Stop Telling Me To Vote

You can't move an inch today without bumping into a fucking polling station or someone who will direct you towards one. Indeed, the politically minded have taken it upon themselves to spur the masses into doing their "civic duty" by voting for the next round of assholes. In the past two weeks I have been shouted at incessantly on campus, had unwelcome vote-wranglers knocking on my apartment door, and endured that stupid fucking video of Lil John et al rapping/turning-down about voting. 

MAKE IT STOP.

Look, I get it. Voting is a big deal for those of you that find public policy interesting. But for the rest of us who find the whole process sordid from the get go, it really doesn't sound all that appealing. I don't mean to say that voting is unimportant. On the contrary, I think that if everyone actually took the time to consider each candidate seriously and voted based on policy and history, we might just be a better country. But therein lies the rub. American voters, for the most part it would seem, are neither educated nor patient enough to take the time to make themselves so.

This isn't exactly surprising information about a country full of people that collectively cream their pants every time the McRib shows back up on the menu. We are a nation of very little attention span. We like shiny badges that we can wear to show off to our friends. Hence the ever-obnoxious "I Voted!" sticker that proves to your peers that you can, indeed, push buttons effectively. (Or whatever people do to vote now. I haven't voted since the presidential election.) And that's the whole issue with the "VOTE RIGHT FUCKING NOW" institution. It stresses action over preparation. Rather than advocate for an informed decision, it force feeds the idea that you just need to get your ass in there and do something.

And let's not claim hyperbole here. There is a very well-funded, and growingly sinister, campaign. Just this morning, I was assaulted by this little message on my Facebook. I imagine you encountered the same.

Should you click the blue box, it takes you to a screen that shows you your nearest polling station. "More Information," however, leads you to a page with a litany of supporting organizations that looks like the guest list for the popular kids table at Silicon Valley. 

And speaking of popular kids, the obnoxious aforementioned video with Lil John is the product of an organization called "Rock the Vote." A massive non-profit that has been around since 1990, Rock the Vote (RTV) has been "fusing pop culture, politics, and technology" for decades in an attempt to make voting sound just as appealing as buying a new iPhone or downloading a new Taylor Swift album. The idea is to make voting cool again for a millenial generation that dislikes doing anything that involves reading. And while I think the idea of getting kids off their asses is a great idea, I don't necessarily think dangling shiny objects and celebrity endorsements in front of their faces is the most efficient way of going about it. Sure, it gets the job done, but so would telling your kids that they get $100 for every day they get out of bed to go to school. 

Incentives are nice, but when they take the place of the actual important issues, it sort of discounts the message. We shouldn't be voting because it's cool; we should be voting because it's important. Furthermore, you shouldn't just be voting. You should also be educating yourselves on the stances that each candidate takes, his/her history, and which direction you think he/she will take our state/country in. It's not easy and it's not pretty. It's actually quite boring and grey. But if you actually want to make a difference and actually want to get shit done, I suggest you start getting used to looking past the pretty bow on top of the package. It's what's inside the box that's important, anyways. 

White Man Tries (and Fails) to Comprehend Feminism

vs.

Modern society is littered with ambiguity. Indeed, you can't go anywhere these days without stepping in a gooey pile of ambivalence, causing you to question your morals at every turn. The culprit? A litany of social issues that prove time and time again that you are never right and that you're probably an asshole. The mature thing to do is to just accept that you've been wrong about a lot that you once assumed was right.

Enter Dewey Mullis, opinion writer for The Appalachian.

Mullis is just your average dude trying to wrap his head around this whole "feminism" thing. In a recent article that he wrote for the paper, Mullis spends several paragraphs scratching his head and trying to understand what feminism is. In a quest akin to Nicholas Cage's search for national treasure, Mullis pulls out all the stops to get to the bottom of our species' greatest mystery: women.

