The February shooting in Parkland, Florida has caused more of a student-run revolution for gun control than any other school shooting in recent memory, and the movement has received quite a bit of national attention. The students from Parkland were on the cover of Time magazine last week, and there have been multiple marches and student walkouts since the shooting on February 14. On March 14, there was a national student walkout organized by the Women’s March Youth EMPOWER, with the goal to “demand Congress to pass legislation to keep us safe from gun violence at our schools, on our streets and in our homes and places of worship”. An oppositional movement was formed in response to this walkout, encouraging students to befriend would-be school shooters instead of leaving school for the protest. This movement, which is essentially an anti-bullying campaign, has been entitled and given the hashtag #walkupnotout, and it is a victim-shaming idea that is inherently dangerous and avoids confronting the actual issues that cause gun violence in schools. It is also not a viable solution to school shootings.

In an op-ed published on March 27 by the New York Times, Isabelle Robinson, a student at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School and a survivor of the Parkland shooting, said that she tried to befriend Nikolas Cruz, the shooter, and he still committed the massacre. “It is not the obligation of children to befriend classmates who have demonstrated aggressive, unpredictable or violent tendencies. It is the responsibility of the school administration and guidance department to seek out those students and get them the help that they need, even if it is extremely specialized attention that cannot be provided at the same institution,” she said. Robinson’s testimony and interpersonal experience with the shooter should be enough of an argument to combat this harmful movement, but its history goes beyond the Parkland shooting.

The narrative of the school shooter being a victim has been copied since the Columbine shooting in 1999. Media coverage from the Columbine massacre created the idea and stereotype that loners and people who have been bullied cause violent crimes. An article from BBC News published the day after the shooting says that Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, the shooters who premeditated and carried out a massacre that killed 13 people before ultimately killing themselves, were part of a gang at school called the “Trenchcoat Mafia.” This “Trenchcoat Mafia”, made up of boys who were believed to be loners, caused paranoia and fear, leading students to believe that if they bully other kids, they might be victims of a school shooting. It goes without saying that bullying is a problem in schools and that kids should be nice to their fellow students. But it shouldn’t be because they’re fearing for what might happen to them if they don’t.

That Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold committed this shooting because they were bullied is a rumor that has been debunked. However, even if all shootings were carried out by people who believed they had been tormented by other students, that doesn’t make their actions okay, something that the #walkupnotout movement seems to forget.

In 2014, Elliot Rodger killed six people on the University of California, Santa Barbara campus in Isla Vista. In a 141-page personal manifesto, Rodger justified his decision to commit this massacre to “punish [his] enemies”. Rodger’s manifesto is ensconced in male entitlement, and paints him as an awkward man who people thought of as a loser and who women weren’t attracted to. Even if people treated Rodger terribly, he had no justification to carry out this murder. Telling students to feel sorry for these mass shooters makes it seem like they had an excuse to do what they did. They didn’t.

It seems ridiculous to have to say that killing your peers is an absolutely horrific response to being bullied, but anyone who suggests that school shootings might be stopped if children just “walked up” to kids who seem like they are sad or alone victimizes the potential shooter more than the people who have lost their lives. Children should not be expected to fight for their own lives by protecting the feelings of other students around them. If a student looks like they might have violent tendencies, adults in their life should have them seek help. And, most importantly, guns should not be part of the equation. There are several reasons that mass shootings might be carried out, but without access to guns, bullying wouldn’t hold life-or-death consequences.

The post Griggs: We can’t continue to victim blame students appeared first on Emerald Media.

Indulging in “self-care” is a reasonable response to both the current political climate and the increased risk for mental health issues that many millennials face. Self-care isn’t just a millennial obsession, of course; in Audre Lorde’s 1988 book of essays, “A Burst of Light,” she writes that “caring for myself is not self-indulgence, it is self-preservation, and that is an act of political warfare.” Lorde’s ideas are meant for and are especially revolutionary for queer women of color, who suffer at the hands of the current system.

But in the era of Trump, this idea seems to have been co-opted as a trend, and it makes sense. It is, of course, important to take care of yourself; to say no to overworking yourself and expecting perfection, which contributes largely to the millennial mental health epidemic. It is especially important for marginalized groups of people to recognize when they are being exploited by the system and by other people, and when they’re allowed to take a break. During the special election in Alabama this past December, black women turned out in large numbers to vote for Democrat Doug Jones over accused pedophile Roy Moore, and were celebrated for “saving America” on social media, which shows how much labor this group of people puts forth and how much Lorde’s ideas about self-care are necessary. This idea was extrapolated on by singer Solange in an interview with W Magazine: “Even in the midst of this last week with the multiple murders of young black men that occurred, I chose this time not to watch. Just for the sake of being able to exist in that day, to exist without rage, and exist without heartbreak. To be able to get up and tell my child to have a wonderful day and know that he’ll be protected and nurtured and loved and treated like an equal contributor to society, I sometimes have to choose to not look.” One does not always have to participate in the tumultuous world, especially if one is part of a largely marginalized group of people, and it is clear that Solange and Lorde’s ideas of caring for yourself are in the least selfish vein possible.

