Celebrity mental illness misunderstood, stigmatized

While mental illness and suicide are shamed in mainstream society, it is arguably even more stigmatized when victims are people who are expected to be perfect and successful in the public eye.

Celebrities who experience mental illness experience pressures that many of us will never understand—their work and personal lives are often open for the whole world to see and criticize. While people who have mental illnesses often suffer alone, celebrities might suffer alone in front of millions of watchful—and often hateful—eyes.

Former Ultimate Fighting Championship women’s bantamweight champion Ronda Rousey recently disclosed her experience of having suicidal thoughts after getting knocked out in her fight against Holly Holm in November 2015. The fight was highly publicized before it even began, as Rousey prematurely harassed Holm on Instagram a day before the fight and bragged about how she was going to “really enjoy the beating” that she would give Holm. After her defeat by knockout, Rousey was the topic of crude jokes and criticisms on social media as backlash for her cockiness before the fight and unfortunately embarrassing loss.

Rousey admitted she felt like she was “nothing” and that nobody—meaning the fans and press that support her career—would care about her after losing her undefeated record. She said she thought about killing herself immediately after realizing her loss and that having a life with her boyfriend was the only reason she felt she had a purpose.

It is slowly becoming more accepting for celebrities to speak out about their own mental illness for awareness and solidarity purposes. Beloved Star Wars actress Carrie Fisher openly speaks about her experience with bipolar disorder and drug addiction on social media and uses her influence to inspire those who need help. Ex-Disney star and musician Demi Lovato infamously endured drug addiction and an eating disorder in the public eye and now campaigns for self-love and body positivity for her fans.

The shocking suicide of comedian Robin Williams in August 2014 seemed like a turning point for public opinion of celebrities who “go down a bad path.” Celebrities who publicly suffer addiction or get arrested for drugs are often stigmatized for not being able to “handle” fame. When a beloved celebrity such as Williams—whose struggles were invisible to anyone who did not closely know him—is so impacted by mental illness, the harmful stigma against struggling celebrities begins to be questioned.

Williams’ struggle exemplifies how anyone can be affected by mental illness, yet celebrities are still put on a pedestal and criticized when personal weakness is perceived. When actors or musicians publicly announce a hiatus from their work, rumors circulate about money or personal problems. Celebrities are constantly bombarded with rumors, questions and libel as media are obsessed with celebrity drama and gossip. Never is it taken at face value that celebrities are human beings that may need to take a break to deal with stress and mental health—just as many of us do.

Outsiders, fans and the millions of people who do not know the celebrities personally always assign them made up personalities or characteristics. When we expect celebrities to be happy, engaging, talented and completely unproblematic, we forget they are real people who have real flaws and issues.

It is significant that Rousey shared her story so publicly—especially after facing a tough defeat. The more we understand mental illness and the less we hold celebrities to God-like standards, the more progress will be made in awareness, prevention and support of people who struggle within themselves.

Hinds’ debut album enthusiastic, dynamic

Spanish indie rock band Hinds released their first album Leave Me Alone on Jan. 8. The all-woman four-piece hails from Madrid and has played music throughout Europe since 2014. The band played numerous shows in America in 2015—including 16 shows at the South by Southwest festival—and have a few American dates lined up for their 2016 tour. Hinds is a perfect mix of grungy, yet fun; they are cute, yet intimidatingly tough rock. The opening track “Garden” is one of the best songs on the album, giving a strong introduction to the band’s style with its punchy guitar riffs. Singer and guitarist Carlotta Cosials starts the track with her attitude-filled and whiny—in a good way—vocals with, “How many secrets [do] you have that keep you smiling that way?”

Later in the track, Cosials and second singer and guitarist Ana Perrote enthusiastically scream together, “Show me the game/show me the rules again/because I’ll play it, I’ll play it, I’ll take it now”—making it irresistible to sing and dance along to this song in your bedroom.

The track “Castigadas En El Granero” has the best chorus on the album. Perrote and Cosials sing back and forth, with Perrote singing about the cows and corn in the granero—meaning barn—and Cosials—in her effortlessly sultry voice—responding, “I know you’re hearing that voice … a smoking roll… daddy let me go… oh father let me go.” The track is a perfect rock ‘n’ roll hit reminiscent of The Vaccines or punk band Jawbreaker Reunion.

The next track “Solar Gap” is where Hinds really shows its musical and artistic talent. The song is two minutes of dreamy instrumental, making you feel like you’re floating on a cloud. The track’s emotional simplicity makes it stand out from the upbeat tracks on the album.

