Jenner-Pepsi ad misinterprets police relations with protestors

Pepsi released a “short film” featuring Kendall Jenner on April 4. While the ad gained immediate attention with over 1.6 million views in under 48 hours, almost none of it was positive. The ad has since been removed after the immense wave of backlash and criticism it has received.

The advertisement portrays Kendall Jenner observing a protest. While on-set of a glamorous photoshoot, Jenner notices a march going by with protesters wielding signs with ambiguous statements such as “join the movement.” 

Onlookers begin joining, and eventually Jenner leaves the photoshoot—ripping off her blonde wig, wiping off her lipstick and proudly stepping into the crowd.

The advertisement is corny and in poor taste, but it quickly deteriorates into an offensive and even dangerous message at its climax. 

The protestors approach a line of policemen, as Jenner then gives a knowing smile to a fellow protestor and hands one officer a can of Pepsi. They exchange smiles, and the protest erupts into cheers as the policeman takes a gulp. 

This advertisement is unbelievably tone deaf, and trivializes the unrelenting violence, aggression and oppression that protestors for movements such as Black Lives Matter and Standing Rock have faced. 

Suggesting that if protestors were just friendlier then we would all be able to high-five and share some soda is appalling. The underlying tone of the ad is that we should all just get along—which could be attainable if we were all pretty, white models.

Peaceful protestors in the past few years have been met with militarized response from local police with the use of tactics such as tanks, rubber bullets and tear gas. The idea is that it only takes one brave soul to hand some police officer a refreshing Pepsi to end police brutality and conflict. 

Bernice King, daughter of Martin Luther King Junior, tweeted, “If only Daddy would have known about the power of #Pepsi,” adding an image of her father being shoved by a police officer. 

It’s nearly impossible to open a newspaper or to turn on the television without hearing about violent protests and the fierce tension between police officers and protestors. How Pepsi managed to ignore all of this and produce such a thoughtless ad that lacks even the most basic knowledge of current events is unimaginable. 

Using the struggle of protestors and marginalized groups to serve capitalist goals is absurd. More infuriating is Jenner’s ability to be unaware of how blatantly offensive the displays of privilege are in this ad.

In a public statement from Pepsi, they wrote, “We are removing the content and halting any further rollout. We also apologize for putting Kendall Jenner in this position.”

The fact that they felt Jenner was an innocent bystander in this is even further insulting. Additionally, a source close to Jenner told The Hollywood Reporter, “She’s only 21 and she’s very sensitive. This has been very painful and embarrassing for her.” 

Quite frankly, Jenner should be embarrassed. Her age and her apparent sensitivity do not excuse her from this criticism. 

Most college-aged people are acutely aware of the injustices going on in our society, and as a public figure Jenner is even more responsible for staying aware of the world around her and for using her voice wisely. 

Hopefully, this backlash will be a learning opportunity for Jenner and will allow her to see the importance of understanding her own privilege and to gain some much-needed empathy for protestors and those subjected to police violence.

Body positivity project defies misogynistic views of female nudity

View fullsize

Education major sophomore Katherine Bensburg poses with body art by communication major junior Anna Tailleur for the “Grow Through What You Go Through” project. In the face of cyber sexual harassment, the project stands by its principles of self-love and body positivity. (Photo courtesy of Carly Anzalone)

Geneseo local sorority, the Royal Lady Knights recently held their annual Positive Body Image campaign. The campaign is a week-long movement featuring talks, a photo campaign and other events driven toward promoting self-love and body positivity. 

This year, RLK members communication major junior Anna Tailleur and psychology major senior Carly Anzalone took it upon themselves to create a project that has quickly gained momentum and an overwhelmingly-positive response. 

The project, entitled “Grow Through What You Go Through,” features women and femme-identifying people posing nude with their bodies painted with various designs and motifs. Tailleur had the original idea for this project and is the artist behind the body painting, while Anzalone acts as photographer. 

As a member of RLK, this project has been profoundly empowering for myself and other members.

Unfortunately, the anonymous social media app Yik Yak became a way for students to produce hateful and misogynist comments regarding the photo project. Some feedback includes comments such as, “I can’t believe how they [RLK] provide porn for this campus” and “Yeah right, I’ll empower them by jerking it to this tonight.” 

Anzalone and Tailleur responded to the comments with a statement, saying, “While the sexually aggressive criticism is upsetting, it also reminds us of why we are doing this project in the first place, and we will continue to spread our positive and empowering message.” 

The Yik Yak comments are infuriating, ignorant and, unfortunately, unsurprising. Leave it to young people to take something beautiful and positive and reduce it to “porn.” It is inconceivable, to them, that women would participate in nudity without the purpose of sexual gratification.

The purpose of this project and the campaign is to provide support and empowerment. When we see the bodies of those we admire, we are more accepting of our own. No two people look alike, and by proclaiming that we are proud enough of our bodies for the whole world to see them inspires others to feel the same way. 

Viewing these bodies in a nonsexual, comfortable and supportive context allows us to appreciate bodies for what they are, rather than what they have come to represent in a patriarchal, misogynistic society.

