4A the university daily kansan
opinion
thursday,september25,2003
talk to us
Michelle Burhenn
editor
864-4854 or mburhenn@kansan.com
Lindsay Hanson and Leah Shaffer
managing editors
864-4854 or lhanson@kansan.com and
lshaffer@kansan.com
Louise Stauffer and Stephen Shupe
opinion editors
864-4924 or opinion@kansan.com
Amber Agee
business manager
864-4358 or addirector@kansan.com
Taylor Thode
retail sales manager
864-4368 or adsales.kansan.com
Malcolm Gibson
general manager and news adviser
884.7667 or mgibson@kanan.com
Matt Fisher
sales and marketing adviser
864-7686 or mfisher@kanan.com
editorial board
Blood drive amendment confusing
Sometimes, Student Senate confuses the hell out of its constituents. This was demonstrated in this month's blood drive maneuvering.
It is understandable that one would be confused regarding recent Student Senate amendments. The amendment in question, which was defeated earlier this month, would have provided $450 for advertising in The University Daily Kansan to "expose" the discriminatory blood safety policies of the FDA. At the heart of the issue are FDA regulations that bar men who have had sex with men since 1977 from donating blood.
The amendment, but not the bill, failed in Senate earlier last week. One is left to believe the modest goal of the amendment is no more ambitious than its timid language: To inform students about the FDA's policy. What people would do with that information is difficult to determine beyond pure speculation.
The amendment has since been picked up by the Student Legislative Awareness Board, although its passage is not tied to the funding bill as it was before.
Members of Queers and Allies described their feelings in the Kansan as, "disappointed that Senate would pass a bill she thought was fundamentally discriminatory, with or without the amendment." The opposition, where a local figurehead was less readily available, would presumably maintain the status quo: where gay donors are turned away. Those positions seem reasonable enough, and the debate is repeated in some fashion every year in a hundred student governments across the country.
What is baffling is the in-between position introduced by the amendment. The amendment stops short of calling the FDA policy discriminatory, even though it is hard to envision the writers believe otherwise. But what reaction were the amendment supporters looking for? Perhaps it was to petition the FDA or to gather mass support for such a petition. More honestly, one might assume it was a suggestion to boycott the drive altogether. The truth probably falls somewhere in between, but the lack of consensus complicates an already tenuous issue.
This in mind, the amendment's failure to be attached to the bill and its subsequent revival by StudEx seems at least comprehensible. Practically speaking, the amendment's potency is questionable. It would have relied on volunteers who cared enough to donate but were swayed by a policy they were previously unaware of. This is a rare volunteer to be sure. In fact, the polarity of the political spectrum on campus suggests as much support from the conservative backlash as from the amendment's targets.
The only certainty behind the amendment's maneuvering is the extent of the politics that surround FDA blood policy. The vast majority of those who support the FDA policy express their decision exclusively in terms of scientific safety. This suggests a flexibility and openness on the issue that is sickeningly absent in large segments of the gay rights debate. Yet the opportunity for a wider question regarding the FDA's policy seems as lost a hope as the intentions behind the amendment.
Greg Holgaard for the editorial board.
stinson
perspective
Hip-hop's message crosses boundaries
Editors note: Plummer is on a study abroad program in San Jose, Costa Rica.
Zach Stinson for The University Daily Kansar
Through the union of satellites, transnational media conglomerates and the ubiquitous television, I was reminded of the artist 50 Cent's opinion of wannabe gangsters.
I went to Tortuguero, a Caribbean coastal town in Costa Rica. I had to take two buses and a boat to go to this place because there are no direct roads to the tiny town. Despite the apparent remoteness of my destination, I was still able to sit in a restaurant and see 50 Cent's Wanksta video on TV.
It reminded me of the world reach of hin-hop.
Before I had heard hip-hop while outside of North America, the idea always seemed abstract. I knew groups like The Roots went on world tours, and I knew that MTV was worldwide. But what does it mean?
What it means is that I can go to a club in San Jose, Costa Rica, and hear the same songs he heard at a house party last spring in Lawrence. It means my host sister plays Ludacris and Busta Rhymes in our living room. It means the parts of the soundtrack of my life are also blaring out of speakers all over the world.
But what happens when you take a cultural art form out of its context? Does it carry the same meaning? Will the audience understand it? Hip-hop and rap have become world music, like reggae and rock before them. As world music, it spawns fans, imitators and innovators outside its
COMMENTARY
Alexzia Plummer opinion@hansan.com
place of origin.
There's the question of authenticity. Just because people listen to it, do they understand it, especially if it's another language? But I don't have the same life experiences of a lot of hip-hop artists and I still enjoy the music.
How do you distinguish true appreciation and understanding from fascination and imitation? It seemed like pure imitation as I stood at the entrance of a hip-hop party in San Jose a couple weeks ago. It was as if all the Costa Rican attendees had studied rap videos and dressed accordingly. It was almost like a uniform: do-rags, bandanas, baseball hats and oversized sports jerseys. They all had an idea of what hip-hop should look like and did their best to fit the image.
Along with the appreciation of world music is the danger of reducing an artist or art form to its most shallow meaning. Bob Marley is an example. Some people reduce his message, his music and his life to a justification to smoke weed.
