Mount Hood

A new kind of sit-in

By: Burke De Boer
Sports Editor

The NFL preseason ended and games are now serious. The trial-and-error month is forgotten. Except for one moment.

Colin Kaepernick remained seated during the national anthem. I didn’t think much of it at the time, figuring he needed as much sitting practice as he could get. The San Francisco 49ers are a mediocre-to-bad team with Blaine Gabbert their mediocre-to-bad quarterback. This left Colin to fight practice team wanderer, Christian Ponder, for the backup’s seat on the bench.
Ponder had a good preseason too.

I figured Kaepernick wouldn’t throw a pass this year and I haven’t changed my mind. However, his protest will be intrinsic to the sports annals of 2016.

We’ve had a hot summer, folks. Philando Castile was killed by police while trying to show his license and registration. Alton Sterling was pinned to the ground and shot for selling CDs. Terence Crutcher was shot while holding his hands in the air.

Protests spread, often turning violent. Five police officers were killed in Dallas.

And the Democratic Party nominated a member of the old guard, whose 1990s party ramped up the War on Drugs. This escalation disproportionately affected blacks who, today, make up 40 percent of the American prison population despite being 13 percent of the general population, according to the U.S. census.

Kaepernick has brought all this summer heat into the football stadium, using his platform to bring attention to a people he feels this country has left behind. For largely the same reasons that Johnny Cash wore black, Colin Kaepernick now sits. Other players have followed suit, raising fists and kneeling.

But football is a conservative institution. Sports generally teach conservative principles from a child’s first youth league. Across the country, kids are brought up from peewee sports to blue collar work or military service.

It is in this spirit that the military has been evoked to condemn players sitting. The flag is very personal to a lot of people who have known or served alongside men and women who died protecting what the American flag represents.

It represents a country founded on the ideals of freedom. Which especially includes the freedom to critique. It is only through free democratic discussion that a country can grow. As anyone who’s played a sport knows, it is only through critique that you improve.

Whether or not you agree with his method, and whether or not you think America is already the greatest country in the world, the fact is America can still be better. The gulf between government and black communities it’s supposed to represent is one more problem that’s going mainstream.

In the hot summer of 2016, it seemed unlikely that Colin Kaepernick as a quarterback would ever be discussed by any sports panel. And then the hot summer went pro. Would Ray Lewis and Shannon Sharpe have discussed life in African-American communities on Fox Sports 1 without Kaepernick’s controversy? Certainly not. But now that discussion has come to America’s conservative institution.

Contact the author at journalsports@wou.edu

Link to attach to “according to the U.S. census” in online publication: http://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/rates.html

A Note from the Editor

By: Stephanie Blair
Editor-in-Chief

As someone who has not only read this publication every week for the last two years, and worked on it for just as long, I can hardly explain the excitement I feel about taking the role of editor-in-chief this year.

As I read over the opening statements of the last three editor-in-chiefs before me, I found myself feeling inadequately prepared to write my own.

Even more daunting is the fact that my mostly new staff and I are coming in at the height of election season, but I trust in our ability to handle the issues facing each student with grace and care.

screen-shot-2016-09-28-at-6-56-59-pmOur staff will strive to produce a paper that balances entertainment and information. The Western Journal aims to provide the truest form of journalism: a clear delivery of the facts without personal or political agenda. Our duty is first and foremost to our readers.

This will be in the forefront of our minds leading up to November, with accusations against ‘The Media’ as a heartless, faceless conglomerate tied to corporations backing specific candidates. The Western Journal is, and will remain, an independent publication. This ensures that we are not obligated to withhold facts in accordance with the desires of a benefactor or, similarly, to produce propaganda.

In the upcoming weeks, there will be opportunities for members of each party to make arguments in our editorial section, but elsewhere we will be delivering the news so that our readers may form their own opinions as well.

When writing about news on campus, our section editors and I will strive to not only to highlight more clubs and organizations in spotlight articles, but also to involve them in our conversations. This, along with the decision to continue “Campus Voices”, is in an effort to publish the voices and opinions of as many students as we can each week.

In the same vein, because this publication is by students for students, it makes sense that the best improvements will be made by our readers. And so, just as I ask our readers to trust us with the responsibility of reporting unbiased information, I ask our readers to write to us, to give us feedback both positive and negative.