The phenomenon of men begging to see nudity comes to a screeching halt when a woman does so of her own accord. The purpose of this photo shoot was not to please or to impress anyone but ourselves, and this is when reactions arise. 

Regrettably, self-love has become reduced to a controversial and pornographic act.

This is further aggravating considering the way male nudity is accepted, to the point of being humorous. If I had a dollar for every time I saw a fraternity brother’s butt against my own will, I would be able to pay off my student loans today. You would be hard-pressed to find a woman who has never received an unsolicited “dick pick” via texting or dating apps. 

Bodies aren’t shameful, and they aren’t dirty. Women are historically used as muses time after time—expected to mold themselves to the desires and visions of men. It is when they become the artists that men criticize, ridicule and shame them. 

They conflate nudity with vulnerability, and by proudly and boldly flaunting our nudity, we become less vulnerable and less controllable.

By unapologetically showing our bodies in their rawest form, we can feel proud of our different shapes and we can glorify pieces of ourselves we once tried to hide. Tailleur and Anzalone have expressed interest in expanding this project due to the overwhelming popularity it has gained, and hope to diversify their subject base. 

The Yik Yak controversy has only served to further their message, emphasizing the need for a project such as this. So “jerk it” to that, hateful misogynists.

Till painting disrespects historical, cultural significance of his death

View fullsize

The Whitney Museum of American Art in New York City hosts the 78th Whitney Biennial from March 17-June 11. Artwork by white woman Dana Schutz depicting Emmett Till’s open casket faces criticism for appropriating black suffering for her art. (Musikanimal/Creative Commons)

The Whitney Museum of American Art in New York City will host the 78th Whitney Biennial from Friday March 17-June 11. The Biennial is an exhibition of contemporary American art from a range of well-established and emerging artists. 

This year’s exhibit focuses on “the formation of self and the individual’s place in a turbulent society,” according to the Whitney’s website.

As the American political climate intensifies, issues such as income inequality and racial tensions are becoming increasingly prominent topics of debate. Issues like this often provoke activism in the form of art. 

It’s undeniable that art flourishes in times wrought with conflict and oppression, as it is an accessible way for underrepresented voices to debate and draw public attention to causes. This is certainly the case at this year’s biennial, with many of the pieces centered on issues of race. One work in particular by Dana Schutz has become the target of intense criticism.

Schutz’s painting, “Open Casket,” presents a somewhat-abstracted depiction of Emmett Till’s open casket, with Till’s mutilated face as the focal point of the image. Emmett Till was an African American man and the victim of a brutal murder in 1955 Mississippi, after being falsely accused of flirting with a white woman. 

The purpose of Schutz’s piece was to emphasize the sentiment of Emmett Till’s mother, Mamie Till, who insisted on an open-casket funeral in order to force people to acknowledge the atrocities her son and other black Americans were facing. 

While Schutz’s intent was similar to Mamie Till’s in forcing viewers to confront the persisting violence against people of color in the United States, many black artists have called for the piece to be destroyed.

In a statement by Berlin-based artist Hannah Black, she writes, “The painting should not be acceptable to anyone who cares or pretends to care about Black people because it is not acceptable for a white person to transmute Black suffering into profit and fun, though the practice has been normalized for a long time.”

Essentially, Black argues that black suffering is not a medium to be used for the benefit of white artists. While Schutz’s intent was to reiterate the sentiments of Mamie Till’s decision to use the murder of her son to benefit a movement she was involved in, it is not comparable to a white artist exploiting it to create a political statement for her own notoriety.

Despite Schutz’s good intentions, the piece furthers another racist epidemic: the desensitization of citizens in viewing violence toward black people. Nearly every day we are bombarded with news stories and grainy videos of another hate crime or incident of police brutality. Images like Schulz’s perpetuate the normalization of this violence and make spectacle of human suffering. 

Mamie Till’s decision to display her son’s body came at a time when few people understood the extent of the brutality occurring in the South. Now, images such as Schutz’s art inundate the media and appropriate black suffering into “empty formalism or irony,” as stated by Black. 

Although all great art is controversial, if Schutz’s true intent was to create a discourse on race and to use her art as a call to end violence against black people, she must respect the demands of those whose cause she is attempting to further. It is impossible to claim solidarity while ignoring the voices of marginalized groups.

Academy Awards contribute to Hollywood’s support of abusers

View fullsize

Mahershala Ali, Emma Stone, Viola Davis and Casey Affleck won the top acting awards at the 89th Academy Awards on Sunday Feb. 26. Affleck, who has been accused of sexual harassment multiple times, is an example of another man whose career and public reputation do not face consequences for abuse allegations. (Jordan Strauss/AP Photo)

When discussing sexual assault, survivors are sometimes encouraged not to report their experiences. This often stems from the fear that allegations of assault can “ruin” an accused man’s career. 

We often see this in cases against college athletes, prominent political figures and celebrities—essentially any well-respected men in the public eye. This year’s Academy Awards proved that this is blatantly true. Mel Gibson and Casey Affleck—who both have rich histories of highly-publicized sexual harassment and assault accusations—were extremely successful and awarded.