My favorite track on the album is the playful “Bamboo.” Bassist Ade Martín starts off the track before an explosion of guitar and drums. Once again, Cosials and Perrote choreograph their vocals, bouncing from Cosial’s coy, “I want you to call me by my name when I am lying on your bed” to Perrote’s, “How could I show you without looking freaking mad/that I am not always gonna be around?” The song feels familiar and relatable while still being naturally fun and quirky.

The track “And I Will Send Your Flowers Back” feels like a bittersweet complement to “Bamboo.” It carries an air of melancholy from lost love as the pair sings, “And I’ll send your flowers back/What goes around comes around.” If “Bamboo” tells the story of a flirty new fling, this track is the ending chapter of the relationship. It feels raw and honest—almost like your best friend giving you tough advice after a break-up.

The last track “Walking Home” ends the album on an upbeat and positive note. The dynamic instrumentals—especially drummer Amber Grimbergen’s catchy beat—make this track unique and original.

Hinds feels down-to-earth and easy-going, yet you can tell that they take their music very seriously. It is such a pleasure to discover female musicians who are easily on their way to global success.

America's election practices need discipline, restructuring

It is officially 2016—the year we elect the new President of the United States. Before we reach November, however, the presidential election pomp will kick into full gear and campaigns will—somehow—be more dramatic and obnoxious than they’ve been so far. As we’ve previously witnessed during party debates, speeches and even “Saturday Night Live” sketches, this current presidential election has been an embarrassing rollercoaster for the U.S. Our election process showed major flaws in July 2015 when a 15-year-old candidate under the name Deez Nuts was able to file an intent-to-run form with the Federal Election Committee and actually polled at 8–9 percent in three different states.

As Donald Trump gains more support in the polls with his controversial and offensive comments, the chance of Trump earning the Republican candidacy looks less like a passing joke and more like an actual possibly.

If America’s presidential election cannot be taken seriously, how can we expect to be taken seriously as a country? Our election revolves around sensational journalism and candidates one-upping each other for the next viral hashtag. When our election season goes on for basically two years, there’s a lot of room for frivolity.

Canada, on the other hand, recently endured one of their longest campaign seasons ever—and it only lasted 11 weeks. A typical Canadian election lasts about 50 days. The first truly meaningful day of our election comes on Monday Feb. 1 with the Iowa Caucuses—more than 280 days before Election Day.

While Americans may think 50 days isn’t enough to get to know a candidate, perhaps America can create a happy medium. By now, most Americans probably know who they want to elect as each party’s candidate and probably for the presidential position itself—even though we still have to endure another 10 months of caucuses, primaries and insufferable debates.

Perhaps in the future, we could change our policy to limit campaign seasons to, for example, no longer than six months before Election Day. Major media outlets who gain a lot of advertising and marketing revenue from election coverage may vehemently refuse a change, but it would make the rest of our lives much more pleasant.

Holdgruen: Trigger warnings crucial for students with mental illnesses

Trigger warning for college: most professors do not warn students of sensitive material in classes, which can create painful environments for students with mental illness. The idea of trigger warnings has created immense controversy for ridiculous reasons. Most people who oppose trigger warnings completely misunderstand what trigger warnings actually are.

President Barack Obama recently criticized liberal arts colleges for coddling students with political correctness and censorship. Obama used examples of professors refusing to assign books to students that contained racial slurs or were demeaning to women.

Trigger warnings are often categorized under Obama’s idea of censorship because of their misconstrued nature.

Trigger warnings are the complete opposite of censorship. Its definition is in its name—it is a warning that material contains triggering content. This content can trigger post-traumatic stress disorder, anxiety attacks or general feelings of discomfort for a person who associates the trigger with traumatic experiences in their life.

Trigger warnings encourage sensitive material to be openly discussed as long as everyone who engages in the material is aware of its triggering content and accommodations can be made for students affected by triggers. Trigger warnings can simply be a short sentence next to an assignment in the syllabus or spoken briefly by the professor before a lecture. Thus, trigger warnings are virtually harmless for and can be overlooked by those who do not need them.

These warnings can prevent a rape survivor from reading explicit details of a character’s rape in an assigned book. College professors—and Obama—surely wouldn’t want to force a rape survivor to read explicit details of a fictional rape that could echo their traumatic experience. Most likely, a rape survivor can still understand the class readings and participate in discussion without necessarily having to read the explicit, triggering details in the book.

Another point anti-trigger warning supporters do not understand is that trigger warnings are almost nonexistent in our college setting. I have never been given trigger warnings in my classes at Geneseo. I have taken classes and read explicit material about rape, domestic abuse, child molestation, depression and suicide—all material that can create uncomfortable environments for students who have experienced these issues.

Never has a professor I’ve had held back on showing or discussing explicit material. Obama showed a lack of knowledge of the current college setting when he claims problematic books are removed from classrooms. In fact, I believe there are more explicit and mature-content books on syllabi than there ever was before.