For guidelines regarding submissions of letters to the editor, see the masthead on page two.

Contact the author at journaleditor@wou.edu

Vegan

By: Jamal Smith
Sports Editor

Knowing that I was about to embark on one of the most difficult challenges of my life, one week of eating vegan, I decided to head to Fogo de Chao, an all-you-can-eat Brazilian steakhouse in Portland to fill my belly up on a week’s worth of meat.

As I sat at the table devouring mouthfuls of scrumptious prime cuts from beef, chicken, and lamb, I questioned whether I had bit off more than I could chew. Was the next week going to be a complete failure? After a night of drinking, could I avoid Taco Bell, and replace my familiar drunken meal with a vegan burrito or a vegan meatless patty that sat in my freezer?

Deep in thought, I was interrupted by a waiter who came to my table and asked, “Would you like a brandy marinated chicken thigh wrapped in bacon?” Ashamed at my reliance on animal flesh, I nodded in approval, for my mouth was full of prime rib.

To say that I love meat is an understatement. For me, a meal is not complete without some sort of meat. Then there is dairy: ice-cream, butter, milk, yogurt; all important foods in my animal-reliant diet.

By now you may be asking yourself, why then would you put yourself through the torture of eating vegan for a week? The answer is simple: I am appalled at the exploitation of animals for human consumption.

My conundrum started when one of my vegan friends posted a video to her Facebook feed of animals being mistreated in slaughterhouses and it opened up a Pandora’s Box of savagery. After watching other online videos concerning this subject, I felt sick to my stomach. It was then that I decided I would eat vegan for a week.

To prepare for my week of veganism, I stopped by Whole Foods to stock up on vegan delicacies. I plundered various fruits and vegetables, almond milk, meat substitutes, and other items lacking animal byproducts. My normal five minute trip to the grocery store took nearly an hour as I carefully examined the ingredients on the food labels.

The first day of the challenge was by far the most difficult. For breakfast I ate a banana with a bowl of cereal — with of course, almond milk. At lunch I heated up a vegan burrito which was mediocre at best. For dinner, I ate a vegan bagel and a salad medley which I smothered in caesar dressing. It wasn’t until I had half consumed the salad that I realized that the dressing that I liberally poured on the vegetables violated the challenge. I took a mental note of my indiscretion and vowed to be more careful for the remaining six days.

The next three days came and went without any hiccups; however, on the fifth day, in a drunken stupor after a night out celebrating my friend’s birthday, I stopped by Wendy’s. I’m not sure if it was the lack of meat, or if it was from all of the vodka Red Bulls that I had consumed, but their Baconator was to die for. Strike two.

When I awoke the next morning and saw the empty Wendy’s wrappers scattered on my coffee table, I have to admit that I felt a little ashamed. The caesar dressing fiasco was an honest mistake, but indulging in a greasy bacon layered burger was self-sabotage. At that point I could have given up on the challenge, but I already had a few more days left of vegan food, and my momma didn’t raise a quitter, so I decided to continue.

I finished out the challenge strong, and despite the two mess-ups, I would consider my overall results successful. The challenge wasn’t nearly as hard as I had expected; I felt great at the end, and I consumed more fruits and vegetables in a week than I had over the course of the entire year.

My advice for anyone who is thinking about eating vegan is to realize that if you make a mistake, it’s not the end of the world. Just put down the meat and try again.

Contact the author at jsmith15@wou.edu or on Twitter @journalsportWOU

A Final Sendoff

By: Conner Williams
Editorial-in-Chief

What a year it’s been. For you faithful readers who have followed The Journal’s commentary throughout the school year, you know we’ve covered some big topics and made some big changes.

We’ve added in the Humor section, slapped in a weekly crossword, switched to a tabloid-style front page, and given you lots of tasty recipes to get drunk from (you’re welcome).

As we implemented all of these changes, we had one thing in mind: you.

Each decision we’ve made this year has revolved around one question: what can we do to engage and entertain our readers more? We’ve focused on the stories of the characters of Western in our Humans of Western segment, included your opinions in our Campus Voices columns, and given you some brilliantly orchestrated … erm, I mean, predicted, horoscopes to help guide you on your path to astrological righteousness.