Directed by Gibson, Hacksaw Ridge was nominated for six awards and won two. Additionally, Affleck walked away with an award for best actor for his work in Manchester by the Sea. Regardless of whether or not you enjoy their art, it is incredibly important that these men are not publicly praised in any way. 

The most famous cases of successful accused assaulters are such men as Chris Brown and Woody Allen—abusers who are able to reappear unscathed in the public eye. Not only are they able to return to their normal lives, but they also continue to be adored and praised. 

Returning to normal life for a survivor is an extremely difficult process, which is only exacerbated by seeing abusers in positions of power succeed, despite their actions. 

Gibson, while not only accused of assault, openly admitted to slapping his wife and was caught on tape screaming both racial profanities and anti-Semitic statements and saying that he wanted his wife to be assaulted. 

While he flew under the radar for a few years since the incident, he resurfaced at the Academy Awards this year, smiling and laughing along to jokes at his expense. 

Affleck has been accused twice of sexually harassing his coworkers—threatening and groping one when she turned down his advances and climbing into bed with another. 

Both cases were settled out of court for an undisclosed amount. Affleck not only won an Academy Award, but he was also handed his award by Brie Larson—who just won the Academy Award for Best Actress in 2016 for portraying a sexual assault survivor in the film Room. 

The message at the 2016 Academy Awards was one of solidarity and support for sexual assault survivors. The juxtaposition between Larson—an outspoken advocate for survivor rights—and Affleck—an accused abuser—was disturbing, to say the least. 

The debate at hand is not whether or not these men are talented. The issue is that men accused of assault and abuse do not deserve to be overtly celebrated. Every man who continues to find immense success and attention is a message to survivors that their experiences do not matter. 

Yes, it is possible to think that these men are artistically talented. The label of abuser, however, is more important than that of genius. Their abuse is what we should be focusing on and openly condemning, rather than sweeping it under the rug and presenting them with the highest acclaim and achievements in Hollywood.

Sixty-three percent of assaults are not reported to the police, while one in five women will be assaulted in their lifetime, according to the National Sexual Violence Resource Center. These statistics are completely unsurprising.

Even though survivors are encouraged not to report their assaults, the Academy Awards further proved that even if they do, justice is rarely achieved. When the president of our country and numerous successful actors and musicians are accused assaulters, it is increasingly hard to believe that accusations of assault will ruin a man’s life.

Regretful Trump supporters do not deserve sympathy from liberals

View fullsize

Demonstrators protest against President Donald Trump in Salt Lake City, Utah on Monday Feb. 20. Recently, Trump voters who are disappointed with Trump’s presidency accuse anti-Trump leftists of bullying and discriminating against them. (Rick Bowmer/AP Photo)

After the recent presidential election, there is certainly tension between the political left and the political right. A recent New York Times article by Sabrina Tavernise explored the ways in which Trump voters feel increasingly alienated by liberal rhetoric. 

The article argued that the anger and “name-calling” from the left is furthering President Donald Trump’s agenda by attacking conservatives and by making them feel unwelcome.

To this, I say: too bad. Bad decisions warrant negative consequences, and it is not the left’s issue to make people feel comfortable now that they wish they had voted differently. There was no shortage of warning signs that voting for Trump was dangerous and incredibly harmful—signs that some voters chose to ignore. 

Those who regret voting for Trump should not feel that they need an invitation to be part of the anti-Trump movement. They will not receive sympathy because they do not deserve it. If they disavow the decisions Trump has made thus far, then they must take action on their own. 

People whose basic human rights are being threatened do not have the responsibility to make anyone feel included. 

The article quoted one man who felt that the left is “complaining that Trump calls people names, but they turned into some mean people.” 

It is astounding that people feel that getting their feelings hurt is at all equivalent to the misogynistic and racist-hate speech of Trump, which furthers actual systematic oppression and violates human rights.

Trump voters are not oppressed just because people are mad at their political decision. Those voters who are now realizing the danger of Trump’s presidency need to be held accountable for these actions and need to help the people they endangered, rather than continue to put their feelings first and expect sympathy.

Yes, it is always important to try and educate people who are receptive to criticism—but to expect blind kindness and acceptance from those continually targeted by Trump’s agenda is selfish. 

Another woman stated, “I love Meryl Streep, but you know, she robbed me of that wonderful feeling when I go to the movies to be entertained.” 

Being “robbed” of the ability to watch The Devil Wears Prada is not the same as being banned from the country, as losing reproductive rights or as facing hateful speech and actions based on your religion. 

Casting a vote for Trump was a choice. Trump voters are being criticized for their active decision to ignore countless warning signs and to choose to vote this man into office. This is not even remotely similar to being attacked for something such as one’s race or religion. 

If it weren’t so horrifying, it would be almost laughable to try and sympathize with Trump voters who feel attacked, considering the number of people whose lives they put at risk with their vote. 

