Emma Sulkowicz is a senior at Columbia University that is making a big impact be bearing a heavy weight. An art major, Sulkowicz's senior thesis is one of the most bold, symbolic, personal, yet simple projects the university has ever seen. She is one month into her ongoing project of carrying a 50 pound dorm mattress with her wherever she goes on campus. This project affects her and an overwhelming amount of young woman in a very personal way. Not only is this an artistic showcase, but a stand for justice and equality.
On the first day of her sophomore year at Columbia University, Sulkowicz says she was raped by a fellow Columbia student whom she has previously had consensual sex with. There was alcohol involved, the lines of friendship and romance were blurred, and when she finally reported it to the university, it was dismissed.
When I began my research, I had a starkly different viewpoint than I do now. With a light amount of investigation, I perceived her as entitled and taking a serious matter and turning it into a publicity stunt. She very well might be both these things, but that is the beauty of her project. Emma Sulkowicz is embracing the same mindset as Hester Prynne of The Scarlett Letter. Instead of wearing the letter "A", Sulkowicz proudly boasts her mattress. She is not ashamed of being a victim, in fact she is using her bad situation to bring unprecedented amounts of attention to this important subject.
Coinciding with her bold stand, the White House has launched a campus rape prevention program called "It's On Us." This program positively brings rape to the attention to whole communities, not just the victim and rapist.
NY Times The White House
Friday, September 26, 2014
Friday, September 12, 2014
Posner's Stance On Gay Marriage
Recently Judge Richard Posner was among a panel of three judges to rule that the bans on same sex marriage in Indiana and Wisconsin were unconstitutional. He presented oral and written arguments that were blunt, brutally honest, and non wishy-washy, which was refreshing regardless of what side of the issue you fall on. Judge Posner can be considered a prolific genius by any standard. He graduated as valedictorian of his class from Harvard Law School in 1962 and has knowledge on an unimaginably wide breadth of civics minded topics. It's virtually impossible to find an article that disagrees with his most recent ruling on gay marriage, and perhaps because it's because his opinions are pieced together brilliantly. As much as I agree with his "big picture" ruling of Wisconsin and Indiana's ban on same sex marriage being unconstitutional, when it gets down the his reasoning behind this ruling, I couldn't disagree more.
Posner forcibly asserted his opinions in a way that made one ashamed to believe anything contrary. He, along with two other judges, were perplexed when the states of Indiana and Wisconsin banned same sex marriage. Although I will definitely admit there are holes in the arguments of both states, I am swayed to believe that Posner (or perhaps that author of this article) purposely selected information and twisted it to fit what he was trying to say. For example, the article said "Both states admit that children benefit psychologically and economically from having married parents. These facts would seem to suggest a compelling interest in support of gay marriage, since banning it actively, demonstrably harms children." Wow. Can we talk about words getting twisted? What state isn't going to agree that a married home is more beneficial to a child than that of an unmarried or single parent home? In no way were those statements originally meant to correlate to gay marriage. Additionally, one of Judge Richard Posner's key points in his ruling was, "Heterosexuals get drunk and pregnant, producing unwanted children; their reward is to be allowed to marry. Homosexual couples do not produce unwanted children; their reward is to be dinned the right to marry. Go figure." As someone who has the intention to marry a man and have children, I find great offense in this. Posner is implying that gay couples would be more responsible and better suited parents than straight couples. I interpret this as degrading and demeaning. While trying to defend homosexuals, Posner began discriminating towards heterosexuals. The fact of the matter is that there are straight people who will be bad parents and gay people who will be bad parents. Just as there are gay people that are great parents and straight people that are great parents. Instead of discriminating towards and judging a whole group, one should take a look at the individual. Posner's argument, although well spoken and strongly worded, was fundamentally twisted.
On a governmental front, I agree with Posner that same sex marriage should be legal. In order to for our government to be constitutionally sound, our nation must support equality on all fronts. Just as we have freedom of religion, freedom or speech, freedom of press, and so on, Americans should have the freedom to make a choice of who they marry and to be recognized as legitimate. Whether it is due race, gender, social standing, or sexual preference, the US cannot support the exclusion and discrimination against a particular group. On a moral front, I believe that being gay is wrong. The Bible teaches that being gay is a sin and that marriage between a man and a woman is a sacred covenant created by God. Quite honestly however, I don't think that making gay marriage legal will corrupt what has already been corrupted by the millions of straight couples that have lied, cheated, and dishonored God through their marriages. As sad as it is, today most marriages aren't what God intended when He created them. Instead of hyper-focussing on fighting something that will undoubtedly be legalized across the nation within the next few years, shouldn't we as Christians be working to further the kingdom of God by loving others and showing them what marriage as He truly intended is?