It’s also necessary for everyone, no matter their privilege and experience, to take care of themselves before helping other people. Increased awareness of the importance of this, especially regarding mental health issues, has blown up over social media, and it’s been helpful. In an interview with NPR, Hyepin Im, an expert on mental health and digital advocacy, said that “…the introduction of social media throughout the millennial generation has increased understanding of mental illnesses and decreased the stigma.” And it’s especially important for people with mental health issues to take time to care for themselves, through therapy or exercise, for example.

 But self-care culture can prove to be destructive and selfish, especially for people with a lot of privilege who aren’t doing it the right way. An example of self-care leading to self-destruction happens within “wine mom culture”, which is now known as a Facebook meme. It’s middle-aged women using alcohol as a reward and can lead to them drinking far more than they should, impacting not only their own health but the safety of their children. Self-care needs to be responsible, and not done at the whims of others – and Audre Lorde shouldn’t be quoted to make up for irresponsible behavior.

Treating yourself can cause more problems for yourself when it’s short sighted, focusing only on what you want in the moment. This includes eating a bunch of junk food or staying in bed to watch Netflix all night, or skipping something that might prove to be more beneficial to you in the long run, like spending time with family or friends. “When you have a craving for chocolate, do you tend to tell yourself that you need chocolate? Instead of automatically giving in to a craving, first consider what you might really need,” said Carrie Dennet in an article for the Seattle Times. Chocolate can be replaced with any quick fix here – it’s not that you can never give in and satisfy that immediate craving, but if you do it all the time, it’s just going to cause more damage.

While it is certainly okay and healthy to occasionally remove yourself from social situations to work on your own mental health, it’s also important to be a good friend and parent. And while it’s sometimes necessary to retreat from the world of politics, it’s not okay to become complacent, especially if you have a lot of privilege. Go to the friend’s party you promised them you’d go to. Do your best to educate people on issues you feel they could benefit from. And don’t stay inside and watch Netflix every day. It will benefit your mental health and help the people around you.

Ideas for Healthy Self-Care:

-Turn off news notifications on your phone. It’s damaging for one’s psyche to be constantly receiving updates about nuclear war. (I’m speaking for my anxious self here).

-Don’t back out on too many promises. Sometimes you might be having a terrible night, and you don’t have to go to every party. But you should try your best to maintain your commitments, especially to the people close to you.

-Treat yourself when it’s okay to do so. You don’t always have to beat yourself up about splurging a little, but do it in a way that will ultimately help you. Maybe buying a new pair of sneakers would encourage you to run more, or a scented candle could help you relax.

-Ask for help when you need it. You don’t have to be perfect all the time! In fact, you certainly won’t be! Give yourself a break. You’re probably doing things pretty well.

The post Griggs: What is self-care and how do you do it? appeared first on Emerald Media.

The #MeToo movement, while being a good introduction to the problem of sexual assault for many Americans, has received extensive media coverage focusing solely on Hollywood scandals impacting rich, typically white, celebrities. But can progressivism really be embraced and understood by people who benefit so richly from our current capitalist society? This is a paradox of the #MeToo movement, which culminates in one important question: does anybody care about the non-famous minority women who are sexually harassed and assaulted every day?

Hollywood certainly has a history of sexual misconduct and sexism; popularly made evident by the pay gap between male and female actresses and comedians. This Hollywood pay gap is reflective of the pay gap that exists in all realms of American life under the patriarchy, but having a few million dollars less than your male co-star is, while completely wrong, not going to cause one to starve or miss out on their fifth yearly trip to Fiji. Calling Hollywood “out of touch” with reality is a common and cheap tactic used by Fox News to distance themselves from liberal America, but it’s not wrong. In order for Hollywood, and this movement, to be more in-sync with what is really happening, they’re going to have to be a lot more intersectional, and in action, not just in theory.