The demonization of trigger warnings as censorship is due to the stigmatization of mental illness. Many people do not believe—or even care—that content in the classroom can be triggering to students. If people properly understood and respected mental illness, trigger warnings would be a no-brainer in our classrooms.

Professors at Geneseo must include information about disability accommodations in their syllabi. Geneseo administration should extend these accommodations to the classroom themselves and enforce the use of trigger warnings.

Many students who are too scared or anxious to talk about their mental illness with professors or peers will be grateful for this easy and harmless accommodation. And perhaps our campus will finally be proactive in limiting the disability the college setting places upon mentally ill students.

Holdgruen: On being self-critical of Greek life traditions

This weekend is one of the most important weekends for Geneseo Greek life: Bid weekend. Bid weekend is a celebration where Geneseo’s Greek organizations hand out bids—or invitations—to all the rushes that have been selected to become pledges.

Then a weekend long, alumni-filled party ensues. While those of us in Greek life can be excited for this weekend’s festivities, we should be self-critical and aware of the social implications of selective Greek life.

Greek life has a huge presence on our small campus and in American college life in general. To freshmen, Greek life may seem like the only way to find friends and make connections in college. This heavy presence of Greek life in campus social life and American collegiate tradition can have a subconscious, ego-boosting effect on students.

Similar to the feeling of superiority upperclassmen often feel toward underclassmen, the rush and bid process can bring out the worst in us through feelings of exclusivity and power. When we are in a position where our peers are hoping to impress us, sometimes we let it get to our heads.

Whether we like it or not, the rush and bid process is entirely based on our judgment of others. Judging others based on only a few interactions and first impressions isn’t exactly the most respectable practice. It is awkward—and quite cruel—that we’re essentially telling people they aren’t fun or likable enough to be our friend. And yet the rush and bid process is one of the most beloved and exciting traditions of Greek life.

When engaging in the rush and bid process, we must remember we aren’t better than rushes just because we’re in a position that they want to be in—a position only we can give them.

This is a toxic mentality that exaggerates the significance of the “unequal” member versus rush dynamic. It’s a dynamic that only exists because we often place too much importance on judging people rather than getting to know them.

This isn’t a case of being politically correct in order to not hurt anyone’s feelings—it’s a case of realizing that Greek life just isn’t as important as we make it out to be. It’s rewarding and fun to feel accepted, to meet lifelong friends and make alumni connections, but there is more to college than just Greek social life. Those who are uninterested in Greek life have just as great a time as we do and people aren’t inferior if they don’t receive a bid.

Bid weekend is both the best night of Greek life and the worst—it sucks that not everyone who wanted to participate can participate. But while organizations are screaming and cheering throughout campus, just remember that it’s by no means the complete extent of the fun you can have in college.

Emily Holdgruen is a member of Gamma Chi Epsilon.

Holdgruen: Exploring your options and why not to rush into choosing a major

College is a daunting place. It creates an existential process in which we must discover who we are and what we want to do with our lives. We often make difficult and important decisions while comparing ourselves to our peers.

I came to Geneseo as a freshman and felt pressured to figure out my life plans and interests right away. It seemed important to start my college career with a major and academic track already prepared and set in stone for my future.

Uncertainty and confusion were feelings I wanted to avoid. I thought that if I told people I knew what I wanted to do in my life, I would eventually start to believe in it. I spent two years working toward a major that was unfulfilling and left me stressed and disillusioned with higher learning.

This is a case supporting the “undecided” major. Although approximately 75 percent of college students change their majors at least once during their college career, students are often embarrassed to be in the group of undecided majors. For some, it looks better to change a major halfway through college than to spend a couple of years unsure of the future and be “unlabeled.”

Being surrounded by peers who appear—on the surface—to be confident and secure in their majors is intimidating; undecided does not seem like a productive and valid choice in comparison to our “prepared” classmates.

The undecided major is far from a waste of time, however. The first couple of years of college are meant for discovery—not only discovery of interests, but discovery of personality as well. We begin college at such a young age—we still have a lot of room for personal growth and maturing.

It is not guaranteed that the major one chooses on a college application will actually be a good fit in practice. If we convince ourselves that the major we chose when we were high school students is our destiny, we may not be open to other majors or disciplines. It is crucial to give oneself time to make these decisions to avoid clouding one’s own judgment.

Changing a major as a second-semester sophomore or junior can be a stressful and anxiety-inducing process. Filling out the forms is easy, but all the work afterward—counting credits and planning major-requirement classes—makes students frighteningly close to not graduating on time. For those who do not want to stay for extra semesters, summer classes and online classes are near necessities.