Sources: U Chicago // Slate
Posner forcibly asserted his opinions in a way that made one ashamed to believe anything contrary. He, along with two other judges, were perplexed when the states of Indiana and Wisconsin banned same sex marriage. Although I will definitely admit there are holes in the arguments of both states, I am swayed to believe that Posner (or perhaps that author of this article) purposely selected information and twisted it to fit what he was trying to say. For example, the article said "Both states admit that children benefit psychologically and economically from having married parents. These facts would seem to suggest a compelling interest in support of gay marriage, since banning it actively, demonstrably harms children." Wow. Can we talk about words getting twisted? What state isn't going to agree that a married home is more beneficial to a child than that of an unmarried or single parent home? In no way were those statements originally meant to correlate to gay marriage. Additionally, one of Judge Richard Posner's key points in his ruling was, "Heterosexuals get drunk and pregnant, producing unwanted children; their reward is to be allowed to marry. Homosexual couples do not produce unwanted children; their reward is to be dinned the right to marry. Go figure." As someone who has the intention to marry a man and have children, I find great offense in this. Posner is implying that gay couples would be more responsible and better suited parents than straight couples. I interpret this as degrading and demeaning. While trying to defend homosexuals, Posner began discriminating towards heterosexuals. The fact of the matter is that there are straight people who will be bad parents and gay people who will be bad parents. Just as there are gay people that are great parents and straight people that are great parents. Instead of discriminating towards and judging a whole group, one should take a look at the individual. Posner's argument, although well spoken and strongly worded, was fundamentally twisted.
On a governmental front, I agree with Posner that same sex marriage should be legal. In order to for our government to be constitutionally sound, our nation must support equality on all fronts. Just as we have freedom of religion, freedom or speech, freedom of press, and so on, Americans should have the freedom to make a choice of who they marry and to be recognized as legitimate. Whether it is due race, gender, social standing, or sexual preference, the US cannot support the exclusion and discrimination against a particular group. On a moral front, I believe that being gay is wrong. The Bible teaches that being gay is a sin and that marriage between a man and a woman is a sacred covenant created by God. Quite honestly however, I don't think that making gay marriage legal will corrupt what has already been corrupted by the millions of straight couples that have lied, cheated, and dishonored God through their marriages. As sad as it is, today most marriages aren't what God intended when He created them. Instead of hyper-focussing on fighting something that will undoubtedly be legalized across the nation within the next few years, shouldn't we as Christians be working to further the kingdom of God by loving others and showing them what marriage as He truly intended is?
Sources: U Chicago // Slate
Monday, September 8, 2014
What We Watch
I'd like to start this week's post with a story. My dear father had some dental work done this week that left his mouth extremely numb. When it was time to eat dinner that night, he unknowingly gnawed on his numb lip until it was beat up and bloody. Now, days later, my dad has a purple shiner on his lip that makes others wonder if he lost a fist fight.
Similarly to how my dad injured his own lip without even noticing, by letting increasingly inappropriate TV shows creep into our homes, we unknowingly can cause permanent damage to our hearts and minds. In the early days of television, tastefulness took president over sheer entertainment. Now it's reversed, and the morality of what we watch without a doubt takes a back seat to shock value. In 1952, "I Love Lucy" made history by controversially featuring the first pregnant openly woman on television. Additionally, one of the most well known family friendly sitcoms, "The Brady Bunch", shocked audiences when it featured a husband and wife in bed together for the first time. They weren't showing an ounce affection for each other, just simply reading before bed, but still this scene pushed the boundaries of what could be shown on TV.
Now, those same boundaries have been pushed farther than ever before. In the last decade, television shows have become increasingly more vulgar. A "sweet spot" between family friendly and completely obscene is encouraged because it attracts the largest demographic and therefore the most revenue. Although these of shows are the most beneficial for the TV industry as a whole, they can be extremely damaging to family ideals.
For instance, one morning I was watching the "Today Show" on NBC as I was getting ready for school. Later that evening, I was baby-sitting my 6 year old cousin and we wanted to watch a movie. I turned on my TV (which was automatically tuned into NBC) and before I could turn the channel a sex scene from "Parenthood" was being streamed into my living room. With such a powerful medium as television shows, the entertainment industry must accept the responsibility of influencing millions of people. While some have the mind set of "Let them be exposed to the real world, let them ask questions", it should be the parents judgement not a TV producer's about when the right time is appropriate for children to watch things.
I believe that we shouldn't be forced to be desensitized to immorality. If someone really wants to seek out entertainment with a more adult theme, they definitely should have the freedom to do that, but it shouldn't be as easily accessed as it is today. Now, the main channels like ABC, NBC, and FOX stream shows that contain excess amounts of violence, language, and sex during the hours of the day with the most viewership (7-9pm). It is hard to find shows that are appropriate for all members of the family. During TV's peak hours, shows that respect family ideals should be played. Once it's later in the evening or even on other more obscure channels, less tasteful shows can be played. I think that TV should use its great influence for the betterment of society, not its corruption.
