Yeah, I should have posted this days ago, but frankly, I have been drowning in work. So, follow the link to the BH website. Trying to make each these better than the last, so bare with my limited knowledge of video production (not to mention limited resources and time.)
Untitled from The Badger Herald on Vimeo.
Showing posts with label Badger Herald. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Badger Herald. Show all posts
Friday, February 22, 2008
Monday, December 3, 2007
Stop the gender insanity!
Hey, did you know that Sen. Hillary Clinton is a woman? Who cares?
Yes, now we've all seen the Mikolajczak comments, but yet, this topic of gender bias keeps being thrown out there: the boys are piling on Hillary, she's being attacked because of her gender - can we really bypass this hurdle?
You know what, I'm going to look like a chauvanistic asshole by saying this: I don't care. I've never looked at Hillary Clinton as a woman, I've looked at her as a politician (which has far more negative connotations than any gender stereotype). Can any of us really say that we thought that Clinton, if elected, would spend her days gardening and putting on makeup? Come on, this is not only a Senator, Yale alum and ambitious politician, but probably the most influencial first lady since Eleanor Roosevelt - does anyone think she's going to get in the Oval Office and start crying?
If you do, please step forward so you can be chastised for your ignorance.
There are concerns about her ability to negotiate in the middle east, but after seeing the ad naseaum rebuttal of "but look at Bhutto, Albright, Merkel, etc." it would be a farce to assume two X chromosomes are going to lead to the downfall of this nation.
So, with opinion piece after opinion piece rebutting this idea of a gender bias and no real legitimate counter-argument, why the hell do people keep bringing this up? AND WHY DO I KEEP PRINTING IT?
I suppose the latter makes sense - if it is really on people's minds, then we should discuss it. However, one thing did strike me, although it's not that surprising - the Clinton topic saw a real surge in opinion pieces from female students on campus - more than I've seen in a while.
And then Kate Maternowski wrote this piece and got me thinking with this part:
So, when you have a woman that really puts herself out there, in front of the multitude, women may be encouraged, but are they still so reluctant that they only support her candidacy rather than making some arguments on their own behalf?
Obviously, any discussion of women in this respect is going to be a heinous generalization, so I decide not to go any further. Obviously, people like Ms. Maternowski and Suchita Shah counter this idea of female sheepishness in the opinion arena, but I must say that I'd like to see more women sound off in this paper - and on something other than Hillary.
As Maternowski said:
Here here. Now I just wish more women would realize the same thing and come write for us. I mean, after all, women are the majority on campus - for them to be relegated to the position of vocal minority is a shame. We've made some leaps forward, but we can always make more strides.
So let's be clear - I welcome the idea of women finally taking the baton and standing up and voicing their opinions, but defending a politician who, I assure you, has no problems with her gender security is a waste of column inches.
So let's stop it, shall we?
Yes, now we've all seen the Mikolajczak comments, but yet, this topic of gender bias keeps being thrown out there: the boys are piling on Hillary, she's being attacked because of her gender - can we really bypass this hurdle?
You know what, I'm going to look like a chauvanistic asshole by saying this: I don't care. I've never looked at Hillary Clinton as a woman, I've looked at her as a politician (which has far more negative connotations than any gender stereotype). Can any of us really say that we thought that Clinton, if elected, would spend her days gardening and putting on makeup? Come on, this is not only a Senator, Yale alum and ambitious politician, but probably the most influencial first lady since Eleanor Roosevelt - does anyone think she's going to get in the Oval Office and start crying?
If you do, please step forward so you can be chastised for your ignorance.
There are concerns about her ability to negotiate in the middle east, but after seeing the ad naseaum rebuttal of "but look at Bhutto, Albright, Merkel, etc." it would be a farce to assume two X chromosomes are going to lead to the downfall of this nation.
So, with opinion piece after opinion piece rebutting this idea of a gender bias and no real legitimate counter-argument, why the hell do people keep bringing this up? AND WHY DO I KEEP PRINTING IT?
I suppose the latter makes sense - if it is really on people's minds, then we should discuss it. However, one thing did strike me, although it's not that surprising - the Clinton topic saw a real surge in opinion pieces from female students on campus - more than I've seen in a while.