I’m quite proud of the progress this newspaper has made; it took countless hours of interviewing, writing, designing, photographing, editing, and cultivating content to bring you a product that we can say we’re proud of, and what I honestly believe has gotten better week in and week out.

And with all of this progress in hindsight, it is with a heavy heart that I write my final column for this publication that has allowed me to express my own opinions and grievances with the world of Western. For those of you that enjoyed my columns, I thank you for your readership, and for those of you that did not, I hope at least that I have made you think about something in a different way or question your own beliefs to some degree.

Because that’s what has always been my goal: to provide validated and credible information that allows the readers to think critically, and to then form their own opinions.

Despite my best efforts, I recognize that I may just be another guy with opinions that hopes to inspire change through written word; a task that is not easily accomplished. I have attempted to sift through the mountains of BS that seep into our everyday news rhetoric, and to create a lens for you to see through said BS.

To quote one of my favorite political analysts/comedians/humanitarians, “The best defense against bullshit is vigilance … So if you smell something, say something.” We miss you Jon Stewart.

So I encourage you, reader, to lift up the gas masks that CNN and Fox News and Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton and all the other professional bullshit dispensers have attempted to slip over your faces.

Question everything. Seek further truth. Do not silently accept a politician’s word as gospel. Follow a page on social media with different views than your own. Do your best to learn something new every day, and challenge others to do the same.

Things will be changing throughout our society soon, and as one that will be graduating in a few weeks, I must admit I’m a bit intimidated. It’s a big, bad world out there, and sometimes running home to mom’s house for a hot meal and a visit with the cat seems like the best thing to do.

But feigning ignorance and submitting to the fear of the possibility of failure will get us nowhere. An important lesson to remember is that we should not be afraid to fail, but even more important is that we should also not be afraid to succeed.

To quote one of my favorite films, “Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring”, “Even the smallest person can change the course of the future.” So get out there and make it happen. Whatever it is that you decide to do, give it your all. Do what makes you happy, and do it for the rest of your life.

As we prepare for commencement, I wish you all the best of luck in your endeavors and hope you may look back on your time at Western with a sense of fondness and pride.

Go Wolves!

Contact the author at cwilliams14@wou.edu or on Twitter @journalEIC

Third party’s the charm

By: Ben Bergerson
Designer

Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump are not the only options for president this year.

Though you may not know it from how the media represents the race, parties other than the Democrats and Republicans (known as third parties) exist in this country and in the past have had an impact on elections. This year, people with no political party affiliation will represent the biggest voting block at 42 percent of all voters. Democrats represent 29 percent and Republicans represent 26 percent.

These are near historical lows for party affiliation, and the mainstream media has said relatively little about how that affects our party system. With both of the leading candidates for president having extremely low favorability ratings, many people are turning to see what other options are out there.

There are three third parties in the US that have large enough voter registration to get on state ballots. You can check them out below, and see if any fit your political beliefs:

  1. Constitution Party
    If your problem with Donald Trump is that he isn’t conservative enough, look no further than Darrell Castle, the candidate from the CoScreen Shot 2016-05-23 at 7.50.42 PMnstitution Party. Castle is a lawyer and ex-Marine who advocates for the US to withdraw from the UN and NATO. He wants to end the Federal Reserve and is against abortions.

 

 

 

2. Libertarian Party

Though they haven’t selected their nominee, the Libertarians look likely to choose former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson again, havingScreen Shot 2016-05-23 at 7.50.29 PM nominated him in 2012 as well. Johnson is pushing for a balanced national budget, the decriminalization of marijuana, and lowering taxes. As a Libertarian he is conservative on fiscal matters, and more liberal on social matters.

 

3. Green Party

The Greens have also yet to choose their nominee, but their 2012 nominee, Jill Stein, looks Screen Shot 2016-05-23 at 7.50.15 PMlike their probable choice. She made history in the last presidential elections for receiving more votes than any other woman in U.S. history. The Greens’ campaigns focus on environmentalism, participatory democracy, nuclear disarmament, and social justice.

One last note on third parties: Many people have pointed to the 2000 election as an example of the “spoiler effect.” They argue that the Green Party candidate, Ralph Nader, stole votes away from the Democrats, thus “spoiling” the election for Al Gore and handing the presidency to George W. Bush. While this spoiler effect can be a concern for battleground states where a few votes make a big difference, here in Oregon voters have reliably voted Democrat for a few generations. Because of that, Oregonians have the ability to vote for the candidate they align with the most, rather than voting tactically against someone they don’t want. It’s something to remember as we go into what seems will be an extremely bitter political season.