First-year students would feel more comfortable—and less pressured—in the intimidating college setting if they were required to be undecided their first semesters. Of course, college is different for everyone; some students really are secure and confident with their first choice of major and thoroughly enjoy it until they graduate.

In my experience, however, students may not realize their personal growth and change of taste until they explore multiple options. Sometimes taking the time to get to know ourselves and our interests before deciding on a major can prevent future regrets—and prevent us from realizing our real passions too late.

Underage drinking risky, but inherent aspect of mainstream college culture

Young adults are all too familiar with hazardous party situations, whether in high school, at home or in Geneseo. Our administration strives to raise awareness of the risks of alcohol and drugs through freshman orientation programs and anti-hazing programs for Greek life members. These programs encourage students to make safe and smart decisions when faced with difficult situations. In 2013, Geneseo’s Responsible Community Action Policy de-penalized under-the-influence students who call campus police for help. This is a progressive and appropriate initiative for handling the consequences of underage drinking. But other than offering motherly advice and support services, what more can an administration do? Some argue not much. As long as consuming alcohol remains an integral part of campus culture, it will continue to be the responsibility of students to utilize the services and education offered to them.

West Virginia University recently suspended all Greek life activity on campus until further notice after 18-year-old freshman Nolan Michael Burch was found unresponsive at a Kappa Sigma fraternity house, and later died in a local hospital. This temporary suspension is more reactionary than it is helpful or successful. Students can drink in other clubs and organizations, even under the administrative eye.

While technically preventable, alcohol-related deaths seem nearly impossible to prevent in practice. It is a difficult issue to address. Older generations cry of an underage drinking epidemic, but in reality underage drinking is no more an epidemic than it is the norm.

To find a college in the United States without underage drinking is like searching for the Holy Grail; we want to believe in its existence but we must face the improbability. Even dry campuses such as SUNY Oneonta are only alcohol-free in theory.

Geneseo has an underlying drinking culture, even amongst the well-intentioned preventative efforts of administration. When it was an operating bar and club, the Inn Between Tavern was only a few feet away from the under-construction Bailey Hall; it was practically a part of campus. On weekends, residence halls on the north side of campus are busied with foot traffic from enthusiastic partygoers on their way to the IB’s adopted replacement, The Statesmen.

This is neither praise nor condemnation for these businesses—it is an observation of our social culture closely aligning itself with drinking. It is not the fault of the administration that partying is the most popular pastime at a small rural school plagued by months of cold weather.

It is painfully improbable to have a future generation of college students dedicated to saving their livers until they turn 21 years of age. Being gluttonous and carefree is basically the American Dream for the college generation.

So if the partying continues—which of course, it will—it is the responsibility of students to be educated and prepared. If students insist on their maturity and confidence to drink, they must also have the maturity and confidence to recognize problematic situations and react appropriately.

It is a shame that tragedies occur so easily—one last drink can be the decisive factor in a dangerous situation for anyone on this campus, Greek or non-Greek. But unfortunately, college culture makes it extremely difficult to enact any significant change.

Geneseo’s administrative efforts are neither futile nor monumental. Schools like West Virginia University have recognized the problems but do not know how to create lasting solutions. It might be better to understand that some things are beyond administrative control; that those students who support the drinking culture are more engaged in a fantasized idea of the dream college experience. Students hear the warnings and absorb the statistics, and whatever they do with that knowledge is ultimately their responsibility.

Why privilege matters in light of Dunham sexual abuse allegations

When writer and actress Lena Dunham released her memoir Not That Kind of Girl: A Young Woman Tells You What She’s “Learned” at the end of September, she did not expect to spark such controversy. The book, however, contains detailed descriptions about sexual experiences with her younger sister Grace, which have led some to accuse Dunham of sexual abuse. She did not expect the subsequent backlash because she is privileged, but this cannot excuse her actions.

Dunham describes touching her sister’s genitals with curiosity and using candy to bribe her sister into kissing her. Dunham inappropriately mused that, “Anything a sexual predator might do to woo a small suburban girl I was trying [on my sister].” Dunham was 7 years old at the time and her sister was only 1 year old.

Dunham’s nonchalant language shows her privilege and ignorance. She grew up in a wealthy family and received a prestigious private-school education. The success of her television show “Girls” has made her a popular and well-liked public figure. The infamous quote spoken by Dunham’s character on the show, Hannah, about being “the voice of a generation” is often applied to Dunham herself. She has an image of being a powerful young white woman who embraces uniqueness, but lacks a grassroots struggle story.

Dunham is so familiar with her privilege that she believes it can excuse her actions. She believes the excerpts from her book were funny, as if her lovable childhood quirkiness makes up for its creepiness.