Just days after Trump’s election, racist hate crimes increased. There were over 200 hate crime complaints reported just four days after Trump was elected, according to the Southern Poverty Law Center in Alabama.

With this spike in hate crimes and with threats on the safety of marginalized groups, the last people that need our protection are those who put Trump in office. These people who feel they are being attacked are those who are most protected by Trump’s presidency. 

Hurt feelings are not the same as genuine oppression. It is their responsibility to use this privilege to put their pride aside, to accept the mistake they made and to do everything they can to protect the people who are suffering the consequences. 

If you don’t support everything Trump is doing, prove it by taking action, rather than by waiting for an invitation—or an undeserving apology.

Katy Perry comments disrespect real issue of celebrity mental health

View fullsize

Katy Perry attended the 59th Annual Grammy Awards on Sunday Feb. 12. Perry made numerous insensitive and joking comments in reference to Britney Spears’ 2007 public mental health breakdown. Perry’s comments contribute to stigmatization of mental illness, especially in regard to celebrities who are constantly in the public eye. (Willy Sanjuan/AP Photo)

It would be an understatement to say that the Grammys were eventful this year. Whether you were celebrating unsigned artist Chance the Rapper’s three wins or agonizing over the fact that Beyoncé was, quite frankly, robbed of album of the year—there was no shortage of discussion.

Beyoncé’s loss had a lot of people outraged about the obvious diversity issues at the Grammys. Outside of this, it was Katy Perry and her comments that further proved how the mainstream media have a lot to learn about intersectionality.

On the red carpet, when asked about her three-year break from music, Perry responded, “That’s called taking care of your mental health … I haven’t shaved my head yet.” 

Later that night, when asked about her hair color, she said, “It's like the last color in the spectrum that I can do … I’ve done all of them and the only thing left to do is shave my head, which I'm really saving for a public breakdown.” 

These head-shaving remarks are references to Britney Spears’ highly publicized mental breakdown in 2007 when she infamously shaved her head. Spears was rumored to have been dealing with severe substance abuse issues and other undisclosed mental health issues. 

Aside from being unoriginal and making remarkably unfunny jokes, mocking Spears’ actions in 2007 is highly dangerous to people struggling with mental illness.

While the exact cause of Spears’ infamous head-shaving incident is unknown, any rumors or tabloid stories over the years have attributed it to serious substance abuse in combination with undiagnosed bipolar disorder. Either way, a neuro-typical person mocking someone’s mental health is upsetting and—unfortunately—common.

Perry’s remarks are indicative of the serious lack of regard for mental illness in our society. We love watching celebrities suffer. Substance abuse, eating disorders and any kind of behavior outside of the norm will sell. Perry’s jab, however, couldn’t come at a worse time, as the current political climate has many people with disabilities fearful for their lives. 

The current presidential administration has already proven to be extremely harmful toward many marginalized groups. The disabled, however, are a group that are almost always overlooked. This could be attributed to the number of ways that disabilities can present themselves, but both mental and physical health are being ignored—and famously mocked—by President Donald Trump. 

As Trump is in the process of repealing the Affordable Care Act, millions of people will be stripped of their healthcare. A key component of the ACA is that it offers coverage for mental health and substance abuse treatment. 

Repealing this act would mean that private insurers would not have to include coverage for mental health treatment. This can all be attributed to the fact that mental health issues are still largely stigmatized and often viewed as individual weaknesses rather than legitimate disabilities.

While Perry’s comment may seem completely removed from this vast, overarching issue, words matter. By mocking Spears’ actions, she is downplaying a serious mental health crisis at a time when the availability of psychiatric health care is at risk. 

Not only is she continuing to remind the public of an extremely dark time for Spears after her years of recovery, Perry is suggesting that Spears’ actions were easily avoidable and controllable. 

These are ideas that need to be actively combatted and critiqued, as people with mental illness continue to struggle to find legitimate and comprehensive treatment.

Kardashian weight-loss show perpetuates body image insecurity

Khloé Kardashian’s new show “Revenge Body” has recently garnered attention and—like many of the Kardashian’s commercial endeavors—conflict. In the show, contestants are selected to undergo a complete physical makeover with the hopes of getting “revenge” on their old lifestyles. 

Kardashian became the face of the “revenge body” movement after her split with Lamar Odom. As someone who somewhat shamelessly follows the lives of the Kardashians, I watched her transformation occur right on my Instagram feed. Her social media accounts were flooded with workout tips, gym selfies and motivational quotes. She became the poster girl for how to “win” a breakup. 

Kardashian lost a lot of weight and dyed her hair blonde, and people took notice. Her hope in creating “Revenge Body” is to allow non-celebrities to undergo the same miraculous transformation as she did.

There is a lot to unpack when looking at the problematic aspects of “Revenge Body,” such as the clear issues of putting white, patriarchal norms as the standard of beauty to which everyone should aspire or even the suggestion that self-worth and happiness are contingent upon weight loss. 

The Kardashians are no strangers to promoting similar unhealthy values. They quite literally promote these values on their social media, advertising products such as “Skinny Teas,” waist trainers and diet pills. “Revenge Body,” however, may be their most nefarious act so far.