Even among the Hollywood elites, Black women have been shown to not receive the same amount of sympathy or attention when they’ve accused men of being sexual predators. Even Lena Dunham, an outspoken feminist – who is rightfully beginning to be called out on her hypocritical feminism – defended a man, who happens to be her friend, against assault allegations from a Black woman. Minorities are frequently sexually exploited, and nobody will stand up for them. Dunham apologized for her very questionable victim-shaming, but it’s hard not to wonder if she really gets it. Last August, Buzzfeed wrote an expose about R. Kelly, who has allegedly been raping underage Black women in a secret cult. While the story got a bit of attention, the first thing you think about R. Kelly is his song, “Trapped in the Closet,” and not “R. Kelly is a disgusting creep.” How much of that has to do with the fact that the victims who spoke up against him weren’t rich or white or famous?

It’s hard to know if the system that treats women so terribly, especially women of color or transgender women, will be able to be fixed from within, especially when it’s only women at the top of the economic power structure that are being taken seriously. From the perspective of true leftist Marxists, popular culture exists as a “machine” that dominates everyone’s day-to-day livelihoods, as well as making existing power structures even more powerful. In Marx and Engel’s “Ruling Class and Ruling Ideas,” they state that “the class which is the ruling material force of society, is at the same time its ruling intellectual force.” While I am not a Marxist and I don’t think that sticking to true Marxist ideologies is conducive for nuanced arguments against sexual assault that places value on intersectionality, this brings up an important point to think about regarding the class structures that play a vital role in Hollywood and contribute to everyone’s discussions about our culture of sexism, even if you don’t fancy yourself a Marxist.

It’s impossible and completely misguided to try to have a conversation about sexual assault that only focuses on the one percent. It’s elitist and completely self-serving, and while this movement is historical for women, it’s only a start. I don’t entirely discredit the movement, because it has drawn attention to something that is imperative to start paying attention to, but we need to consider all of the people who aren’t at the top, or so many women will continue to suffer.

The post Griggs: #MeToo: class and elitism appeared first on Emerald Media.

The #MeToo movement, while being a good introduction to the problem of sexual assault for many Americans, has received extensive media coverage focusing solely on Hollywood scandals impacting rich, typically white, celebrities. But can progressivism really be embraced and understood by people who benefit so richly from our current capitalist society? This is a paradox of the #MeToo movement, which culminates in one important question: does anybody care about the non-famous minority women who are sexually harassed and assaulted every day?

Hollywood certainly has a history of sexual misconduct and sexism; popularly made evident by the pay gap between male and female actresses and comedians. This Hollywood pay gap is reflective of the pay gap that exists in all realms of American life under the patriarchy, but having a few million dollars less than your male co-star is, while completely wrong, not going to cause one to starve or miss out on their fifth yearly trip to Fiji. Calling Hollywood “out of touch” with reality is a common and cheap tactic used by Fox News to distance themselves from liberal America, but it’s not wrong. In order for Hollywood, and this movement, to be more in-sync with what is really happening, they’re going to have to be a lot more intersectional, and in action, not just in theory.

Even among the Hollywood elites, Black women have been shown to not receive the same amount of sympathy or attention when they’ve accused men of being sexual predators. Even Lena Dunham, an outspoken feminist – who is rightfully beginning to be called out on her hypocritical feminism – defended a man, who happens to be her friend, against assault allegations from a Black woman. Minorities are frequently sexually exploited, and nobody will stand up for them. Dunham apologized for her very questionable victim-shaming, but it’s hard not to wonder if she really gets it. Last August, Buzzfeed wrote an expose about R. Kelly, who has allegedly been raping underage Black women in a secret cult. While the story got a bit of attention, the first thing you think about R. Kelly is his song, “Trapped in the Closet,” and not “R. Kelly is a disgusting creep.” How much of that has to do with the fact that the victims who spoke up against him weren’t rich or white or famous?

It’s hard to know if the system that treats women so terribly, especially women of color or transgender women, will be able to be fixed from within, especially when it’s only women at the top of the economic power structure that are being taken seriously. From the perspective of true leftist Marxists, popular culture exists as a “machine” that dominates everyone’s day-to-day livelihoods, as well as making existing power structures even more powerful. In Marx and Engel’s “Ruling Class and Ruling Ideas,” they state that “the class which is the ruling material force of society, is at the same time its ruling intellectual force.” While I am not a Marxist and I don’t think that sticking to true Marxist ideologies is conducive for nuanced arguments against sexual assault that places value on intersectionality, this brings up an important point to think about regarding the class structures that play a vital role in Hollywood and contribute to everyone’s discussions about our culture of sexism, even if you don’t fancy yourself a Marxist.