To view sexual abuse in a lighthearted way is offensive and problematic. Child-on-child sexual abuse is a real issue that is rarely discussed. Stop It Now! is a charitable organization dedicated to raising awareness of child sexual abuse, reports that one-third of child sexual abuse is committed by persons under 18 years of age.

A common argument in support of Dunham assumes “child’s curiosity,” the idea that children are innocent and incapable of intentional sexual abuse. Dunham agrees with this idea as she explains these acts were “within the spectrum” of her childhood behavior.

Dunham believes her acts were acceptable under the idea of innocent childhood play. But even in the face of reasonable criticism, Dunham does not admit guilt. In a string of tweets, she attributed her actions to being a “weird 7-year-old” and condemned any reference to sexual abuse.

Even if Dunham genuinely believed her actions were innocent, she must admit her casual use of the term “sexual predator” in relation to children was in extremely poor taste. She did not accept her mistake and offer an apology; rather, she cursed at “right-wing” news outlets on Twitter for misconstruing her words.

Dunham has not acted maturely towards controversy. Critics of her book have good reasons to be critical, whether they are abuse survivors who may be triggered by her mention of child sexual abuse or anyone generally uncomfortable with the explicitness of the act. To completely dismiss all criticism silences the voices of abuse survivors. To not offer any apology is disrespectful and—not to mention—bad public relations. Dunham feels so privileged that she does not feel obligated to apologize.

In light of abuse allegations, it is important to recognize the victim’s point of view. Dunham’s sister did not publicly state feeling abused or generally uncomfortable about her sister’s actions. Instead, she used the controversy and Twitter as a platform to raise awareness of the harms of heteronormativity, which deems certain behaviors harmful and others “normal.”

Dunham’s popularity and privilege do not excuse her behavior. Regardless of how innocent she claims to be in the situation, she must acknowledge that her audience might deem her poor choices as inappropriate.

Colonialist sentiment at heart of “American jihad” proposal

How do Americans justify nationalism? A recent opinion article featured on foxnews.com discussed the need for an “American jihad”—one in which we spread the knowledge and the laws of our Constitution to the rest of the world. Psychiatrist Dr. Keith Ablow holds a deeply ingrained sense of nationalism that he uses to justify a disguised form of imperialism. “An American jihad would embrace the correct belief that if every nation on earth were governed … by our Constitution, the world would be a far better place,” he said.

He has so much blind faith in America’s wholly righteous laws that he leaves no room for alternative philosophies, religions or governments. His allusions to our “God-given right” of Manifest Destiny are nearly colonial in nature. It is unbelievable that, after a long, conflict-ridden history, one would have no qualms about the essential structure of America’s government and its prior influence on other countries.

At a time when no political party can satisfy health care, the economy or social issues, it could be expected that nationalism would weaken. The uncertainty of conflict with the Islamic State and America’s heavy leadership role in foreign affairs brings strain upon our trust in government. How can the facts about our far-from-perfect country be ignored while sustaining unadulterated admiration?

Ablow ironically touts America’s past success in combating fascism and communism, yet his ideas for a global take-over are theoretically fascist. Ablow has no factual or strategic basis for his claims, only his passionate and somewhat unnerving devotion to nationalism with a hint of religious fervor.

The American jihad is not an innocent plan to share knowledge with the world; it is culturally and religiously intolerant. Ablow’s use of the term “jihad” is an intentional parallel to Islam. During the FOX News segment discussing Ablow’s article, journalist Anna Kooiman said, “The folks that are saying Allahu Akbar are worshipping a far-different God than the God that I worship.” FOX News has been previously called out for Islamophobic content––Ablow’s segment is no different. Kooiman’s remarks show painful ignorance about the core beliefs of Islam, spoken in a disapproving and disgusted tone.

American politics are often extremely discriminatory against Muslims. Ablow would most likely condemn an ideological global takeover by a Muslim-majority country such as Turkey, yet insists America deserves to do so while appropriating an Islamic term. The Christian ideas such as “God-given right” that he uses to describe his jihad are a strategic insult to Islam and religious tolerance.

Although there is little chance of Ablow’s jihadist goals happening on his desired scale, it is important to recognize how the mere idea of it is damaging. It is not wrong to be a nationalist, but it is problematic to ignore the shortfalls, inconsistencies and injustices of a government or country in order to push a radical political agenda.

Nationalism should not encourage global Americanization––for Ablow to be praised as a hero bringing democracy to the world is a giant red flag. Ablow uses language that parallel a religious crusade, a use that the supposedly secular America should do without.

Americans are allowed to be critical of our country; that is a core American belief. The way we view America compared to the rest of the world, however, is often dripping with narcissism. Ablow recognizes problems in other countries, yet ignores the problems in his own. His outrageous ideas for the spread of knowledge only add to America’s flaws of extreme nationalism and ignorance.

