Eliza: what one set you off? paris hiltons twitter?
Alex: I follow this girl [REDACTED] who spouts all of these really general, self-pleasing opinions that make her sound somehow different but, ultimately, just makes her sound st00pid. And then people agree with her and are st00pid
Eliza: lemme see
Alex: or disagree with her and are even st00pider
Eliza: linkit
Alex: [REDACTED].tumblr.com
Eliza: tumblrrrrr never helped anyone
Alex: I mean, I'm just as st00pid for taking it all in seriousness
Eliza: well we're all st()()pid for not being informed enough I sure is most blogs are except paris hilton's twitter WAIT LISTEN
Alex: WHAT
Eliza: there's this law in Utah where if a woman pays someone to forcibly beat her to induce a miscarriage she can be charged with homicide that's messed up is all the end
Alex: Which part is messed up? The fact that abortion is illegal at all? or the fact that someone, anyone, would PAY SOMEBODY TO FORCIBLY BEAT A BABY OUT OF THEM?
Eliza: YES
Alex: It's just a big old bundle of wtf? That I want beat out of me
Eliza: and you're like, why would someone pay ($150) to have someone beat them up? well that's why I'm a women's studies minor maybe
Alex: That's true. But I mean, what does that boil down to? It's a reaction to something But what? Abortion laws? Getting pregnant? Not thinking? Like, what?
Eliza: exactly it's confusing
Alex: It is.
Eliza: all the above prolly but the point is, it doesn't happen to dudes
Alex: That's true.
Eliza: (a lot)
Alex: Is that applicable though? Like, yeah. Guys cannot have children. They don't have the choice to have a child beaten from their body.
Eliza: guys cannot be forcibly impregnated?
Alex: Ah, the rape question.
Eliza: it's a thing
Alex: I don't doubt that whatsoever. So, what's the response? Fight back? Know how to defend yourself?
Eliza: that's why I do yoga that's why I practice arm wrestling and . . . own a gun
Alex: Plz tell me that's real Isn't the most proactive thing you can do realizing the fact that rape can happen? And coming to terms with the fact that you have to defend yourself?
Eliza: yeah
Alex: Wouldn't women benefit simply by knowing that these things can happen?
Eliza: but isn't it stupid that it does happen? and why does it happen?
Alex: Well that's like standing in the rain and complaining that the sky exists at all
Eliza: well god didn't make rape probably
Alex: No but he made humans With agencies And humans are violent Self-serving
Eliza: true
Alex: and ultimately about power
Eliza: but I think looking for solutions is probably a good idea the difference between issuing all women a handgun or education, etc
Alex: Well, isn't there a deeper problem at hand?
Eliza: yes overly restrictive gun lawS!!!
Alex: I mean, the whole idea of dominating another person is present in any relationship we have with any human being, regardless or race or gender, ever.
Eliza: yeah but
Alex: Isn't rape about powerful domination?
Eliza: women have been dominated over kind of a lot more suffragette city man
Alex: David Bowie was probably the most influential female punk artist ever I'm just saying violence is unavoidable. I hate to say it, but rape is unavoidable. The way to stop ignorance and violence is education and openmindedness. Realizing your place in the world, that you can and will inevitably effect others in a positive or negative way. And even when people DO know those things, they still have the option and choice to harm others. So, what solution is there to a fundamental part of human nature? The will and want to dominate? I want my daughter/wife/mother/any girl that I know to be able to disembowel a potential rapist. I don't know how that connects here Just a statement
Eliza: good statement
Alex: I guess an affirmation that I'm not like, "Can't stop it so don't worry about it lol!" And as for women getting paid less, well I think that's just stupid. I wish you would get paid more. I don't understand why you don't. You know? That's dumb. If there were a bill about you getting paid equally, I'd approve it.
Eliza: would you facebook like it?
Lo! The discussion does not end there. I felt as though I'd represented myself and my original position poorly and was a little sore. I have a feeling she was a little sore as well because we didn't necessarily "come to terms" with one another.
Alex to Eliza:
Maybe rap musics is why I'm such a Self-Righteous HeMan Woman Hater's Club Official Member Male Oppressor Public Enemy Number 1. But, I guess, I'm alright with that.
Eliza to Alex:
… You ain't Oppressor sorry if I implied it. I'm just a militant gun-toting (?) Feminazi is all. I'm sending you a recording of someone from India singing my brother a birthday rap that I bought him yesterday. YEAH
I've thought it over and wanted to let you know that it's not that I don't believe in the ol' Achy. I know it's there. I know white dudes run the world, or at least the part of it that we live in. But what I guess I mean is that I don't think it's valid to act like a victim just because the Patriarchy says you should. In light of my blog post (I hate myself for even typing those words out), I guess I should specify that "I will never date a girl who willingly accepts the idea that The Patriarchy has made society or her gender do anything" because I think that's the mentality of a victim. Which, even if women are victims in a lot of scenarios, what can be gained by acting like a victim? Or, even worse, victimizing yourself? If the Patriarchy (read: men) is to blame for women getting raped, oppressive laws placed on the bodies of women, the salary gap, distasteful jokes, a self-image problem, and general bad juju for all of women-kind, then women who choose to lie back and bemoan the situation of the world today and the lot of women in the past and how awful this damn patriarchy is instead of trying to change the world and communities that they live in are just as oppressive as the Patriarchy itself.