How about we teach people not to rape?

By: Zoe Strickland
Staff Writer

Recently, a lot of my classes have started talking about rape culture. Being a gender studies minor, this isn’t anything new. My classes have specifically been talking about how, when dealing with rape culture, we often teach people how to not get raped instead of teaching other people to just not rape. Buckle up and prepare to listen, because this stuff is serious.

Not trying to solve the problem at the root sounds crazy and completely unreasonable, right? I think so.

Why is it that we teach children to always walk in groups, instead of teaching them about what consent is? Why do we tell girls in college to walk with their keys carefully positioned in between their fingers, instead of teaching people in college that you can’t actually consent to something if you’re under the influence of any drugs or alcohol? Why is it that even after doing all of these studies showing that sex education is important to preventing sexual assault, schools across the country still push abstinence-only education? It’s absurd.

I’ve taken multiple classes on the Western campus wherein rape culture is discussed. I’ve sat through throngs of students in various sexuality and gender classes wherein we’ve talked about how society has uniformly taught women to be afraid of getting raped and has taught men that they should be feared for potentially having the power to rape. In these classes, it goes without saying that every student found the “teach women how not to get raped” method upsetting. So, if so many people find this upsetting, why haven’t we made more strides in fixing it?

A fundamental component of this discussion is believing victims/survivors of sexual assault. I swear, if I have to sit through one more person mentioning how “sometimes people make it up,” I’m going to scream. Look at the statistics: only two to eight percent of reported sexual assaults are ruled out as being false reports. Why are we still doubting the believability of something if 98 percent of reports are true? Why aren’t we seeing how we can help people get through the traumatic event that they’ve just experienced?

These things are serious. Instead of people being afraid to walk around alone because something might happen to them, we need to start teaching personal boundaries and the meaning of consent at a young age. Young people aren’t too young to grasp the basic concept of human decency.

Contact the author at zstrickland14@wou.edu or on Twitter @nwpmagazine.

Go and love yourself

By: Conner Williams
Editor-in-Chief

As part of Body Image Awareness Week, the Student Health and Counseling Center partnered with the Health and Wellness Center to help promote self-love and to dispel negative connotations towards one’s body image.

Placed around the HWC were different demonstrations that provided motivational phrases, statistics, and an exhibition in the aerobics room that encouraged individuals to “take a break from the mirror and be good to yourself and your body, regardless of appearance” by covering all of the mirrors in sheets.

As someone that has always struggled with my body image, I found the messages around the HWC to be quite compelling; of course people should be encouraged to feel good about themselves regardless of some arbitrary standard of beauty.

Messages were pasted on the mirrors of the HWC, including ones like “It’s not about what size you wear; it’s about how you wear your size!” and “approximately 7 million girls and women struggle with eating disorders.”

But while this spectacle was well-intended, I personally feel that it had the opposite effect on me.

It seems to me that rather than promoting self-love, this campaign has, in fact, attacked or stigmatized those very people that frequent the building in which the messages are placed. I know I don’t exercise and eat well to try and look beautiful in the eyes of others, and I bet a large majority of the people that exercise at HWC feel the same way.

We do it for us, not for you. People ask me all the time why I want to look a certain way. “Don’t you think that’s too much?” “Ew, that’s gross! Way too much muscle.”

Guess what? I don’t care what you think. I do it for me.

One message reads “Weight does not dictate your health or your worth.” Well, part of that is true. Sure, being overweight doesn’t necessarily mean an individual is unhealthy, but condoning unhealthy lifestyle choices doesn’t seem to be the greatest message to be sending. Another message says “By choosing healthy over skinny, you are choosing self-love over self-judgement.” So, I guess the fact that I actually enjoy eating well and exercising must mean that I don’t love myself, according to that statement. Makes sense.

This is what gets to me about these sorts of campaigns: they attempt to make some people feel better about themselves while simultaneously belittling others simply because they’ve chosen to live healthy lives.

You’re not a bad person, or an ugly person, or an unworthy person just because you don’t fit somebody else’s standard of beauty. Do what you want to do. But at the same time, don’t tell me that my decision to be healthy somehow makes you feel badly about yourself.