Do your research before you FCKH8

Feminism and mainstream media have a tumultuous relationship. Influential celebrities express their ignorant distaste of “man-haters” while Dove airs safe, liberal-feminist video ads in order to sell self-esteem to consumers without addressing the actual issues of feminism. The efforts of dedicated activists such as Laverne Cox are demoted to soft news Twitter links, and coverage of feminist rallies is generally limited to gay pride parades. Evidently, media see feminism either as a threat or a capitalist venture. The latter is the goal of the for-profit T-shirt company FCKH8, whose new T-shirt ad is anything but feminist. The “Potty-Mouthed Princesses” video stars young girls dressed as princesses who use explicit language to state gender-inequality statistics.

FCKH8 has clever marketing skills. This video is made for mainstream media’s usual safe depiction of feminism—general, source-less statistics with a “quirky” twist. The swearing young girls are used as a shock factor to lure consumers into watching a blatant T-shirt ad. FCKH8’s website is essentially an online store––it boasts anti-sexism, anti-racist and pro-LGBTQ-plus slogans printed on various apparel. It includes hardly any information regarding its charitable efforts.

The company successfully exploits and sensationalizes charitable causes in such a way that consumers cannot recognize its problematic disguise. The “Potty-Mouthed Princesses” are going viral because consumers truly believe they are helping a cause since they are uninformed of FCKH8’s greedy motives.

For FCKH8’s recent anti-racism campaign inspired by events in Ferguson, Missouri, the company’s website lists specific charities that receive donations from each shirt purchased. The company, however, has an extensive inventory of products for anti-sexism and pro-LGBTQ-plus causes for which no charities are listed at all.

The entire frequently asked questions section on FCKH8.com addresses sizing, ordering and shipping concerns for products, but nothing regarding who receives the rest of the “donations.”

An actress in the video explains that five dollars from each shirt goes to charities that are “fighting every day to make the world a better place for women and girls.” This is a vague statement that does not specify a feminist, LGBTQ-plus or nonprofit organization. So who receives these promised donations?

A genuine nonprofit, feminist organization should never accept donations on behalf of a company that exploits charity for capitalist gain. Supporters of FCKH8 may argue that the company is successfully raising awareness and in reference to the anti-racism campaign, is supposedly donating money to reliable organizations such as the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. The issue with this company, however, is larger than that.

Do we really want to excuse the manipulation of oppressed people—and honest, well-intentioned consumers—for one organization to be written a decent check? Praising FCKH8 for its ability to raise awareness despite consumer exploitation is ignorant and may set a precedent for future companies to join this new activism trend.

FCKH8’s well-intentioned and catchy slogans appeal to the casual do-gooder. But bringing together problematic mass media, feminism and capitalism directly contradicts ideals that some feminists advocate. Currently, mainstream media only accepts a watered-down version of feminism that makes consumers feel empowered and justified in buying these products.

Feminism will become increasingly more misunderstood in the future if instead of independent, nonprofit charities, for-profit companies are the ones that continue to be publicly praised. If FCKH8 were truly sincere in its endeavors, it would put money aside and actively support causes indefinitely, not just when they become popular.

Fame no excuse for media to exploit mental illness

The ongoing controversy surrounding actress Amanda Bynes’ health exemplifies the misunderstanding and mishandling of mental illness by mainstream media. A string of her deleted tweets accusing her father of sexual abuse led to Bynes’ hospitalization last week. An existing tweet claiming that a “microchip” in her brain made her post the false tweets is being used as evidence for her mental instability.

Bynes’ odd behavior has been a source of entertainment for a few years now—so much so that she has essentially become her own meme. Not many Internet users seem to know or care that Bynes’ behavior is the result of mental illness. That she is acting out publicly as a result of her mental illness is a serious issue to be sympathized with, not laughed about.

The media has a history of exploiting mentally ill celebrities to gain readership and profit. In recent years, the struggles of actor Charlie Sheen and musician Demi Lovato—who respectively suffer from drug addiction and bipolar disorder—were obsessively reported and highly publicized. Celebrity status has become synonymous with a lack of privacy and a lack of dignity. Media outlets and consumers dehumanize celebrities when they exploit mental illness for gossip and entertainment.

If mental illness is not portrayed as entertaining or profitable, it is portrayed as dangerous. There is another trend in mass media to paint mental illness as violent and shameful, as in the case of mass shooters. The actions of the accused shooters at Sandy Hook Elementary School, the Aurora, Colorado movie theater and the University of California, Santa Barbara over the past few years were infamously attributed to some degree of mental illness.