And then Kate Maternowski wrote this piece and got me thinking with this part:
At this newspaper, for example, I am the only female columnist on the opinion staff and, admittedly, had to be coaxed into committing to weekly column inches. Indeed the opinion editors here are open to taking on female writers, so my solo presence indicates that other females on campus might share my reluctance.
It would be difficult to dismiss the possibility that the newspaper statistic and this reluctance stem from a tendency in women to not want to put themselves — their opinions — out in the path of potential critique, dissent or attack.
So, when you have a woman that really puts herself out there, in front of the multitude, women may be encouraged, but are they still so reluctant that they only support her candidacy rather than making some arguments on their own behalf?
Obviously, any discussion of women in this respect is going to be a heinous generalization, so I decide not to go any further. Obviously, people like Ms. Maternowski and Suchita Shah counter this idea of female sheepishness in the opinion arena, but I must say that I'd like to see more women sound off in this paper - and on something other than Hillary.
As Maternowski said:
Why would an all-female panel be any less relevant to an issue not related to women? Or, more generally, why do women feel more safe, more confident, more compelled to write and opine primarily about women’s issues, and why is it often expected that women will do just and only that when they indeed choose to be vocal and opinionated?
An individual’s gender is simply not relevant when discussing many of the major political, economic and social issues affecting modern society, and women have as much a stake in the conversation as do men.
Here here. Now I just wish more women would realize the same thing and come write for us. I mean, after all, women are the majority on campus - for them to be relegated to the position of vocal minority is a shame. We've made some leaps forward, but we can always make more strides.
So let's be clear - I welcome the idea of women finally taking the baton and standing up and voicing their opinions, but defending a politician who, I assure you, has no problems with her gender security is a waste of column inches.
So let's stop it, shall we?
Labels:
Badger Herald,
Hillary Clinton,
Opinion,
Women
Saturday, December 1, 2007
Reworking Diversity: Take two.
During The Badger Herald's "Exploring the Issues: Race" week, I wrote an article detailing my experiences as a House Fellow at Sellery Hall and the way in which we were taught to deal with "diversity." While there were a certain number of comments that were both critical and encouraging, two stuck out. First:
Perhaps I didn't make it clear, but I was at training. I understand that some of the training is not repeated or is altered, but let's not make assumption that I don't know what I'm talking about. Believe me, if there is some ambivalence, I'll let you know. now, calling it a "rigorous boot camp" might have been a little overstated. It would have better to treat it as an extended interrogation. At least, for a white student, it was. I can see how the minorities involved might have felt it was really cheap considering the compressed nature of such discussion and how it seems like a surface discussion rather than frank dialogue. In this case, good - let's extend it over the whole year, but not compartmentalize different groups or discussion. It needs to be an ongoing evaluation of how those tensions operate on campus and in housing - not a three-day free for all where House Fellows are taught to brace themselves.
Well, good. I didn't have that experience in Sellery. We tried to get speakers to come discuss these sorts of issues with Sellery Hall, but ended up with Housing employees who made up presentations on such broad topics as "Culture of Fear." Go figure.
I met with Ms. Martinez yesterday, and the chat was very encouraging:
-She has talked with campus partners at the Office of Equity and Diversity, who have emphasized their frustration with the Housing diversity initiatives and the way in which they have stifled the opinion of house fellows. Housing employees seem reluctant to embrace change.
-She told me that this isn't the first time she's heard claims like this. She related one story of a house fellow who sat down with her and said that he was afraid of how his political leanings would prevent him from doing his job. "He sat down and told me he was a Republican. I was waiting for some sort of groundbreaking news, but that was it."
-Thankfully, certain programs won't be repeated, such as the awful Halloween program where we lectured students on what costumes they probably shouldn't wear. We got into a huge fight over that one with our residents - could have been a dialogue, instead it was a disaster.
-While she is trying to implement a new approach that treats students as individuals rather than members of separate minority groups, it's likely to meet from some resistance from the rest of Housing. We'll see how well that works.
As it stands, I think Housing could benefit from more specific discussions on issues of racial tension in America or on campus - have roundtable discussions or debates on immigration, Plan 2008, Muslims in America. Housing has to stop leading groups to social justice conclusions when those administrators can't even create a working definition of social justice among them. If we're going to encourage diversity, we need to explain it first.