I get that the message is to encourage people to feel good about themselves, but I suppose my own message is that it’s also okay to NOT feel good about yourself. If you don’t like the way you look, and you want to do something about it, then more power to you! Stop assuming that just because someone wants to better themselves that they are doing it for someone else. Chances are they’re not, and if they are, they should reevaluate their goals and priorities and realize that the only person that can truly make you happy and feel whole is you.

If you take one thing away from this column, let it be this: mind your own business and don’t tell other people how they should look.

Contact the author at journaleditor@wou.edu or on Twitter @journalEIC

The price of pink

By: Stephanie Blair
Copy Editor

Every time I walk down the toiletries aisle of a store I am bombarded with products that proclaim “FOR MEN” or “Women’s ______.” It took me longer than I care to admit to realize that one costs more than the other.Screen Shot 2016-05-09 at 5.26.27 PM

So, I went searching for prices to demonstrate this inequality. What I found wasn’t super surprising to me: women’s products cost more. Often a non-gendered product was the cheapest, though some would argue that some scents are inherently male or female.

Basically, if y’all don’t want to smell like a particular gender, decide first if it’s worth the extra money. This is college: we’re all poor and no one cares if you smell like “cocoa butter kisses” or “thunderstrike flashfire.”

Products:

Winco generic brand, Laxatives. (Everyone poops, get over it.) I checked, there’s no difference in ingredients!
Non-gendered: $1.94 for 25 (7.8 cents per pill)
Women’s: $3.60 for 30 (12.0 cents per pill)

Speed Stick, Deodorant.
Men’s/default gender: $1.98 ($0.66 per ounce)
“Lady Speed Stick:” $2.15 ($0.91 per ounce)

Bic Pens (on Amazon), blue ink, retractable ballpoint
Ungendered: $7.67 for 12
“BIC for her:” $7.49 for 2

Gilette, Shaving cream.
Standard/Ungendered: $2.69
“Venus”/Women’s: $3.24Screen Shot 2016-05-09 at 5.26.27 PM

What fourth estate?

By: Alvin Wilson
Staff Writer

Thanks largely to the actions of politicians, press freedom is an issue that countries around the world currently face.

In countries such as China and North Korea, both at the bottom of the Reporters Without Borders’ World Press Freedom Index (WPFI), practicing journalism means repeating what the government wants the press to say.

The WPFI ranks countries based on how free their press is, taking into account anything from journalist killings and kidnappings to laws that prohibit criticizing the government.

America is regarded as a free nation—one in which journalists are treated well and allowed to practice their profession freely. This has been historically true and, to an extent, it still is. But since 2010, the U.S. has dropped from number 20 on the WPFI to number 41. That puts us just behind South Africa and just ahead of Botswana.

Press restrictions are real in America, and they creep up nearly undetected. The way journalists are treated by their country’s politicians can shed light on their country’s press freedoms.

For example, in American political campaigns it is normal for journalists to be confined to a “press corner,” where they are secluded from the candidate and the audience. It’s also not unheard of for journalists covering protests, such as the ones in Ferguson, to be arrested.

Our most renowned politicians, by being complacent with these practices, are facilitating the creation of more press restrictions.

Hillary Clinton received backlash early in her campaign when she roped off reporters during an Independence Day parade. She came under fire again last month when CBS reporter Stan Bush claimed she was using a white noise machine to prevent reporters from hearing her from outside a fundraising event.

Donald Trump has been especially insulting to the press. Here’s a list of some news outlets he has attacked and what he said about them, according to the New York Times:

The Associated Press: “… reporting is terrible and highly inaccurate.” “… always looking for a hit to bring them back to relevancy—ain’t working.” “… has one of the worst reporters in the business.”
Politico: “… considered by many in the world of politics to be the dumbest and most slanted of the political sites.” “… if they were legit, they would be doing far better.”

Univision: “… too much debt and not enough viewers.” “… controlled by the Mexican government?”

You get the point.

When politicians marginalize, demonize, and try to delegitimize journalists who are just doing their jobs, it makes it easier for them to justify restricting press freedoms. When politicians invent new ways to hide things from the press, they’re opening the door for others to do the same.