It’s impossible and completely misguided to try to have a conversation about sexual assault that only focuses on the one percent. It’s elitist and completely self-serving, and while this movement is historical for women, it’s only a start. I don’t entirely discredit the movement, because it has drawn attention to something that is imperative to start paying attention to, but we need to consider all of the people who aren’t at the top, or so many women will continue to suffer.

The post Griggs: #MeToo: class and elitism appeared first on Emerald Media.

I’m currently on a semester abroad studying media studies at Charles University in Prague, a trip that is sponsored by the University of Oregon’s GEO program, but one that I am participating in largely by myself. I am the only student from Oregon on this exchange this semester and I spend much of my time with European students participating in Erasmus, a European Union-sponsored student mobility program that allows university students from any country in the EU to attend another university in the region. I chose this exchange because of this; I wanted my study abroad experience to be as shockingly international as possible, something that would throw me headfirst out of my comfort zone.

Knowing I would be one of the few Americans was exciting, but I was concerned about how Europeans and people from across the world would perceive me, considering the current state of American politics. I was eager to tell everyone that I didn’t vote for Trump and surprised to find that it seemed like nobody really cared. In fact, I spoke to a few people who claimed to support Trump, or at least to the point of comparing him to Hillary Clinton ands commenting on how difficult it would be for them to make a decision on who to vote for in the 2016 election.

Members of the Cosenza, Italy chapter of the Fronte della Gioventù Comunista protesting capitalist legislature in universities. (Fronte della Gioventù Comunista/Facebook)

During an initial “small-talk” conversation with one of my flatmates, Simone Amadori from Italy, I found out that he studies political science and is interested in leftist politics. “Wow, me too!” I told him, explaining my support for Bernie Sanders and eventual lackluster Clinton vote. Later, when I found out that he attended a camp for young members of the Italian communist party (Fronte della Gioventù Comunista) in which they discussed Marxist and Leninist theory at length, lived in tents and tried to emulate a short-term communist society, I was embarrassed to admit that I barely skimmed “The Communist Manifesto” during high school European history class. Amadori clearly represents a rather extreme example of European leftism, but hearing his experiences peaked my interest for further conversation on the differences of left-leaning political ideologies across the Atlantic.

In the United States and particularly at the University of Oregon, I believe that leftist conversations typically revolve around civil rights issues. Progressives separate themselves from “liberals” by focusing on systemic oppression, intersectionality and looking at fixing large-scale systems of oppression instead of bandaging up mistakes within the system.

https://twitter.com/historyinflicks/status/839732795706593281?lang=en

This progressivism that revolves around systemic issues isn’t too far from European leftism. Discussing anti-immigrant mindsets revolving around job security, Amadori told me an anecdote about the “boss of a factory”: “He will cut a cake into ten slices, he will take nine slices, and he will tell the worker, ‘hey, be careful – the immigrant will take the last slice of cake.’ It’s the fault of the system that wants immigrants to come just to have cheaper labor.” I thought this was a great analogy for how capitalism creates insidious divides between groups of people, but I think that the American leftists I surround myself with who have helped me develop my personal political ideologies have more of a nuanced attitude toward the balance between civil and social rights. For example, while Hillary Clinton was clearly an establishment politician with ideas that were far from radical, she was obviously the most qualified option between the two major party candidates in the past election. Yes, the moderate left and the two-party system is terrible, but sometimes you just have to suck it up and blindly inch your way around the system in order to, we hoped, prevent Trump from being elected president.

But European leftism, at least characterized by Amadori (and the person who told me Hillary was ‘just as bad’ as Trump), focuses more on extremism and values it in any form.

“It’s much easier to speak to someone who wants a radical change even if it’s in the opposite direction,” he said. I suppose this is also the conclusion that the 10% of Bernie Sanders’ supporters who voted for Trump came to. I consider this far from progressive, as it ignores Trump’s extremely harmful rhetoric that has already had a hugely negative impact for minorities and oppressed groups of people, something that ignores the pillar of civil rights that is fundamental to what I consider true American progressivism. You can’t attempt to fight capitalism without intersectionally addressing systems of oppression in the United States and in the world. Certainly, Europe’s history is different than than that of the United States, but the re-emergence of hate-fueled far-right groups in Germany (amongst other countries) proves that civil rights issues are far from being solved in Europe.

The viewpoints that I value from American progressives at the University of Oregon and beyond revolve around nuance and understanding of the complexity of free speech and, above all, the rights and safety of vulnerable groups. Intense radicalization, while imperative, comes behind protecting civil rights. This belief is what European leftism is missing, and in the face of terrifying rhetoric gaining popularity around the world, it will be important to protect those who need it the most and value civil rights over radicalism.