So, what do you think? What are student's experiences with diversity initiatives on this campus and how should it work?
First off as someone who has been through the house fellow training (all 2 weeks of it)I can tell you that there is not a "rigorous boot camp of diversity training" In fact I think the diversity training was inadequate in that there is not enough of it. Unless you have been a house fellow yourself I doubt that you would know what exactly training entails thus what you report is merely hearsay.
Perhaps I didn't make it clear, but I was at training. I understand that some of the training is not repeated or is altered, but let's not make assumption that I don't know what I'm talking about. Believe me, if there is some ambivalence, I'll let you know. now, calling it a "rigorous boot camp" might have been a little overstated. It would have better to treat it as an extended interrogation. At least, for a white student, it was. I can see how the minorities involved might have felt it was really cheap considering the compressed nature of such discussion and how it seems like a surface discussion rather than frank dialogue. In this case, good - let's extend it over the whole year, but not compartmentalize different groups or discussion. It needs to be an ongoing evaluation of how those tensions operate on campus and in housing - not a three-day free for all where House Fellows are taught to brace themselves.
The people you talk to in small discussions, groups, presentations they are not all experts, they were not elected to be there, they are merely individuals with personal experience, perhaps training that like yourself would like to create dialog and work to challenge discrimination and prejudice on our campus. And as a white male I doubt that you can fully understand the pressures and inevitable shortcomings of having to represent ones entire race or sexual identity.You're right, I can't fully understand that pressure. Whether that pressure is put upon minorities by housing or is simply internalized I also can't evaluate. So in this case, I'll mark that as a valid point.
I also think that you are perhaps unaware of how often we have speakers and community leaders come in so perhaps what that is telling me is that we need to do more advertising because the programing, the speakers, they are there.
On Nov 2 we had Student Diplomats of South Korea come to speak, we had Dr. Mae Jemison come to speak, Thomas A. DuBois came to talk about his new book, "The World Beyond Our Borders presents", Civil Rights Legend, Joanne Bland came to speak on Nov 12, we had Cinefest, American Heritage month events, and last week was Transgender awareness week where we also had speakers and trailblazers working to make a difference. Those are just a few of the recent programs, speakers, and community leaders, that you claimed weren't available.
Well, good. I didn't have that experience in Sellery. We tried to get speakers to come discuss these sorts of issues with Sellery Hall, but ended up with Housing employees who made up presentations on such broad topics as "Culture of Fear." Go figure.
Lastly in regards to your assertion that "it hasn't worked" yes, there are still sexual, racial, ethnic slurs written on doors, there are still people who are ignorant, who ask ignorant questions. Sorry for not ending racism, sexism, homophobia, ableism, ect. Do you really expect that we can in one or even four years undo more than 18 years of socialization, learned stereotypes, biases, and racist and homophobic attitudes passed down by family and community leaders throughout someone entire life thus far? You set the bar awfully high.If I was arguing that Housing should eliminate the -ism's, I'd argue for my own redundancy, as well. I know that's impossible. However, if we are discussing what is within our capacity, the way we try to change our community depends on our approach. In my opinion, treating people as individuals rather than members of factions is a good plan. As it stands, housing guilts white house fellows into realizing what "they" have done to minorities through the passive burden of "white privilege." They tried this on us during training and it was probably one of the most insulting things I have ever sat through. I will agree that being a white male affords me an easier status in society than some minority groups, but to try and shame me for it is only going to push me further from the goals of housing. You have to bring the white majority into the discussion - placing blame may be the worst way to do it.
No we are not perfect, we will not end racism or homophobia. Not all of our programs will reach everyone but we are doing what is within our capacity as people, citizens, and students to help to fight these prejudices and if not change minds at least open them.
I appreciate that you wanted to take a hard look at diversity issues on campus and that you yourself have tried to create dialog, that is important. obviously you do care and have good intentions however I feel that you are also misinformed about the role and capacity of UW housing diversity programs and if you have suggestions, comments, programing ideas please let us know.However, there seems to be a change in the works. The second comment I got via email was from the new director of Diversity programs for housing, Magpie Martinez:
too have had feelings at times of being overwhelmed by the sheer amount of things that can and do happen on this campus and in the halls on a daily basis. I am very unnerved by your comments about not being able to open your mouth and speak your mind. I am very disheartened that you felt shut down and asked to carry forward a political ideology that you didn’t’ believe in.