Sources: Albert Mohler//Albert Mohler
Similarly to how my dad injured his own lip without even noticing, by letting increasingly inappropriate TV shows creep into our homes, we unknowingly can cause permanent damage to our hearts and minds. In the early days of television, tastefulness took president over sheer entertainment. Now it's reversed, and the morality of what we watch without a doubt takes a back seat to shock value. In 1952, "I Love Lucy" made history by controversially featuring the first pregnant openly woman on television. Additionally, one of the most well known family friendly sitcoms, "The Brady Bunch", shocked audiences when it featured a husband and wife in bed together for the first time. They weren't showing an ounce affection for each other, just simply reading before bed, but still this scene pushed the boundaries of what could be shown on TV.
Now, those same boundaries have been pushed farther than ever before. In the last decade, television shows have become increasingly more vulgar. A "sweet spot" between family friendly and completely obscene is encouraged because it attracts the largest demographic and therefore the most revenue. Although these of shows are the most beneficial for the TV industry as a whole, they can be extremely damaging to family ideals.
For instance, one morning I was watching the "Today Show" on NBC as I was getting ready for school. Later that evening, I was baby-sitting my 6 year old cousin and we wanted to watch a movie. I turned on my TV (which was automatically tuned into NBC) and before I could turn the channel a sex scene from "Parenthood" was being streamed into my living room. With such a powerful medium as television shows, the entertainment industry must accept the responsibility of influencing millions of people. While some have the mind set of "Let them be exposed to the real world, let them ask questions", it should be the parents judgement not a TV producer's about when the right time is appropriate for children to watch things.
I believe that we shouldn't be forced to be desensitized to immorality. If someone really wants to seek out entertainment with a more adult theme, they definitely should have the freedom to do that, but it shouldn't be as easily accessed as it is today. Now, the main channels like ABC, NBC, and FOX stream shows that contain excess amounts of violence, language, and sex during the hours of the day with the most viewership (7-9pm). It is hard to find shows that are appropriate for all members of the family. During TV's peak hours, shows that respect family ideals should be played. Once it's later in the evening or even on other more obscure channels, less tasteful shows can be played. I think that TV should use its great influence for the betterment of society, not its corruption.
Sources: Albert Mohler//Albert Mohler
Tuesday, September 2, 2014
ALS Ice Bucket Challenge
I’m sure you’ve heard of it. In fact, there’s a good chance
that you’ve even participated in it. The ALS Ice Bucket Challenge is the
fastest growing fundraiser to ever sweep social media, and in just one month it
has raised over $100 million dollars. ALS, or Lou Gehrig’s Disease, affects the
nerve cells surrounding the spinal cord and brain causing a person to loose
muscle control and eventually become trapped inside his or her own body. With a
life expectancy of only 2-5 years, the prognosis is grim, which is why the ALS Association
is in desperate need for funding to research its origins, treatments, and
hopefully a cure. The Ice Bucket Challenge has done just that by getting people
around the entire globe involved with raising awareness and funds. The rules
are simple: once you’re nominated, you have 24 hours to post a video of you
dumping a bucket of ice water on your head, donate, and nominate three other
people. It hasn’t been all positivity surrounding the Ice Bucket Challenge
though. Issues regarding the morality and ethics of ALS research has been
circulating the web, and like anything else in life, one must research and
personally discover what they feel is right and wrong.
Along with the overload of Ice Bucket
Challenge videos on your Facebook feed, you might have noticed an article
arguing against The Challenge. The article brings up some valid questions about
ALS research, specifically research done with stem cells. Over the course of its
history, the ALS Association has been involved in one stem cell research project. It is not specified whether
embryonic stem cells or stem cells collected via cord blood had been used. Embryonic
stem cells use fertilized embryos that are artificially created and then
destroyed for the purpose of research. If your definition of the beginning of
life is when the egg is fertilized, then this is considered murder. Cord blood,
however, is extracted from a newborn’s umbilical cord soon after birth and
stored until use. The stem cells from cord blood do not destroy any form of
life, have the same potency as embryonic stem cells, and are therefore ethical
for pro-lifers.
Often
without supplementary research, Christians and other pro-lifers declared the
Ice Bucket Challenge as wrong and sinful simply after reading this one-sided
article, boycotting any form of support. I believe that this action painted
Christians as negative and judgmental people who disapprove of anything “not of
this world”. The fact is that as a people, we had a wonderful opportunity to
come together for a cause in need of support. It’s not very often that a
positive movement sweeps our culture like this and we should be thanking God
for the outpour of love and support that virtually the entire globe has shown
for ALS patients.
As with anything in life, the most
important thing is to not make assumptions before doing personal research.
Don’t just read one article and form an opinion, but truly research, pray, and
form individual thoughts to discern what is right and wrong. When you donate,
you can specify where you’d like your money to go. You can still support a
great cause without condoning the possible use of embryonic stem cell research.
Here's my Ice Bucket Challenge, I've donated (without sacrificing my beliefs) and I now challenge all of you to help raise awareness for ALS!
Sources: NY Daily News//Forbes//ABC News 7
Sources: NY Daily News//Forbes//ABC News 7
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)