During his travels, Mullis stumbles across a dictionary, some people that also read the dictionary, and vague voices in his head that tell him that "men are pigs." The possibility of George Orwell's ghost aside, it would appear that Mullis is basing a large portion of his.....argument (?) on the ramblings of a minority. But we'll get to that later.

Our brave hero starts his journey with a disclaimer. 

Before the discussion gets foggy, let me clear the air. Women in the workplace deserve to make the same amount as their male counterparts. No one asks to get raped by wearing certain clothes or making certain decisions. Women should have control over their bodies – reproductive parts and processes included.

Well, that seems entirely reasonab-

What I don’t completely comprehend is feminism.

I....but you just....

There are definitions that differ between dictionaries, societies, political ideology and the spectrum of demographic categories. Reactions from onlookers, supporters and opposition are equally as varying.

I think this is where I tend to fall off of the feminism bandwagon. I can’t define it – for myself or for anyone.

Wait wait wait wait wait wait.....wait. So what you're saying is (and correct me if I'm wrong), unless *you* can define something for yourself, you can't ascribe to the ideology? And the reason you find yourself unable to define the movement is because there's just too many definitions? I can't help but notice that you are a criminal justice major. Law is going to be very difficult for you.

Look, literally anything is going to be varied from person to person. I could ask a hundred people what they think of hot dogs and get a hundred different responses. Variation in responses doesn't mean that I can't still enjoy hot dogs, however.

Then, the kicker. It is to build women up to the same playing field as men – the one they strive for and deserve. But then I hear, “men are scum,” or, “I hate men. They’re pigs.”

What? Equality just went out the window. 

 Yes, the one made-up feminist you heard about that one time spitting on a guy that opened the door for her is the spokesperson for the entire movement. Using these feminist boogeymen as a justification for hesitance in accepting the movement is a lot like freaking out over Muslims and blaming Al Qaeda. Fringe groups exist within any ideologically-driven effort, but assigning blame to the entire cause because of this is horribly ignorant.

Mullis spends the rest of his article bemoaning the lack of representation of men in the feminist movement and generally just missing the point entirely.

Men are parents and stay-at-home dads. We have fears and anxieties. Some things embarrass us and social expectations bar us from being upfront and totally honest. We have to man up. Rape culture among men is a hush-hush and men are gay, too. Men and women are not that far apart.

Somehow, feminism is to blame for our lack of acknowledgement of these things. I mean, male rape? If only an incredibly prominent feminist blog had addressed an issue like this! It would make this entire argument null and void. I mean, hell, what are the odds of that?

Oh.

Mullis, for all your musings about the movement, it doesn't seem like you've actually given it much thought beyond stereotypes you heard being spouted on the internet. People aren't feminists because they want to usurp men and replace all phallic shaped buildings with vagina altars. We're feminists because, as you mentioned, women in the workplace deserve as much as their male counterparts. Women have a right to control over their bodies. What a woman wears is not indicative of her willingness to have sex.

The reason there's no "movement for the sexes" is because men have nowhere to move. We're already at the top. I imagine you're also the kind of person that complains about there being no White History Month?

No one is saying that men have it perfectly and that there are literally no problems associated with possessing male genitalia. We're just saying that maybe it's worth treating the chick with the flu before you treat the guy with the cold.

I am all for freedom to express your opinion. It is, after all, my purview. That being said, I would expect a little more from a newspaper run by young, intelligent college students. The article is littered with logical fallacies and a general lack of evidence to support his claim. But I get that it's an opinion piece and not reflective of the paper's views. After all, I imagine this is a minority opinion among our progressive student body. But don't take it from me:

I honestly couldn't have said it better myself, Chuck. 

Did the Supreme Court Just Make Marriage Equality Legal in 11 States?

The law is complicated and dense, consisting of all sorts of bylaws, precedents, and other legal terms that I'm sure someone far more educated than I could spout for hours. Point being, the law is anything but swift. Thus, the idea of marriage equality becoming legal in a state over night is a bit of a stretch. The idea of it becoming legal in 11 states is just batshit insane.