I am on a mission this year to END THAT. I agree that there needs to be diversity of thought and that only through these conversations (1:1 with real people) will things change. I don’t ever want to hear HF’s tell me that they put on a program that they didn’t believe in. I want our efforts to be real, and to effect change.
I met with Ms. Martinez yesterday, and the chat was very encouraging:
-She has talked with campus partners at the Office of Equity and Diversity, who have emphasized their frustration with the Housing diversity initiatives and the way in which they have stifled the opinion of house fellows. Housing employees seem reluctant to embrace change.
-She told me that this isn't the first time she's heard claims like this. She related one story of a house fellow who sat down with her and said that he was afraid of how his political leanings would prevent him from doing his job. "He sat down and told me he was a Republican. I was waiting for some sort of groundbreaking news, but that was it."
-Thankfully, certain programs won't be repeated, such as the awful Halloween program where we lectured students on what costumes they probably shouldn't wear. We got into a huge fight over that one with our residents - could have been a dialogue, instead it was a disaster.
-While she is trying to implement a new approach that treats students as individuals rather than members of separate minority groups, it's likely to meet from some resistance from the rest of Housing. We'll see how well that works.
As it stands, I think Housing could benefit from more specific discussions on issues of racial tension in America or on campus - have roundtable discussions or debates on immigration, Plan 2008, Muslims in America. Housing has to stop leading groups to social justice conclusions when those administrators can't even create a working definition of social justice among them. If we're going to encourage diversity, we need to explain it first.
So, what do you think? What are student's experiences with diversity initiatives on this campus and how should it work?
Sunday, September 2, 2007
And such a long hiatus, a return!
But I'm back. It's been a hectic last two weeks putting together the Reg Issue of the Badger Herald, but it's out, and it's accompanying second edition, full of Badger's victory over Washington State, will be out on Tuesday. We go back to work on that same day, putting out our first regular issue on Wednesday.
However, some things to talk about before then, seeing I've been practically invisible since the Herald started...
-MU Bash is tonight, and it's about an hour before they start. I'll probably post a little round up of their performance, along with what the feeling was of MU Bash in general. I'm looking at the line-up now of activities now, but it seems quite sparse. Perhaps that will change once the Freshmen pack the hallways, but it does seem like there is a lot less to do here than in previous years...
-On a separate note, we had Trombone Shorty, a New Orleans based funk/jazz artist at the terrace last
night, and it was far better than expected. WUD sort of booked it on a whim, and there was talk of trying to get Band of Horses here instead, as they were available, but I doubt they would have energized the crowd more than Troy "Trombone Shorty" Andrews did. Although there were a few times I gave my usual musical snob snort -- such as when he played Lenny Kravitz tunes, "Runnin" and his cover of the Guess Who's "American Woman" -- I must admit, the crowd was on par with our Hip-Hop menagerie earlier in the summer. In the end, the crowd was feeling funky and they got down. In a show of how well he knew the crowd, he even inserted a little "Jump Around" to satisfy the sea of red that came over to enjoy a brisk summer night.
He was supposed to play two sets, one hour each. Instead, he played for about 2 and a half hours straight. "I don't think we've ever played a crowd this big, or with this much energy. It just makes me wanna keep going!" And they did. I actually heard the masses in front of the stage yell "encore" at the top of their lungs, the second they started to step off the stage. Now, THAT is impressive.
-Just saw ASM at a table where they gave me a little light-hearted jabbing over the Ed Board opinion on segregated fees. It looks like this will be an interesting year for campus politics, but I'm optimistic. Hopefully we'll be able to work together instead of against each other. After all, we're both, as Art Brut would say, "just talking to the kids," right? Maybe I should stop using kids though. I've been told I use that term a lot. That arrogant Smathers!
- So, another point of contention is this weekend's two competing festivals - SoCo festival with the Flaming Lips (21 and up, only) and WSUM's inaugural Snake on the Lake Fest with the 1900's and the Pony's. I'm torn, but having seen the Lips at Lollapalooza and taking part in their orgasmic visual spectacle, I think I'll catch WSUM's festival, especially since I probably owe a radio station that's given me the opportunity to do a show with all British music. Which leads me to....