The trailer for the show begins with a relatively positive message as Kardashian discusses her previously toxic relationship with food that left her unhappy and unhealthy, which she overcame through healthy eating and exercise. 

This quickly becomes dangerous, however, as it suggests that weight loss was the only factor in Kardashian’s newfound happiness—that her self-worth is contingent about thinness and her “obsession” with exercise.

The premise of the show is not supposed to be explicitly about revenge after a breakup, but rather “the life that you once had,” as Kardashian states on the season one trailer. Moments after this, however, contestants are asked to list who their revenge body is for. Some responses included an ex-fiancé, their mothers and their friends. 

The suggestion that problems with interpersonal relationships, self-esteem issues and unhealthy mindsets can be fixed with gym sessions, haircuts and laser hair removal is absurd and dangerous. 

Oddly enough, these physically exhausting and often painful processes can offer contestants an easier solution than looking inward and addressing the deeper emotional issues that create these feelings of inadequacy. 

It’s natural to desire change when we feel like we are unhappy with the trajectory of our lives. Channeling self-loathing and sadness into obsessive weight loss, however, is not the same as, say, getting a haircut, learning to knit or adopting a puppy.

“It’s not about a weight number, it’s how you feel,” Kardashian said in a trailer for the show. 

This is subsequently followed by clips of trainers barking orders at contestants who work themselves to exhaustion and look miserable as they stand on a scale. It may be unwarranted to expect a deeper understanding of harmful Western beauty ideals—such as body hair removal and spray tanning from a Kardashian sister—but these obvious displays of fat-shaming and harsh judgment take these issues to a new level. 

The bigger issues come into play when filming ends. The excessive amount of training and time commitment Kardashian promotes are simply unsustainable in everyday life. After reaching the short-term goal of weight loss, it may be hard for contestants to grapple with the fact that long-term issues persist—even if they drop three dress sizes.

Twitter is resourceful, critical news commentary tool

In recent years, the world of journalism has adapted to the constantly changing standards brought about by the rise of social media. Whether it be news pieces by legacy news sources such as the BBC or clickbait articles your family members share, social media platforms such as Facebook, Twitter and Snapchat have become saturated with news stories.

Twitter serves an important journalistic function, as it welcomes established media organizations and non-journalists to share news as it happens in real time. With the current mistrust of mainstream media and the rise of “fake news”—popularized by President Donald Trump—Twitter is emerging as a reputable source for news.

Twitter is the perfect environment for citizen journalists who are free of corporate interests or political ties. Thus, they are capable of sharing information without the type of biases that bigger media outlets may have. Furthermore, Twitter allows marginalized groups that are often ignored by the mainstream media to have a voice and to discuss complex or controversial issues that often go unreported.

Citizens have become increasingly critical, however, of the news media. In the wake of the 2016 presidential election, many media consumers are skeptical of big-name news sources, such as MSNBC, Fox News, The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal. Americans mistrust both the liberal media and ultra-conservative sources alike. Seventy-four percent of Americans feel that news organizations offer one-sided accounts of stories, according to a recent study from journalism.org. 

Twitter, as a news source, in no way provides unbiased news, but it also does not claim to—which makes it more ethical in practice. Mainstream news organizations pride themselves on neutrality and objectivity, whereas Twitter users make no such claims and often use their opinions to make tweets more appealing and provocative. 

Media scholars have debated the existence of truly unbiased news for years, as the mere selection of news stories requires some form of opinion. This growing interest in editorial or “soft” news makes Twitter an ideal platform, as we are given accounts from people with explicit interests and who have lived experiences that provide a perspective that traditional journalism cannot. 

Twitter also addresses another key problem with legacy news organizations: their underrepresentation of marginalized groups. Complex issues such as police brutality, reproductive rights and transgender rights are rarely discussed in the mainstream media. 

Thus, Twitter has become a jumping-off point in starting discourse about these issues, where members of underrepresented communities are able to share their lived experiences and opinions. Twitter serves as a platform to communicate, to engage and to educate one another in an interactive way.

A perfect example of Twitter’s effectiveness is the #BlackLivesMatter movement. This movement began on Twitter in response to the 2013 death of Trayvon Martin and has since become an ideological centerpiece of the modern civil rights movement. Twitter users described their personal experiences with racism, as they tweeted updates on rallies and protests in order to spread information on the numerous police shootings that were overlooked by the mainstream press. 

This in no way means that all information from Twitter is trustworthy, or even remotely true. But our skepticism toward mainstream, legacy journalistic sources could cause a huge shift in how we consume news—and Twitter is ideal in its personalized, openly subjective and conversational nature. 

While Twitter can be dangerous in that it allows certain newly-elected presidents to tweet unfounded claims, it subsequently creates a dialogue in which users can respond with instantaneous critique.

Anti-porn bill stigmatizes sex, perpetuates conservative views

U

tah Gov. Gary Herbert signed a resolution on April 19 declaring pornography a public health hazard. The SCR 9 resolution is non-binding and largely symbolic in its purpose, but the bill will serve to promote “education, prevention, research and policy change” in the hopes of raising public awareness of “the pornography epidemic that is harming the citizens of Utah and the nation.”