But that's exactly what (potentially) may have happened today when the Supreme Court refused to hear all seven pending certiorari petitions concerning same sex marriage. For the uninitiated, what this means is that lower courts made a decision concerning same sex marriage (in this case, in favor) and when assholes tried to appeal this decision, the SCOTUS effectively said nah, "leaving intact lower court rulings that will legalize the practice in 11 additional states." 

Now, a lot of these numbers are conjecture by excitable journalists and underpaid bloggers trying to claw their way to the front page of the internet. Don't get me wrong, I enjoy the enthusiasm that comes with such a (possibly) landmark decision and I'll be happy to celebrate once we know for sure. But it wouldn't be fair to those being truly affected by this decision to come out here and start waving the rainbow flag of victory just yet. Thus, in the interest of clarity (and at the risk of buzz killing) I am going to attempt to reconcile a few of these statistics and numbers. 

First of all, there are only five states that will see an almost immediate change in marriage equality laws. Those states being Indiana, Oklahoma, Utah, Virginia, and Wisconsin. This is what we know to be fact. Here's where the speculation comes in. 

It's worth giving a very quick and very cursory crash course in law before we proceed. The United States is divided into 12 circuits, each of which has a court of appeals. Unless I am mistaken, in the case that a circuit court makes a decision, it applies to the entire circuit. Now, I am sure there are all sorts of exceptions and loopholes and general fuckery that could invalidate my statement. But in the opinion of countless journalists on the internet, this seems to be the case today.

Your college law course out of the way, let's talk about what this actually means. According to a spokesman for the Virginia Attorney General, "the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit will issue an order at 1 pm that will allow same-sex marriages to begin." While Virginia may be the seat of the 4th circuit, the circuit also includes four other states: Maryland (which has already legalized same sex marriage), South Carolina, West Virginia (lol), and North Carolina. This means that there is a likelihood that the decision will also apply to those states.

Yes, you read that right. West Virginia may have legal same sex marriages before twenty other states. If that doesn't conjure up some sort of schadenfreude for you, I don't know what will. In all seriousness, if this really is the case and the decision does cause a domino effect, we may see widespread marriage equality in as many as 30 states by the end of this whole thing. That would mean that the majority of the nation would be marriage equality-friendly. Which, you know, is a big fucking deal.

But, once again, please keep in mind that the decision is still very fresh and still being hotly debated. I like to believe that the good guys win, but the assholes are still very adept at inserting their general assholery into these situations. Who knows what loophole some douchenugget will find to ruin this for millions of Americans? Take everything I've said with a grain of salt and do your own research. 

It's not yet time to break out the disco ball and celebrate, but you'd be remiss if you didn't let loose a single fist pump in the air, prematurity notwithstanding.

And to those of you that suddenly find yourselves legally allowed to marry the person you love: Congratulations and I apologize that we took this long to grant you a right you should have had all along.

Appalachian State's Intramural Sexism Problem

I feel obligated to start with a disclaimer: I do not nor have I ever played sports. Besides a brief stint in kindergarten where I "played soccer" with a bunch of other five year olds, I have gone my life without soccer, football, tennis, and everything in between. Maybe it's because of my sedentary lifestyle that I just don't get the decision to so heavily segregate the genders in sports. Don't get me wrong, I don't mind there being separate teams for separate people. With so many people on the planet Earth, there's bound to be a large variation of skill levels. My problem lies with the dividing line. Rather than being divided into groups based on skill, the line has been drawn between men and women, presumably for the same reason that any gender divide is created: ignorance and a stubborn adherence to archaic ideals.

Of course, Appalachian State is more progressive than that. Rather than give in to the outmoded idea that women and men need to play on separate teams, Appalachian State has a coed soccer team! Indeed, no matter what gender you are, you can play intramural soccer. And if you're a girl, you can score TWO points when you score a goal as opposed to just one!