-New Radio Show! Although we couldn't continue Muckrakers because of scheduling conflicts, I will have a new show this semester. With my friend musical encyclopedia, John Vanek, we'll be spinning through a different genre of music every week, Thursday's at 3pm at WSUM 91.7 fm. We're starting out with a salute to old Western music, then going through a spin of the origins of Rock N' Roll (circa 1953) the week after that. From there...British Invasion, 60's Psychedelia and forward. If you have any genre suggestions, send me an email at jsmathers@wisc.edu and I'll get on it.
Other than that, we have a busy week ahead of us at the Herald, but would enjoy it if the community voice could contribute with letters to the editor, guest editorials, etc. If you've got a desire to sound off on a local issue, speak on behalf of a community org, or just have a beef with us, send it along. We'll print it.
Send pieces, inquiries, etc to either jsmathers@badgerherald.com or agranias@badgerherald.com and we'll get on the case.
And I promise, I'll try and update much more often.
However, some things to talk about before then, seeing I've been practically invisible since the Herald started...
-MU Bash is tonight, and it's about an hour before they start. I'll probably post a little round up of their performance, along with what the feeling was of MU Bash in general. I'm looking at the line-up now of activities now, but it seems quite sparse. Perhaps that will change once the Freshmen pack the hallways, but it does seem like there is a lot less to do here than in previous years...
-On a separate note, we had Trombone Shorty, a New Orleans based funk/jazz artist at the terrace last
night, and it was far better than expected. WUD sort of booked it on a whim, and there was talk of trying to get Band of Horses here instead, as they were available, but I doubt they would have energized the crowd more than Troy "Trombone Shorty" Andrews did. Although there were a few times I gave my usual musical snob snort -- such as when he played Lenny Kravitz tunes, "Runnin" and his cover of the Guess Who's "American Woman" -- I must admit, the crowd was on par with our Hip-Hop menagerie earlier in the summer. In the end, the crowd was feeling funky and they got down. In a show of how well he knew the crowd, he even inserted a little "Jump Around" to satisfy the sea of red that came over to enjoy a brisk summer night.
He was supposed to play two sets, one hour each. Instead, he played for about 2 and a half hours straight. "I don't think we've ever played a crowd this big, or with this much energy. It just makes me wanna keep going!" And they did. I actually heard the masses in front of the stage yell "encore" at the top of their lungs, the second they started to step off the stage. Now, THAT is impressive.
-Just saw ASM at a table where they gave me a little light-hearted jabbing over the Ed Board opinion on segregated fees. It looks like this will be an interesting year for campus politics, but I'm optimistic. Hopefully we'll be able to work together instead of against each other. After all, we're both, as Art Brut would say, "just talking to the kids," right? Maybe I should stop using kids though. I've been told I use that term a lot. That arrogant Smathers!
- So, another point of contention is this weekend's two competing festivals - SoCo festival with the Flaming Lips (21 and up, only) and WSUM's inaugural Snake on the Lake Fest with the 1900's and the Pony's. I'm torn, but having seen the Lips at Lollapalooza and taking part in their orgasmic visual spectacle, I think I'll catch WSUM's festival, especially since I probably owe a radio station that's given me the opportunity to do a show with all British music. Which leads me to....
-New Radio Show! Although we couldn't continue Muckrakers because of scheduling conflicts, I will have a new show this semester. With my friend musical encyclopedia, John Vanek, we'll be spinning through a different genre of music every week, Thursday's at 3pm at WSUM 91.7 fm. We're starting out with a salute to old Western music, then going through a spin of the origins of Rock N' Roll (circa 1953) the week after that. From there...British Invasion, 60's Psychedelia and forward. If you have any genre suggestions, send me an email at jsmathers@wisc.edu and I'll get on it.
Other than that, we have a busy week ahead of us at the Herald, but would enjoy it if the community voice could contribute with letters to the editor, guest editorials, etc. If you've got a desire to sound off on a local issue, speak on behalf of a community org, or just have a beef with us, send it along. We'll print it.
Send pieces, inquiries, etc to either jsmathers@badgerherald.com or agranias@badgerherald.com and we'll get on the case.
And I promise, I'll try and update much more often.
Labels:
ASM,
Badger Herald,
Madison music,
Union Events,
WSUM
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