The post Griggs: An immersive comparison of American and European Leftism appeared first on Emerald Media.

My mental illness has historically been disregarded by my friends and family, who are otherwise completely loving and understanding. I have always been anxious, and my anxiety has never been fully understood, something that other people with mental illness can surely corroborate. I can relate to the confusion; I don’t fully understand my mind either. In fact, I barely understand it. But even in an era in which mental health is slowly becoming more destigmatized as it has become a more prevalent topic in the mainstream media (and we don’t lobotomize people anymore), I still feel misunderstood often, and I think this is because of a major fundamental flaw in the way mental illness is viewed.

When Robin Williams committed suicide in 2014, there was a huge shock throughout the pop-culture community. “Robin Williams was no ordinary clown, he was a clown in the round, a master of the one-liner, of verbal riff, mimicry, disguise, facial distortion, fury and hilarity,” said Simon Jenkins in a Guardian article published shortly after his death.

Yes, Robin Williams was funny. People loved him. Why would he commit suicide? He was rich, he was successful, he was beloved as an actor and as a person. “Robin Williams killed himself not from a lack of admiration,” said a sophomore University of Oregon student who asked to be anonymous. “Knowing you are loved doesn’t help and it isn’t enough.”

This echoes my own sentiments, although, of course, not to the same extent. When I was younger, my dad liked to take my dogs to the park to let them run free. I wanted to go on these walks, but every time the dogs ran out of my sight, I would completely freak out, much to the disdain and confusion of my father. These panic attacks also occurred when my mother was ten minutes late from work: I would call her five or more times and, even though I knew she was terrible at answering phone calls, my mind would immediately skip to an image of her in a terrible car accident.

“Taylor, just take some deep breaths,” my father (and, sadly, my therapist at the time) would say during these episodes. “She’s going to be home soon.” I felt like a complete failure. I thought this anxiety was ridiculous, and so did everybody else. I didn’t think anybody understood; I hid my medication from my friends when I had sleepovers. These constant feelings of panic eventually morphed into a depression that didn’t allow me to spend any time with friends because I didn’t want them to find out about my panic attacks. People told me they loved me; when I said that I wasn’t enough they contradicted me. But this didn’t cure my mental illness, and, sometimes, it made me feel worse.

May was Mental Health Awareness Month, and the students at the University of Oregon, following recent trends in the attempt to destigmatize mental illness and make people aware of its ramifications, placed 1,100 flags on Condon Lawn in order to represent the amount of people who commit suicide on college campuses every year.

“‘You matter,’ ‘You are more than worth it,’ and ‘You are loved’ are just a few of the messages sprawled across the little green flags planted in Condon Lawn this week,” said Natalie Waitt-Gibson in a news article for the Daily Emerald about the awareness campaign. This well-intentioned decision was misguided for more than one reason, one of those being that the flags were placed in the shape of an Oregon “O”, something that, to me, seemed exploitative.  “Not only is it offensive to shape [the flags] into an ‘O’, but the messages written on the flags were unhelpful,” said the anonymous student. “[This] doesn’t deal with the long-term problems but instead with symptoms.”

This is not to say that telling your friends and family who struggle with mental illness that you love them is bad. Support from loved ones is extremely important in times of need. But it’s not enough. In my worst moments, when I am an anxious mess and I think I’m the most useless person in the entire world, not only is telling me that I’m ‘worth it’ degrading, but it’s also futile. I’m just not going to believe you. In these moments, my mind is so warped that I can’t imagine anybody finding me worthy, and no amount of kind messages written on flags is going to change that. However, we shouldn’t give up — but a paradigm shift is essential. Mental illnesses are diseases, and words can’t fix diseases. But destigmatization, research, and an understanding that hugs and deep breathing aren’t enough can push us in the right direction. 

The University of Oregon Counseling Center has staff available to support and talk to students from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. Monday through Friday. You can reach after-hours support at the center by phone at 541-346-3227.

WARNING SIGNS OF SUICIDE

• Talking about wanting to die

• Looking for a way to kill oneself

• Talking about feeling hopeless or having no purpose

• Talking about feeling trapped or in unbearable pain

• Talking about being a burden to others

• Increasing the use of alcohol or drugs

• Acting anxious, agitated or recklessly

• Sleeping too little or too much

• Withdrawing or feeling isolated

• Showing rage or talking about seeking revenge

• Displaying extreme mood swings

The more of these signs a person shows, the greater the risk. Warning signs are associated with suicide but may not be what causes a suicide.