With political leaders such as ours, where will America’s press freedom rank eight years from now?

Bills, Bills, Bills

By: Brianna Bonham
Photo Editor

After years of debate, a grassroots campaign that advocated for a woman to be added to currency, and a Broadway musical that changed their mind, the United States Treasury Department revealed that Harriet Tubman will soon be featured on the $20 bill to commemorate the upcoming anniversary of the 19th amendment.

For quite a while the Treasury was planning on removing Alexander Hamilton, a Founding Father and creator of the National Bank, from the $10 bill and replacing him with a woman. Shortly after the revolutionary musical Hamilton opened its doors on Broadway, fans were outraged and the Treasury quickly changed their minds (Good call, Treasury).

On April 20, the Treasury announced that instead of removing Hamilton from the $10, they will be replacing Andrew Jackson with Tubman. Not removing, replacing. Yes folks, Harriet Tubman, a lifelong abolitionist will be sharing the bill with Andrew Jackson, a man who was believed to own over 300 slaves in his lifetime.

Do they not see anything wrong with this?

I want to take a moment to celebrate the fact that there is finally a woman being represented on our nation’s currency. The new bills will be put into circulation starting in 2020, the 100th anniversary of the 19th amendment, which gave women the right to vote.

Though Tubman’s history with women’s rights is not huge as she was more of a strong supporter, than she was an activist, she was invited as a guest speaker at the first meeting of the National Association of Colored Women in 1896, and toured New York, Boston, and Washington in support of women’s rights. These initiatives are the reason the bill is coming out on the anniversary of the 19th amendment.

Tubman is more widely known for her involvement with the Underground Railroad, a system of trails and safe houses that brought slaves from the south to free north states and Canada. She returned to the South 19 times to bring over 300 slaves to safety.

Obviously, Tubman is beyond deserving of her upcoming spot on the $20 and it is great to finally see representation from a black woman in our set of whitewashed greenbacks.

Now, don’t get me wrong, the men on our currency have done great things, great enough to get their faces in almost every U.S. citizen’s pockets. They helped form our country after all, even if they weren’t so kind in their social lives. What I’m questioning is the fact that the Treasury wants to put a former slave owner on the same bill as a former slave.

The first thing that comes to my mind is that it’s extremely disrespectful and unnecessary. Jackson has been on the bill for 88 years, and now that people are pushing to make change (such as the grassroots campaign, Women On 20s) others simply cannot let go.

I was sitting in class, waiting for my professor to arrive when I overheard a guy saying that he would be trading in all of his $20s for other bills once Tubman replaced Jackson. He said it was “disrespectful to take off a great President.”

Again, I recognize that Jackson played a great part in forming our country, but keeping him on the bill defeats the purpose of putting Tubman on the bill. She is being put on the bill in recognition of all of the work she did as a liberator and activist, and to keep a man who condoned slavery and everything she was against detracts from the significance of adding her.
It shows to me a lack of respect for Tubman and the work that she did to save slaves throughout her life, and seems almost mocking to leave Jackson to be lurking on the back of the $20.
While serving as President, Jackson showed a strong mistrust for the National Bank, and strongly opposed the use of paper currency. In 1836, he issued a Specie Circular that required land to be purchased with hard money (precious metal) as opposed to soft money (paper).
If he hated paper money so much, why do people want to keep him on it so bad? It seems to me that he wouldn’t want his face imprinted on these bills.
As a woman it is frustrating for me to think of holding one of the new $20s for the first time, reveling in the fact that there is now someone representing the rest of the women in the U.S. on something so widely available as our currency, only to flip it over and have that flame doused by Jackson. Taunting me with his bushy brows, he almost seems to say, “and you ladies almost thought you won.”
Representation is so important and featuring Tubman on the bill goes beyond representing the U.S. women; Tubman represents the black citizens of the U.S.According to the U.S. Census of 2014, there are an estimated 40,379,066 black citizens, an estimated 52.3% of those being women.
With movements such as Black Lives Matter becoming more and more prevalent and gaining publicity in recent years, I believe that Harriet Tubman would be a great opportunity to represent these women, and show change and diversity in our nation.
Tubman fought for equality in our country and adding her to our nation’s currency would bring us one step closer. We should leave Jackson in the 19th century, and celebrate Tubman as the strong, independent leader that she was.