Mount Hood

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.

Feels bad man

By: Conner Williams
Editor-in-Chief

There’s a couple things that have caused me to become extra irritated lately (that’s my PC way of saying they piss me off).

There are few things that professors do to piss me off more than those that can’t be bothered to send the class an email that class is cancelled.

No, I assure you, I just love walking the mile from my apartment in the rain to see a stupid note on the door that class in cancelled. Thanks so much. Feel free to take three minutes to send an email notification to your students.

I can’t imagine how outraged I’d be if I commuted from out of town, like a large majority of the students at this school do. Have some common courtesy; you aren’t the only one whose time is valuable.

Next up: motorists. I’m not sure if people haven’t grasped the fact that Monmouth is a college town or not, but newsflash, there’s a university right smack in the middle of town. And that means there are pedestrians everywhere, all the time, at all hours of the day.

I was almost hit the other day because a driver was doing at least 35 in a 20 mph zone. Since many people commute to town for class, cars are often parked along the sides of the roads and make it difficult for pedestrians to see down the road for oncoming traffic barreling down the road.

I really don’t feel like dying, and I’m sure you don’t feel like having a manslaughter conviction on your record, so do everyone a favor and go the damn speed limit, and slow down at intersections.

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

No More Savages: Modern Ideals vs. Archaic Worldviews in Art

By: Declan Hertel
Entertainment Editor

With a new (pretty dope) film adaptation of Rudyard Kipling’s “The Jungle Book” in theatres, it is time once again to face some difficult questions, presented by our rapidly changing world.

The problem is this: people have been making art since time immemorial. People have been imbuing that art with their personal worldviews for just as long. Some of those worldviews, while acceptable in their time, are … well, some are examples oScreen Shot 2016-04-25 at 6.49.33 PMf an outdated zeitgeist: relics of their time. Some are especially disgusting by modern standards, and others still were extreme even for their time. But a lot of the art that contains such reprehensible views is really great.

From my own experience: one of my favorite authors is H.P. Lovecraft, whom Stephen King called “the Twentieth Century’s greatest practitioner of the classic horror tale.” I totally agree: his tales of the unfathomable monstrosities that lie just outside of our comprehension bring me running back time and time again.

He was also really, really racist. Lovecraft was anti-immigration, highly xenophobic, and viewed Anglo-Saxon whites as superior (there are some interesting nuances to his racism if one wants to read up on him, like he was actively positive about Jews and Hispanics, but really didn’t like African-Americans or Irish Catholics). “The Shadow Over Innsmouth,” my favorite story of his, has some pretty obvious subtext about the dangers of interracial breeding.

We run into similar problems with Kipling. While I love a lot of his work, it is undeniably steeped in late-19th Century imperialistic attitudes. While Kipling’s relationship with imperialism and Britain is a more complex one than most folks realize (yeah, we all read “The White Man’s Burden” in high school, good job), he did view darker-complexioned folks as generally inferior, and was absolutely for imperialism. But, it remains, he was great. He was massively influential, and I believe that his works still hold up artistically today.

So, what do we do about this stuff? How do we reconcile great art with the not-so-great attitudes beneath it? And if we want to adapt this stuff for a modern audience, how do we address it?

One of the best handlings of this I’ve ever seen came from Warner Bros. releasing a collection of “Tom and Jerry” classics, which features Tom’s owner, Mammy Two Shoes, alongside other Jim Crow caricatures of black people. WB included a disclaimer that said, basically, these depictions were/are/will continue to be wrong, but censorship would be the same as pretending that those prejudices never existed.

But what about new adaptations of these works? Do we ignore the themes? Do we run disclaimers? Do we just not adapt these works anymore?

I don’t know what the answer is. Personally, I’m for a responsibly laissez-faire attitude about it, but a more measured approach could be argued very reasonably. All we can do at this point is discuss and share our thoughts. It begins with accepting that sometimes great art doesn’t impart good ideas, but from there? I don’t know. I’d love to hear your thoughts.

Contact the author at journalentertainment@wou.edu or on Twitter @journalfuntimes

The un-Democratic party

By: Alvin Wilson
Staff Writer

What if I told you your favorite presidential candidate could lose in Oregon’s primary, even if they win by a large margin?

It’s entirely possible, at least in the Democratic primary elections, for a candidate to lose the delegate count while winning the popular vote. This undemocratic phenomenon has happened before, and it will continue to happen so long as the Democratic party continues its use of superdelegates.

In Wyoming, a state that has only 14 pledged delegates, Bernie Sanders won by 12 percentage points. Since the state had such little delegates to divide, Sanders and Clinton split them evenly. Despite this, Sanders lost the state because of Clinton’s support from its superdelegates.

This isn’t a rant about Sanders’ losses, but it is a rant about the Democratic party taking power away from voters.

28 percent of Wyoming’s delegates are superdelegates, meaning 28 percent of the state’s voice is taken from the people and given to party officials.

In Oregon, 13 of the 74 total delegates are superdelegates. In 2008, Barack Obama beat Hillary Clinton in Oregon and received 31 delegates to her 21. But if all of Oregon’s superdelegates had supported Clinton instead of Obama, she would have won the delegate count despite losing the popular vote by 18 percent.

The American people are deeply disenfranchised from the current political system, and it doesn’t take much digging to figure out why. At every turn, party officials can change the rules of the game to suit their agendas, and use their power to crush any candidate that goes against the grain.
On Feb. 11, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, chair of the Democratic National Committee, admitted to CNN’s Jake Tapper that superdelegates were designed to keep grassroots organizers from winning primaries.

With systems such as the electoral college and superdelegates, it seems as though America’s political parties are trying to silence as many voters as possible—and it’s working.

For a party that gets its name from the word democracy, the Democratic party uses one of the most undemocratic processes possible to nominate its candidate for president.