WHAT TO DO

If someone you know exhibits warning signs of suicide:

• Do not leave the person alone

• Remove any firearms, alcohol, drugs or sharp objects that could be used in a suicide attempt

• Call the U.S. National Suicide Prevention Lifeline at 800-273-TALK (8255)

• Take the person to an emergency room or seek help from a medical or mental health professional

OUTLETS FOR REACHING OUT

• 911: Imminent danger to self or others

• National Suicide Prevention Lifeline: 800-273-TALK (8255) (press 1 for Veterans Crisis Line)

• White Bird: 541-687-4000 or 800-422-7558 (24-hour local crisis line)

• Crisis Assistance Helping Out On The Streets (CAHOOTS): Nonemergency, mobile crisis intervention: 541-682-5111 for Eugene or 541-726-3714 for Springfield

• Hourglass Community Crisis Center: 24-hour short-term mental health assessment and stabilization for adults: 541-505-8426

• Mental Health Crisis Response Program: 888-989-9990 (for parents of children through age 17)

• Looking Glass Youth & Family Crisis Line: 541-689-3111

• Trevor Lifeline: 866-488-7386 (for LGBTQ youth)

The post Griggs: An honest look at what it means to have a mental illness appeared first on Emerald Media.

I’m not even halfway through pursuing my undergraduate degree, so I’m no expert on college and I certainly have no idea what it will feel like to be a college graduate. I don’t claim to have any words of wisdom that will be meaningful to somebody about to graduate college, but in thinking about what I would want to hear if I was almost done, I decided to say this: college isn’t that great, there is no ‘experience’ and it isn’t the best time of your life.

I have to backtrack; I’m not going to sit here and bemoan the time I’ve had in college so far. There are some great things about it: I have met some of the best people I could ever dream of and we all live within walking distance of each other. I have loved some of the classes that I’ve taken, had intriguing and heated discussions, and yes, gone to some great parties. But there is a cultural idea that was thrust upon me for as long as I can remember is that college is some sort of utopian summer camp where there are no rules. You can do keg stands every night and never get hungover, eat Top Ramen for every meal and still maintain the energy for those nightly keg stands. That’s just not the reality for me, and I think it’s probably not the reality for a lot of us.

Pushing the idea that there is one college experience for everyone is exclusionary and forces people to have impossibly unattainable expectations that they will certainly be let down from. For one thing, the majority of today’s college students are “nontraditional.” The fact that we still imagine college as this wild, ‘Animal House’-style romp is totally dismissive of the wide range of students that attend the University of Oregon, as well as other four-year institutions around the country. It also pushes high school students to believe that they have to attend a traditional four-year institution as freshmen to get the “experience,” when going to community college for two years and transferring to a four-year school for a bachelor’s degree is a way to save a serious amount of money.  I’m glad that I had the opportunity to live in the dorms as a freshman, and some studies have shown that living in dorms, frequently seen as the epitome of the “college experience,” does actually improve academic performance (these studies were almost certainly cited by UO in order to justify their ridiculous new live-in requirement). But just because one doesn’t choose to live in the dorms, join a fraternity or go to parties every weekend, doesn’t mean that they didn’t go to college and learn a lot, both in and out of the classroom.

So if you are graduating this spring, congratulations, whether college was the best time of your life, the worst or was inconsequential. Hopefully no matter which one it was, your life will continue to get better from here. Because while frat parties and trashing Lake Shasta can be fun, they shouldn’t epitomize the college experience. And if you feel like you didn’t have this traditional college experience, your degree is just as valuable.

The post Griggs: There is no singular college experience appeared first on Emerald Media.

A friend of mine came to me with a problem the other day. She told me that she had a male friend who, upon courting and marrying another woman, grew distant from her. Upon some reflection, I realized why: all women are dangerous, wicked she-devils, and I completely understand why this friend would be worried that, despite his dedication to purity, Christian values and devotion to his partner, he might one day feel the urge to have sex with her.

“Unfortunately,” I told my friend, “Men cannot have female companions other than their wives. We must urge them to take the highest leadership roles while maintaining that they are completely helpless and it takes absolutely nothing for them to fall prey to our evil ways.”

As women, we must be aware of the delicate feelings and sensitive libidos of our male counterparts. Men are like tall, handsome babies; they literally have no control of anything they do! I’ve heard a lot of feminist ramblings about how men and women should be equal, but I think that we should embrace what makes us different, and the main difference between men and women is that a married man cannot be trusted to dine with a female without throwing himself onto her – and that’s perfectly fine!