Likewise, there's a danger in viewing hip-hop and rap based only on some of
their elements. What types of hip-hop cross over shores and borders? Does "conscious rap" with social meaning get as much exposure as party anthems urging listeners to "shake it"?
Although listeners may not understand the words, they can receive a visual message through the music video. Music videos are really no more than commercials, selling the audience on the artist's music, but more importantly, the artist's fantasy lifestyle.
What kind of messages would a non- English speaking viewer get from 50 Cent's "P.I.M.P.",a video that glorifies the pimp lifestyle?
Without being able to see the real life that inspires the videos, it's almost like watching the video in a vacuum, detached from its social significance. Also missing is the criticism of the video, like the current debate over certain artists' videos showing women only as sexual objects.
It seems laughable that anyone would really take music videos at face value. But then I think about myself watching Sean Paul videos for indications on how to dance to reggae music. For a moment I am the foreign viewer, taking the video as a reality.
What does it means that hip-hop is appreciated around the world? Is it just another facet of Americanization or a truly world music? Does it promote stereotypes or understanding? I don't know, but until I figure it out, "You can find me in the club."
Plummer is a Bellevue, Neb., senior in journalism.
Free for All
Call 864-0500
Free for All callers have 20 seconds to speak about any topic they wish. Kansan editors reserve the right to omit comments. Slanderous and obscene statements will not be printed. Phone numbers of all incoming calls are recorded.
For more comments, go to www.kansan.com All right, geology boy. When and where?
perspective
Is anyone else's crossword puzzle missing from their paper? My whole day is ruined.
图
How do you get an MU graduate off of your porch? You pay them for the pizza.
perspective
--perspective
Bacon is the candy of meat.
I am a poor student that just enjoyed macaroni and cheese with tabasco rolled up in a tortilla. Who do I blame? Republicans.
perspective
I may be naked and reeking of panda love right now, but I still have my dignity.
Gender wage gap from choices, not discrimination
As much as feminists love to reiterate the statistic that women earn only 76 cents on the male dollar, they are too biased and lazy to provide an explanation for this misleading claim. So I thought I'd help them out.
Equal pay for equal work has been the law of the land since the 1963 Equal Pay Act was enacted. Title IX also bans sex-based wage discrimination. So, it seems pretty remarkable that the wage gap is so wide and pervasive even today. Attorneys should be all over this grave injustice, having a field day with class action lawsuits. But they are not. Could it be that even the legal establishment is implicit in this glaringly obvious patriarchal conspiracy?
The 76-cent statistic compares all women to all men. Thus, the male orthopedic surgeon is tossed in with the female secretary who works only part-time because she is taking care of young children or an ailing parent. When males and females in the same occupation, with similar qualifications and experience, are compared, there is virtually no difference. Economist June O'Neill, former director of the Congressional Budget Office, conducted a definitive study on the wage gap. She found that women earn 98 percent of what men do when controlled for experience, education and number of years on the job.
COMMENTARY
Arrah Nielsen opinion@kansan.com
One of the main reasons women earn less than men is their tendency to take on a greater share of the domestic load. More women than men tend to adjust their work schedules to accommodate their families. In poll after poll, they express willingness and a preference to do so.
"Well, why can't men and women share domestic responsibilities 50-50 so women will be just as free and unencumbered as men are?" the conventional argument goes. Such an arrangement, while possible, is highly unrealistic, as it would require both husband and wife to work part-time. Most two-career married couples find that one career has to give when kids come along, and it is usually the mother's.
Additionally, women tend to enter professions such as elementary education and secretarial work, which have
This is where the whole comparableworth argument comes in. The government should somehow come up with a pay scale based on what people are really worth, and then, of course, dictate what employers pay their employees. What employees are paid comes down to what employers are willing to pay them. Women are not compelled to take any particular job but are free to be plumbers, construction workers and long-distance truck drivers. It is not the patriarchs' nor employers' fault that feminists do not like the outcomes of a free market.
low starting pay and little opportunity for advancement. But doesn't it seem biased that female-dominated professions such as nursing may actually receive lower wages than male-dominated occupations such as construction or plumbing? This is despite the fact that nursing requires more education and arguably entails more responsibility.
On the whole, women, even professionals who are presumably more talented and ambitious than the average Jane, are less committed to their careers and less willing to make sacrifices for them. Surveys of female college graduates reveal that 10 years after graduation, 20 percent do not work at all, having
opted out of the work force in favor of being stay-at-home moms. Women as a group lack the obsessive dedication and go-getter qualities it takes to reach the highest echelons of corporate America. Additionally, most women aren't even interested in becoming corporate CEOs. A Korn/Ferry study showed that only 14 percent of women, compared to 46 percent of men, actually want to be a CEO.
In order for women to reach absolute parity with men, they would have to work full-time all the time. That this is a form of equality many women don't even want does not seem to matter to feminists pushing the notion that women are shortchanged in our society. As Henry argues, they have confused equality of opportunity for equality of outcomes.
Feminists have ignored how women's lives differ from men's. In doing so they have overlooked the fact that it is women's life choices, not sex discrimination, that is responsible for the infamous wage gap. The wage gap is unlikely to ever disappear completely nor is human nature or the facts of biology.
Nielson is an Andover senior in anthropology.
A
7