The bill primarily focuses on the negative impacts that pornography may have on the behavior and health of our society. It states that pornography can impact mental health, cause deviant sexual behavior, impact familial relationships and perpetuate harmful sexual behaviors and addiction. While many could argue that much of this is true, these deeper issues are not a direct result of the consumption of pornography.

Many anti-pornography feminists argue that the production of porn is directly harmful to women. It promotes the general idea that women’s sole purpose in heterosexual sex is to be objects. It depicts images of non-consensual sex, sex with underage women and perpetuates generally dangerous misconceptions about sex.

Furthermore, a majority of pornography is not only misogynist, but also transphobic, racist and homophobic. Many times pornography can confuse viewers—primarily young, heterosexual men—as to what is normal or what is consensual. Certain aspects of this bill could be seen as a positive step toward punishing the objectification of women.

A bill such as the SCR 9 resolution, however, is not the solution to the growing commodification of sex. Although the bill mentions the degradation of women that pornography creates, most of the bill promotes “traditional” family values and expresses harmful viewpoints of human sexuality. The bill states that pornography can create “sexual deviancy,” “hyper-sexualization” and will have “a detrimental effect on the family unit.”

These seem to be more driven toward promoting a conservative agenda—shaming people for expressing their sexuality and enforcing a monogamous lifestyle. It is essentially another way for white, heterosexual men in power to control the private sex lives of those that differ from their own.

This kind of thought will be harmful to porn industry workers, who are systematically taken advantage of and abused in their line of work. By further stigmatizing the sex industry, it becomes harder to regulate and discuss sex work openly—pushing workers farther into the background and putting them in dangerous situations.

In order to combat some of the issues this bill discusses, such as “the normalization of violence, abuse and rape,” “the hypersexualization of teens” and “the objection of women,” we need education and reform—not a ban on porn. Rather than simply trying to eliminate pornography, we need to change the way our society views sex entirely.

Blaming the “pornography epidemic” for the degradation and mistreatment of women would be a total misplacement of effort. Instead, we need to focus on giving high school and college-age students comprehensive sex education that not only focuses on the physical aspects of safe sex, but the importance of consensual sex and a heightened focus on female sexuality. Furthermore, we must reform the pornography industry through depicting mutually pleasurable and realistic sex scenes, regulating the use of protection and giving workers more rights in terms of benefits and unionization.

The SCR 9 bill would be ineffective in attempting to change prevalent, harmful ideas about sexuality. Declaring pornography a “public health hazard” will only further the shame and secrecy we often associate with sexuality. Reforming our attitudes toward both sexuality and the porn industry as a whole is the only effective way to combat the societal issues associated with porn.

New ride-booking service focuses on female safety

The recent launch of the women-only ride-booking service Chariot for Women has received a lot of national attention. Started by former Uber driver Michael Pelletz, Chariot for Women seeks to create a taxi service with female drivers who serve women and children only. Pelletz created the service after seeing firsthand how dangerous car services can be for women traveling alone.

The service will provide a slew of safety features that companies like Uber and Lyft don’t provide, such as thoroughly checking each driver’s background, providing a secret word for passengers that will allow them to verify their driver’s identity at pickup, providing a photo of the driver to the passenger and allowing passengers to track their driver’s exact location to ensure they get into the correct car.

The service was set to launch on Tuesday April 19, but its growing popularity has the company looking to expand its original plan of operating out of Boston only. Uber has come under scrutiny recently for multiple violent incidents and sexual assaults involving passengers. While Uber requires its drivers to undergo background checks, some worry that the company is not thorough enough. Multiple cases of assault, harassment and violence have many women fearing for their safety when using these ride sharing services.

The launch of Chariot for Women could be a much-needed service for women and children looking to get around safely. While everyone has been told since birth to never get in a car with a stranger, it’s undeniable that ride-booking services are incredibly convenient, especially for Chariot for Women’s primary demographic of young women. This service is ideal for women who may be leaving unsafe bars and parties only to find themselves in another unsafe situation with their drivers. Chariot for Women offers a safe space for women in a world where such spaces are increasingly difficult to find.

What’s troubling about the launch of Chariot for Women, however, is not the service itself, but the mere need for the service. We must ask ourselves at what point will we entirely run out of safe places for women and start having to make serious cultural changes.

The absurd lengths that women have to go to in the hopes of traveling safely are exhausting. In addition to the huge amount of effort and planning that goes into staying safe during a night at a bar or a party, getting home from these situations proves just as difficult. The fact that Uber handled the incidents of violence so poorly is forcing women to use an entirely new service specially created to ensure that they won’t be attacked while trying to get from place to place.

Even more frustrating are some of the legal hurdles Chariot for Women has faced. Some claim that the practice would be illegal, as it refuses services to men. It is mind-boggling to think that anyone would take issue with women seeking an escape from the serious threat that ride-booking services may pose, but it is important to also remember that men can be victims of assault as well—an issue that Chariot for Women doesn’t account for.