That's right. According to the Soccer Rules for Intramural Sports, "a goal scored by a female counts 2 points" whereas a man's goal only counts one. This is what we in the industry call "bullshit sexist nonsense from the 1950s."

This issue was brought to my attention by Kate Rhudy, a sophomore at Appalachian State and a member of an intramural soccer team. Several days ago, Rhudy made a Facebook post, condemning the sexism of the rule. Since then, she has gone to the school's Title IX representative and is making a rather large effort to get this rule, among similarly sexist rules in other sports, changed.

I have enough faith in my audience (you are, after all, spending time reading something) to know that I don't need to hammer in the whole "sexism is bad" spiel for you to understand that this rule is really fucking stupid. That being said, I would still like to address a much less discussed (and possibly much worse) issue that continues to pervade society (and Appalachian State) today. When Rhudy took her issue to the Assistant Director of Intramural Sports, she was told rather dismissively that "there just simply has not been enough evidence in the past to support a rule change." This is a lovely example of what we like to call "institutionalized sexism." Fairly self-explanatory, this is when institutions (mainly made up of men) enact rules, regulations, and laws that discriminate against and limit women.

The whole song and dance of "well, it's just the way we've always done it" is a load of crap and it's a way for people to hide sexism in the guise of tradition. Just because something has been done for a really long time does not justify it. But this seems to always be the case for keeping women out of activities typically associated with masculinity. This, coupled with half-assed science about women being physically inferior to men. Certainly, a man at his physical peak and a woman at her physical peak will expose a disparity, but we are America and I would hazard a guess that there are very few men at their peak. 

This in mind, it's fair to assume that throwing women and men together into an activity could yield a lot of instances where the former out-performs the latter. Hell, let's stop assuming entirely. Just a couple of weeks ago, Sabine Lisicki set the record for fastest recorded serve in women's tennis. It also happened to be faster than any serve Roger Federer has hit all season. Admittedly, it still hasn't beaten the record for fastest serve overall, but that's not really the point. Two incredibly talented athletes were placed side by side and the female displayed the most physical prowess. 

I don't know if Roger Federer is any better than Sabine Lisicki at tennis and I don't really care. What I do care about is that this anecdote illustrates a fundamental point: That women and men can be competitive without giving the former some sort of edge. 

Why Appalachian State has not caught up to the 21st century is beyond me. We have a female chancellor, a fairly liberal student body, and a reputation for being a bunch of dirty communist hippies. And yet we still can't grasp the possibility that men and women can be evenly matched in a physical activity. Despite years of discussion on the issue. Despite women's dedication and sacrifice. Despite every show of female prowess in a physical setting. 

It's worth noting that, beyond logical fallacies, the continued portrayal of women as the "weaker sex" is causing a lot of harm. In a society that already erodes female confidence in the boardroom, telling women that they can't even kick a ball as well as men really can't be good for anything. Blatant sexism aside, it perpetuates that nasty whisper in every woman's ear that she's not as good as a man and that she never will be. It's that voice that oozes out of every condescending "honey," "sweetie," and "dear." It's not a subconscious voice but an amalgamation of external declarations that forms a message of inferiority and gnaws at the psyche.

Let's silence the voice. It won't be an easy battle and it certainly won't happen over night. But we can start with the little things. If men get 1 point per scored goal, so should women. It's as simple as that.

Please Stop Raping People

I'm fucking baffled that I even have to address this situation, but here it goes. After a string of reported sexual assaults on Appalachian State's campus over the course of just the past three weeks, it's becoming clear that people do not know the definition of the word "consent." This is strange to me considering the fact that it is so easily Googled and, thereby, defined.

But, I understand; we are a lazy culture after all. Let me relieve some of the burden and define it for you:

IT'S WHEN THEY SAY FUCKING YES.