Whether or not the shooters were mentally ill is not the issue. Rather, the problem lies in the media’s message that mental illness should be feared and contained. The media marginalizes mentally ill people—their behaviors are either entertaining or violent. Even when mental health policies are introduced or improved after these incidents, it is more likely out of a fear of mentally ill people rather than a genuine desire to help.

The University of Washington’s research on the link between mental illness and violence found that the majority of mentally ill people are not violent, and that the media’s portrayal of mentally ill people contributes to discrimination of them.

The United States Department of Health reports that 6.7 percent of American adults have depression. If mental illness is so statistically common and significant, why do media outlets relay dangerously prejudicial media messages? Whether mental illness is “addressed” through celebrities’ private lives or the wellness of murders, it is not appropriately addressed and discussed in mainstream media. The stigma of mental illness does not only lead to discrimination, but possible abuse as well.

Instead of favoriting Bynes’ problematic tweets, the Twitter community should defend and support her. Moreover, when discussing mental illness and violence, we must remember that correlation does not imply causation.

It is not easy to improve media messages or change the way media affects audiences. But education and awareness of mental illnesses and the misconceptions surrounding them should improve our individual views on the prejudicial nature of mainstream media.

On the freedom to discriminate

The resurfacing of a Jan. 2013 story about an Oregon bakery refusing to serve gay couples is a reminder that freedom of religion should never trump nondiscrimination laws. Sweet Cakes by Melissa prides itself in creating custom wedding and special-event cakes. Bakery owner Aaron Klein told NBC News that when a potential customer wanted a wedding cake for “two brides,” he politely told the woman that the bakery does not serve gay couples.

The Klein family is facing a fine of $150,000 in violation of the Oregon Equality Act of 2007. This act specifies the illegality of discrimination based on multiple characteristics––including sexual orientation––in places of public accommodation.

The bakery owners claim they acted on a religious right, as some Christians believe gay marriage is a sin. There comes a time, however, when the line between freedom of religion and purposeful discrimination is crossed.

Freedom of religion exists for people to openly express and practice their beliefs. This freedom, however, does not allow the practicing of beliefs against other people––especially when other people do not share those same beliefs. When practicing one’s religion directly affects an outside person in a discriminatory way, religious freedom no longer applies.

In a similar situation, Chick-fil-A chief executive officer Dan Cathy expressed his opposition to same-sex marriage in the summer of 2012. Cathy, however, never implemented any anti-gay policies in the company. He used his freedom of religion to express his opinion but did not act upon it; he did not use it as an excuse to refuse gay customers. To do so would be an unlawful, discriminatory act such as what occurred at Sweet Cakes.

The Oregon Equality Act also prohibits discrimination based on religion. One may argue that fining the Kleins for practicing their religious policies is religious discrimination. That is not the case. No governing body can prohibit the Kleins from opposing gay marriage. They are able to openly believe and talk about their opposition. Their freedom of religion is already being used and is flaunted. They could put a sign in their window expressing their opposition if they desired.

Denying services to an innocent customer based on certain physical or ideological criteria is one definition of discrimination. If the roles were reversed and a gay bakery owner refused to serve customers based on their religion, the same consequences would apply in accordance with state laws.

The ideologies surrounding freedom of religion and nondiscriminatory laws are inevitably going to clash in one situation or another. Situations such as the one at Sweet Cakes are all too common in the ongoing debate about gay marriage versus religion.

The Kleins seem to be a nice, honest family that has garnered a large support base surrounding the controversy. To their relief, they most likely won’t encounter any more gay couples commissioning them for wedding cakes.

Violence and discrimination against people in the LGBTQ-plus community is a serious issue in our country. Nondiscriminatory laws are often the only legal protection victims have when shopping or applying for jobs and for schools.

America is a religiously charged country in many ways. It is satisfying to see, for once, the division of church and state act justly in favor of the victim.

Sexual harrassment on YouTube neither comedic nor acceptable

Popular British YouTube vlogger Sam Pepper is facing sexual assault accusations after posting a controversial video. The video, which has since been deleted from YouTube, shows Pepper pinching women’s bottoms without consent while asking for directions on the street. The video caused uproar within the YouTube community and on social media. Pepper posted a second video with the roles reversed, this time having a woman pinch men’s bottoms. A third video explained his intention to raise awareness for sexual assault—especially against men—explaining that there is often a double standard when addressing victims. He also claimed that the women in the video were actresses and consented to participate in his project.

Pepper has a history of creating predatory “prank” videos against unsuspecting strangers. In a recently deleted video titled “How to Get a Girlfriend EASY,” Pepper grabs women’s wrists from behind and handcuffs them to his. These women were not actresses and their reactions were genuine. The women looked visibly uncomfortable and most said things along the lines of “take this off” and “get away from me.”