Mike Pence represents the culmination of how a workplace without women can benefit a man. (Creative Commons)

Men and women cannot be “just friends,” because if a dude is willingly spending alone time with a so-called female “friend,” he really just wants to have babies with her. Oh, and enough with the friend zone, okay? If a guy opens the door for you, you’re required to have sex with him. But if you do, and he’s married, just remember that you’ll be branded as a seductress who broke up a perfect marriage.

Women, if you’re confused, I understand. All of these rules about what we can and can’t do are pretty whack, right?

But, ladies, it’s time we realize the unfair advantages we have over men. We have the upper hand because men are powerless when it comes to our sexuality, so to reward them for behaving (not forcing themselves on us too hard) we should allow them some time without temptation and remove ourselves from any sphere of influence. We need to kick women out of schools and positions of power, once and for all. This will solve the dress code problem those “politically correct” feminist “libcucks” have been going on about. It’s totally understandable that male students would be distracted by girls wearing tank tops that display shoulders; they’re clearly the hottest of all human joints, following the knee.

With enough effort, maybe the “special snowflakes” will finally learn that the most important thing we as a society can do is keep our boys in school without distraction. It is absolutely imperative that there is a place where young boys can cultivate their masculinity without feminine influence. One day, with enough of this toxic masculinity, a complete lack of understanding of feminist theory and a totally debilitating fear of women that doesn’t allow them to have any female friends, they could even become the Vice President of the United States of America!

So good luck boys, and try to avoid getting trapped in the evil charms of the feminine figure! But if you can’t, that’s fine; you’ll still ultimately find success in whatever you do and face minimal (or no) punishment if you screw up!

The post Griggs: Can men and women just be friends? A response to Vice President Mike Pence appeared first on Emerald Media.

The reclamation of sexual objectification and historically objectifying words is a cisgender white woman’s game. It’s easy for us white girls to pretend that “free the nipple” campaigns are enough to end numerous systems of oppression, some of which we haven’t even considered. But, white women, we need to do some things, and knitting pussy hats isn’t one of them.

There are many groups of people in this country who can’t embrace this supposedly empowering movement. I have seen it noted multiple times in different post-women’s march think pieces that transgender women have felt especially left out of reproductive system-focused feminism.

“ … pussy hats set the tone for a march that would focus acutely on genitalia at the expense of the transgender community. Signs like ‘Pussy power,’ ‘Viva la vulva’ and ‘Pussy grabs back’ all sent a clear and oppressive message to trans women, especially: having a vagina is essential for womanhood,” said Marie Solis for Mic.

This is a complicated issue to unpack. On one hand, of course it’s essential to make sure that transgender women are included in definitions of womanhood. On the other hand, some of this genitalia-centered rhetoric is a direct backlash to President Trump’s attacks on the female reproductive system, especially his now-infamous “grab ‘em by the pussy” comments and his ongoing fight against abortions that was solidified in January when he signed an executive order “banning foreign nongovernmental organizations that receive certain kinds of American aid from counseling health clients about abortion or advocating for abortion law liberalization.”  

So, while transgender women certainly should not be left out of any definition of womanhood, there definitely needs to be a conversation about the female reproductive system and I think there is some merit to taking back what the government seems so privy to taking away from us. And there is one group of people who seems to be totally left out here: transgender men, some of whom have vaginas and uteri that cause significant psychological pain for them that is rarely addressed.

“Being intersectional is being intentional,” said Fatima Roohi Pervaiz, director of the ASUO Women’s Center. “It’s taking into account other people’s experiences.” Intentionality and critical thinking seem to be something that is missed by a vast majority of well-intentioned white women wearing pussy hats or handmade vagina costumes. We just need to recognize that we all have different experiences.

Being intentional really isn’t that difficult, either. Roohi Pervaiz recounted a recent experience about the February performance of The Vagina Monologues by the University of Oregon’s Panhellenic women.  When she asked the organizers if they might start the play with a statement mentioning that not all women have vaginas, they were happy to oblige.

“Having deep, meaningful conversations and dialogue is essential to getting to the root of [these issues],” said Roohi Pervaiz.

But it’s not just transgender or non-gender conforming people who have felt uncomfortable with the reclamation of objectification. In my last article about similar issues, I discussed the SlutWalk, a movement started in 2011 by two Toronto women as a response to a Toronto police officer’s comments about how women should dress in order to avoid getting sexually assaulted. I take issue with this usage of the word “slut” for multiple reasons, one of these being that the reclamation of it is pretty exclusive to white women. In a 2011 “open letter from black women to SlutWalk organizers,” this exclusivity is explored.