As James Allen would put it:
It has been usual for men to think and to say, "Many men are slaves because one is an oppressor; let us hate the oppressor." Now, however, there is among an increasing few a tendency to reverse this judgment, and to say, "One man is an oppressor because many are slaves; let us despise the slaves." The truth is that oppressor and slave are cooperators in ignorance...
Yuck, all this seriousness has made me look like a bigot probably or something. The truth is I love all thangs and want all the laws for Love and Truth and Happiness to be passed and for us all to Break The Bread of Humanity together and whatnot. If your thing is radical Feminism, well I appreciate that because it's not really radical so much as "informed" and "proactive", which is what responsible members of society should be. And if my thing is not liking people who consider themselves victims because, in my opinion, that gets us nowhere, well then respect me too dammit or I'll call all of my big burly white male friends to hall you off to gaol for thinking too much!
Eliza to Alex:
Serious response:
Typing some overly colloquial rambling into a Tumblr is, I agree, probably not the most "proactive" way to approach "issues". We might even call it "hypocritical" or "st00pid". And obvs, I am a Rich White American Girl with my own house, own car, two jobs, bad broad, etc. and generally might sound a little st00pid were I to complain about how I'm being actively oppressed as a grill. I'm pretty damn privileged. The fact that I'm able to read, write, have access to the Internet, and type is proof of that. But that doesn't change the fact that the political, economic, and social status of women overall is inferior to that of their male counterparts in the world, has been for a long time, and probably will for a long time in the future, and it's not fair. I'm a little sensitive to it because of having worked with these dudes: http://www.womanstats.org/ and also having personally known women who have been raped, abused, underpaid, anorexic, sexually harassed, and/or decided to dress up as Sarah Palin for Halloween. I like Nicki Minaj as much as the next fellow, but I might be careful about the difference between 'acting like a victim' and 'being a 13-year-old sex slave in Bangladesh' or whatever. Or a poor single mother in Orem, Utah. Or a certain lady who works at a certain gas station I know whose husband cheats on her and has left her multiple times with their five kids.
U r right. Lying back is bad. I'm trying not to lie back as much. Thanks for reminding me about that. Just sayin, the Achy is real. It isn't as simple as "The Patriarchy is making me oppressed", and saying it that way is more hurtful than productive. Which is why I'm trying to be productive. By getting a C in econ!!!
And of course, no long-winded conversation concerning Rights and Issues would be wrapped up without a baring of emotions and tearful rejoinder.
Eliza: u r responsed Alex: Corollary: just trying to understand my role as a white dude who doesn't want the power he is told he has. My moms is a single mom, so I'm like, "women oppressed? doesn't compute"
Eliza: well I come from a place where it was a contest for who could be the most liberal so I'm like "different ideas? doesn't compute"
Alex: I feel like I should conclude every interaction with you with something like, "Hope you don't think I'm trying to oppress you!"
Eliza: shorten it to "no oppress-o!"
Summarily:
I guess looking over the whole thing and who I am as a Cracker Bro With Responsibilities and Opinions (CBWRAO), I'm realizing that I'm young. This is the first time I've really actually encountered these issues in a real-life setting. I'm trying to work the whole thing out, and think open dialoguing and conversating is an important part about that. It opens up areas that you never even realized existed.
I've got to realize that people will complain about Patriarchy and not do anything. They'll use it as a way to talk about how petty and insecure other people are for relying on it as a way to vindicate themselves. But, then again, people will also talk about these issues in a way that inspires change. People will continue not to sit back on their haunches about the whole thing, even if they don't understand where they're going or how to go about changing things. As a Bro With Feelings (BIF), I have to realize that Male Oppression and Patriarchy are real. Male Oppression happens, and not just in third-world countries. I have to continually acknowledge that it's detrimental to both sexes to treat it with a gloss whenever it's mentioned and not just think people are st00pid when they don't know how to feel about it. Especially myself.
I stand by, forever, my decision to Facebook "like" any potential laws that would somehow contribute to the equalization of women and men in society as a whole. I still also stand by my statement that I will not date a woman who lets herself believe that she's trapped and cornered by something so large and nebulous as THE PATRIARCHY. And who believes that other people can make her do anything. And finally, I stand by the idea that before one makes any "informed" decisions about women and the (massive) thorns-in-their-sides, one should talk to a Totally Informed White Broad (TIWB) about it all. Chances are your horizons are going to get broadened (NO PUN INTENDED).