Another deleted video shows Pepper throwing a rope lasso around women from behind and telling them, “You’re mine now.” In some instances, Pepper refused to let the woman go unless she gave him a kiss. In the midst of this controversy, a handful of female fans came out and accused Pepper of sexually and emotionally abusing them via the Internet and during his concerts and events. The accusations ranged from soliciting underage nude photos to rape.

There is an emerging trend of male Internet celebrities using their status to manipulate and abuse often underage, female fans. Pepper joins music vloggers Tom Milsom and Alex Day, who were accused of various instances of sexual assault earlier this year and were dropped from their YouTube record label.

The YouTube community needs to be more active against problematic content creators. After the Milsom controversy, a group of fellow vloggers vowed to create a safer space for fans, but there has not been significant change.

Teenage girls face a lot of negativity from the media. They make up a demographic that is constantly scrutinized and seldom taken seriously. Musicians whose fame is mostly owed to teenage girls, such as One Direction, are often criticized simply for the fact that they’re targeted towards girls. Things that teenage girls like are considered sissy or uncool.

The YouTube vlogging community connects with a vast number of teenage, female fans and it should be a place for these girls to feel safe and included. When predators invade these safe spaces, we must question the dedication of the community to enact and enforce boundaries between vloggers and fans.

In Pepper’s case, his history of inappropriate videos should have been a red flag to the rest of the community. There needs to be a combined effort from both males and females to make teenagers feel comfortable reporting assault. The power complex between vlogger and fan and the pressure not to betray a beloved celebrity make it difficult to take early action against an offender.

Vloggers like Pepper need to be exposed and cut out from the YouTube community. Teenage fans should not feel threatened or uncomfortable in a community that is meant to be creative, safe and fun.

In hip-hop, double standard for women persists

YouTube video blogger Bart Baker released a parody of Nicki Minaj’s song “Anaconda,” and the video is littered with lyrics and images that encapsulate the double standard for black women in the music industry. This video exemplifies sexist and racist double standards that have become normalized in pop culture. The parody ironically says that Minaj “ripped off” Sir Mix-a-Lot’s “Baby Got Back” and “turned it to trash,” despite the fact that Minaj’s version twists the objectifying song into one that empowers women and celebrates sexuality.

The video continually refers to Minaj as “plastic” and “fake.” According to the parody, any woman who uses surgery for cosmetic purposes is trashy and pathetic, despite it being a personal choice not fit for public judgment. It also attacks Minaj by using multiple gendered slurs aimed at her sexualized dancing and lyrics. These words are meant to degrade and punish women for enjoying and expressing their sexuality.

This rude and abusive parody of a black female rapper—created by a white man—embodies the sexist and racist attitudes ingrained in the music industry, specifically in hip-hop and rap. The double standard harms black artists, while praising their white colleagues and accepts white female sexuality while criticizing that of black females.

Hip-hop and rap, both of which originated from African roots, developed during the 1960s and 1970s and remains an important part of black culture. Black and non-white artists dominate the hip-hop and rap industry today. Only 4.3 percent of artists who topped the Billboard hip-hop charts since 1996 were white, according to the National Academy of Recording Arts and Sciences.

Despite being far less commercially successful within the genre, white rappers are continuously praised and rewarded over black artists. The Huffington Post notes that white artists such as Eminem and Macklemore consistently win Grammys and other music awards over black artists. Macklemore’s win for Best Rap Album over the fan-favorite Kendrick Lamar at the 56th Annual Grammy Awards was a source of outrage for hip-hop and rap fans.

Some may argue that the white nominees produced better albums than the black nominees, yet black artists are overwhelmingly more popular than white artists in the hip-hop and rap genre. Are certain audiences’ voices not being heard? Or is it the result of a racist music industry?

Women in the rap industry are divided. Nicki Minaj is a talented lyricist and a feminist icon, but she is criticized and labeled with gender slurs because of her confidence, femininity and blackness.

Meanwhile, white female rappers such as Iggy Azalea become fan favorites before their albums even drop. Forbes went so far as to praise Azalea for being a white, blonde artist in a black-dominated field, and hailed her for taking Minaj’s place in the genre.

The comparisons between Minaj and Azalea continue with their appearances. Minaj is criticized in Baker’s parody video for having a “fake” butt and dedicating a song and video to it, while Azalea’s new song “Booty” celebrates hers with mass appeal and acceptance.

It is difficult to break through the racial divide within the music industry. The combination of sexism and racism is accepted and normalized by predominantly white audiences, while the problems black (and especially female) artists face are ignored and nearly invisible. We cannot continue to support the abusive criticism of artists such as Nicki Minaj and the anti-feminist and racist ideals that poison the industry.