“As Black women, we do not have the privilege or the space to call ourselves ‘slut’ without validating the already historically entrenched ideology and recurring messages about what and who the Black woman is,” the letter said, which was signed by The Board of Directors and Board of Advisors of Black Women’s Blueprint and endorsed by organizations such as the Institute on Domestic Violence in the African American Community and the Los Angeles Black Women’s Network, amongst many others. I’d imagine the sentiment remains similar today: black women do not have the privilege to take back their sexuality the same way that white women do. And we all need to acknowledge this.

We need to advocate for the rights of people with vaginas and uteri. We need to stop the objectification of femmes. But we also need to realize that not everybody feels safe or wants to do that by wearing pussy hats, and change some of our rhetoric to reflect that. If we’re going to wear pussy hats and participate in “slut walks” and free our nipples, we’ve got to also have some “Protect Trans Lives” signs in our hands, and we need to show up at Black Lives Matter rallies and lift up women of color who don’t benefit from the same privileges that we do.

The post Griggs: Intersectionality in reclaiming words appeared first on Emerald Media.

Feminine sexuality is viewed in many different ways, all of which fit under a patriarchal umbrella. One way to view femme sexuality is that women are supposed to be docile and submissive, allowing the supposedly more powerful man to be in charge sexually. Some might be led to believe that women aren’t sexual at all. In contemporary times, this idea is reflected by the fact that the multi-billion dollar industry of pornography caters almost exclusively to men, with a subset being marketed “for women.” Women are supposed to desire love and family, merely putting up with sex to please their man.

This idea may seem to contradict the other mainstream depiction of female sexuality, which portrays women as sinful, evil sex goddesses that can easily lead a poor, unsuspecting man astray. After all, it was Eve, the woman, who ate the forbidden apple, condemning the rest of mankind to a life of sin. There is the femme fatale, popularized in early 20th century film noir but ancient in origin: sirens, in Greek mythology, were mermaid-like sea nymphs who lured sailors to their deaths with their beautiful singing voices. Salome, the biblical seductress, demanded John the Baptist’s head on a platter, and her stepfather King Herod, so entranced by her beauty, made it happen. John the Baptist died, and it was Salome’s fault — I mean, she was so hot! Herod had to do it, right?! The idea of the femme fatale recognizes the fact that women are sexual creatures but still strips men of any responsibility, because men are just more sexual than women are, and they can’t help it.

The notion of the femme fatale is still very relevant today, and nothing illustrates this better than the comment from Toronto Police Constable Michael Sanguinetti that prompted Heather Jarvis and Sonya Barnett to begin the movement of the “Slutwalk” in Toronto and elsewhere.

“You know, I think we’re beating around the bush here,” Sanguinetti reportedly said to a group of students at the Osgood Hall Law School at York University during a talk on health and safety in 2011. “ … Women should avoid dressing like sluts in order not to be victimized.”

He later apologized, but the comment was obviously obscene, and it reflects an opinion shared by many. Dress codes at schools frequently dictate that women and girls should not wear clothes that might distract male students and teachers. This attitude is not okay. Men need to take responsibility for themselves, and the only person responsible for sexual assault or even being “distracted” by a low-cut shirt (or, I dare even say it, a bare shoulder) is the perpetrator of the assault or the gazing eye at school. However, do movements like the “Slutwalk” help? Furthermore, does a woman-centric effort to take back our sexuality coupled with the reclamation of the word “slut” assist the feminist movement or take away from it?

“I’m not trying to censor language,” Tanenbaum said in a 2015 interview with The Daily Beast. “But at the same time I’m concerned. I look around campus and every single day we have a new report of an act of sexual assault on a college campus, and that gives me pause. The fact is that most people don’t use words like ‘slut’ and ‘ho’ the way we in the feminist in-group use it.”

I agree. We have to look around at the society we are living in and ask ourselves: “How will my words make other people feel?” Coming on the heels of International Women’s Day, I want to make myself very clear: women should absolutely be able to embrace their sexuality and it is never, ever the victim’s fault if they are sexually assaulted. Sanguinetti’s words were wrong. But the reaction to it was wrong too.  

In a society where femme people are constantly under scrutiny by “the male gaze,” it is difficult to know whether or not the choices we make as women to reclaim our sexuality are contributing to the already-present dehumanization and objectification that we go through on a daily basis. If people of all genders still call women “sluts” in a derogatory way, which they do, how can we reclaim it for ourselves? Feminists should be working toward a future where sex is not stigmatized and women are not seen as objects. However, in the current system, this is still the case. And until we reach this sexual utopia, where, at the very least, men take responsibility for their actions, we’re going to have to find a different word.

The post Griggs: Sluts, sexuality and stigma appeared first on Emerald Media.