The unfortunate truth of the matter is that getting into a car with a stranger will always present a certain degree of risk. The creation of Chariot for Women is undeniably positive, but only a somewhat immediate solution for a much deeper issue.

Clinton criticisms often rooted in sexism, lack merit

With New York’s primary election date steadily approaching, it’s becoming increasingly difficult to ignore a growing trend among supporters of Sen. Bernie Sanders. As someone in full support of Sanders, I am entirely sympathetic to—and often contribute to—legitimate criticisms of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

There is a huge difference, however, between valid criticisms of Clinton’s policies and decisions and the blatant misogyny that has flooded my Twitter and Facebook feeds. Too much focus has been put on irrelevant, gender-based criticisms of Clinton from both supporters of Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump and Sanders.

Unsurprisingly, the Internet has proved to be an excellent platform for relatively uneducated and politically unaware people to voice their every thought regarding Clinton. As a young woman, I know for certain I am growing tired of older generations of women scolding me for not supporting the prospect of a female president—ultimately questioning my feminist ethics. While the majority of Sanders supporters are feminist in their principles, it is undeniable that Clinton is the target of misogynistic rhetoric from Republicans and Democrats alike. The recent hashtag “#BernieBros” is enough to make my head spin. 

An example of this blatant misogyny can be found in an MSNBC segment that meticulously discussed Clinton’s public speaking techniques in March. After Clinton gave a speech in Detroit regarding job creation and gender equality, three male reporters on MSNBC’s “Hardball” took it upon themselves to criticize Clinton for shouting during speeches.

One of them stated: “There’s a private version of Hillary Clinton that’s very winning and very charming, that’s because there’s no microphone.” Because, as we know, a presidential candidate’s most valuable asset is their charm.

Clinton herself has spoken out about the constant criticism of her “shrillness,” stating, “I've been told to stop, and I quote, ‘Shouting about gun violence.’ Well, first of all, I'm not shouting, it's just, when women talk, some people think we're shouting.” This is a classic example of a passionate woman being labeled as overly emotional and abrasive.

These criticisms of Clinton are just more examples of women being told to quiet down and be politer. Sanders himself had to condemn the growing misogynistic attacks on Clinton from his own supporters, stating, “We have many hundreds of thousands of supporters, and some of them have gone over the edge. I apologize for that.”

Clinton has consistently shown dishonesty and troubling associations with issues many college students take seriously, such as welfare reform, militaristic ventures and her ties with corporate powers. I support Sanders because his values coincide with my own, primarily with his stances on abortion, college tuition and minimum wage.

Trump and Sanders supporters alike are guilty of criticizing Clinton for irrelevant issues that are tied to her gender. Mocking Clinton for “barking like a dog”—as Trump has—is not a legitimate criticism. Sanders is known for hollering and wildly gesturing from behind a podium without once being called shrill. We need to stop associating assertiveness and power with “bitchiness” when it comes to women.

Regardless of who you'll be voting for in the primaries, take it upon yourself to end the misogyny that is increasingly apparent in this election.

“SNL” video satirizes white peoples’ reactions to Beyoncé

Pop icon Beyoncé released a music video for her new song “Formation” on Feb. 6. The video thrust Beyoncé into the limelight for the past week, but not for the usual reasons. Beyoncé’s music is known for its immense commercial success and generally apolitical content. With the release of “Formation,” however, she is sending a clear message of black power and proclaiming support for the Black Lives Matter movement.

The response to this video has been overwhelmingly divided. One of the most impactful media responses came from “Saturday Night Live.” The Saturday Feb. 13 show featured the sketch “The Day Beyoncé Turned Black.” The sketch features a society of white people who hear “Formation” for the first time. Their world turns to chaos and dystopia upon realizing that Beyoncé is, in fact, a black woman with political views. One news reporter says, “It was the day white people lost their Beyoncé.”

The “SNL” sketch was extremely clever and succinctly summed up the issue that so many people have taken with the video. People simply do not want to accept that Beyoncé is a black woman with every right to be outraged. Beyoncé’s music has always been relatively uncontroversial. Her political messages were primarily geared toward the fact that she is a woman and a feminist—some listeners seem to be having a hard time acknowledging her position as a woman of color.

Beyoncé is undoubtedly one of the greatest pop culture icons of this generation. She is constantly praised for being openly sexual and her feminist anthem “***Flawless” had huge commercial success. The moment Beyoncé stopped catering to the whitewashed mainstream, however, she was criticized for being antagonistic and “attacking” white people.

Nearly every aspect of the media is geared toward catering to a white, middle class audience. The sketch exemplifies this, as one confused listener asks “Maybe this song isn’t for us?” to which a woman replies, “But usually everything is!”

Many white people looked at Beyoncé as a relatable celebrity—as long as she didn’t acknowledge her race. The moment she embraced a part of her identity that white people cannot relate to, she was attacked for being alienating and aggressive. Black celebrities—especially black women—are discouraged from acknowledging their blackness.

One of the most irritating things about the negative response to this video is that the video is hardly radical in its claims. The “SNL” sketch shows how outraged people are for Beyoncé simply stating that she is, in fact, black and proud to be so.

It is astounding that Beyoncé is being criticized for expressing black pride and anti-violence. “SNL’s” sketch definitely hit the nail on the head in representing the constant silencing of black voices by white people.

Academy Awards continue to exclude actors, actresses of color

Millions of viewers will tune in for the 88th Academy Awards on Feb 28. Comedian Chris Rock will host this year’s ceremony as the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences selects who they believe to be the best artists in the film industry this past year. Due to recent controversy surrounding nominations, however, there will be a few familiar faces missing from this year’s awards. Some celebrities of color have decided to boycott the Oscars—most notably actors Will Smith and Jada Pinkett Smith, who released a video calling for the boycott on Martin Luther King Jr. Day. In the video, Pinkett Smith said, “The Academy has the right to acknowledge whoever they choose, to invite whoever they choose. And now I think that it's our responsibility now to make the change.”

The nominations for this year’s ceremony triggered a response of outrage from many industry professionals for one reason: every single actor and actress nomination was given to white actors and actresses. The anger sparked by this announcement is entirely justified, considering that this is not the first, but second year in a row that actors of color were snubbed by the Academy. One year and we could maybe call it a coincidence, but two years in a row shows a systematic issue in both the Academy and the film industry as a whole.

The controversy has created a buzz regarding the demographics of those in the Academy who watch the year’s films and hand out award nominations. The Los Angeles Times recently conducted a study of Academy members and the results were unsurprising: 94 percent of Academy voters are white and 77 percent are male.

With so few people of color deciding who is the “best” in the industry, there are fewer people of color recognized. The results of the nominations for the past two years are essentially suggesting that cinematic greatness is associated with whiteness.

In both years, there were many deserving actors denied nominations. At last year’s awards, the critically acclaimed film Selma was ignored in all acting categories. This year, Will Smith was nominated for a Golden Globe award for his work in Concussion, but could not garner a nomination from the Academy.

“For 20 opportunities to celebrate actors of color, actresses of color, to be missed last year is one thing; for that to happen again this year is unforgivable,” Selma star David Oyelowo said.

The lack of diversity at the Academy Awards, however, could also be attributed to the few opportunities that people of color have in the film industry as a whole. In a recent interview with Variety, actor George Clooney spoke out on this subject, asking, “How many options are available to minorities in film, particularly in quality films?”

The lack of representation at the Academy Awards may just be symptomatic of a deeper, underlying issue: the limited representation of people of color in the entertainment industry as a whole.

Morrison: Fashion norms problematic despite progressive strides

Anyone with a vague understanding of the fashion industry is aware of its ingrained problems. The bodies of painfully thin, white and able-bodied women are glorified and paraded across billboards and runways—damaging the self-worth of women who do not fit these standards. Enter Madeline Stuart, an 18-year-old woman with Down syndrome who has made waves in the fashion industry.

Stuart appeared in a charity show at the Midtown Athletic Club in Rochester on Thursday Sept. 17. Stuart became well-known after her appearance in New York Fashion Week in the FTL Moda presentation of international designers.

The reaction to Stuart’s presence on the runway was immediate and overwhelmingly positive. The inclusion of a model with Down syndrome in Fashion Week is an incredible step for the disabled community, as people with disabilities have had almost no presence in the fashion industry. The representation of people with bodies that stray from the able-bodied norm is an amazing advancement.

While Stuart’s success is undoubtedly positive, the nature of the fashion industry and its impact on young women is troubling. After some research into Stuart’s biography, I learned that Stuart lost over 40 pounds before attempting to break into the modeling business.

This speaks volumes about the inherent sexism and rigid standards of beauty that still exist in the fashion industry. It is nearly impossible to wholeheartedly embrace Stuart’s success knowing that she faces the same abuse that other models face.

Stuart is extremely thin, blue-eyed and white. Rather than embracing her disability, it seems that the media’s reaction to her has been entirely positive because she is “overcoming” her disability while passing as what we view as standardly beautiful. Stuart will still face the same criticisms, objectification and sexualization that other female models do, which is seen in the weight loss she underwent before entering the industry.

It is important to note that while Stuart has made strides in advancement for people with disabilities, she is still being forced to conform to a system that idealizes thin, able-bodied people and the European standard of beauty. The nature of the fashion world creates an interesting discussion—while Stuart’s individual triumphs should certainly be applauded, they do not solve inherent problems within the industry.

An interesting dialogue about the entrance of the disabled community into the fashion world has been sparked by Stuart’s fame. While many believe that her experience will encourage the casting of more disabled models, it is important to recognize the multitude of disabilities and body types that exist. We should stray even further from the typical model aesthetic.

The idea that models with varying disabilities and body types will become prevalent in the fashion industry is still somewhat intangible. Despite the varying responses and outcomes of Stuart’s success, her presence at Fashion Week created an extremely important discourse in terms of how society and the media view people with disabilities