I don't care if they are naked on your bed reciting Pablo Neruda to your crotch, if they say anything that contrasts with the word "yes," do not fucking touch them in a sexual manner. Don't fucking rape people. Goddamit, is this a hard fucking concept?

Look, I know people can be confusing. Guess what? Tough. Don't fucking rape people.

I know being drunk inhibits your decision making process. Don't fucking rape people.

I know people can occasionally wear incredibly revealing clothing. Don't fucking rape people.

If this whole idea was foreign to you and I've presented you with all new information, welcome to being a fucking decent human. If this all makes complete sense, congratulations on having a modicum of morality.

We need to stop trotting out the same bullshit about rape prevention every goddamn time some asshole gets handsy/rapey. Rape prevention should start with the rapist, not the victim. I know it seems much more appealing to just shrug and say "Well, it happens!" but I'd like to imagine we've evolved past the point of letting inevitability override our decisions.

Yes, you should still carry around self defense and be wary of strange people on the street, but you also shouldn't have to feel like you're walking through a fucking jungle of rapist assholes every time you go to the store. I apologize to everyone affected for our society's lack of competence in this matter. I'll try and do the job they should have been doing this whole time:

DON'T FUCKING RAPE PEOPLE.

The Nude Leak of 2014: Stop Calling the Pictures Scandalous

After a way-too-long summer hiatus, I'm happy to announce that The Daily Wit is back and ready to impart its infinite font of wisdom on the eager masses (you). And what better time to return to the blogging scene than now? What, with unrest in Ferguson, unrest in Ukraine, and, well, unrest in Iraq, it's almost too easy to be a blogger. I have so many outlets available for my educated (read: cursory) opinions. That said, I'm not going to talk about those issues today. This isn't because they aren't important or timely, or interesting. Mainly, it's just a lot of work that I don't want to do because other, more informed people than I have done it better. (see: above links)

No, instead I'm going to focus on something a little closer to home but no less worthy of discussion. I imagine, if you have a working internet connection, you've been made privy to the most recent celebrity nude leak. Naked pictures of our favorite tabloid sweethearts isn't exactly an unprecedented occurrence and typically these sorts of ordeals can be handled in an awkward thirty second CNN sound bite in which the hosts mispronounce some names and show a heavily blurred picture for God knows what reason. But this time was different. Set aside the fact that the leak contained some very high profile names (Jennifer Lawrence, Kate Upton, Kirsten Dunst). This leak exposed a complicated system of hackers who evidently run an underground nude picture trading ring and have done so for years.

While you're busy washing the ick off and plastering post-it notes on your webcam, allow me to get to heart of this issue. What makes this recent invasion of privacy so relevant is that it is exactly that: an invasion of privacy. This isn't a fucking scandal. (Looking at you, TMZ) It was a scandal when Anthony Weiner dangled his namesake in front of the camera for a woman who wasn't his wife. It was a scandal when we found out that the NSA was spying on us while we scrolled through pictures of our friend's hot sister on Facebook. It was a fucking scandal when Nixon sent his cronies to go snoop around Watergate. Those are scandals because all of the parties involved in them shouldn't have been doing what they were doing. Taking naked pictures of yourself for either a friend, significant other, or yourself (why) is not a goddamn scandal.

Look, I'm not going to tell you that baring your all for the camera connected to a fucking satellite is an intelligent move. Because, frankly, it's not. But I'm not going to tell you that doing so is disgusting and unbecoming of someone of your stature. We've been sending naked pictures for years. I'm sure Cleopatra was carving her lady bits into a stone for Mark Antony back in the day. Point being, instead of clutching our collective pearls and fanning ourselves over a couple pictures of boobs, maybe we should be focusing on the fact that there is a complicated system of hackers rifling through our shit and showing it to everyone. This was a violation of privacy for many people and boo-hooing the state of America and "oh lawdy the CHILDREN" is not helping anyone but the hackers.

I'm cynical enough to accept that there's no way we're going to stop this sort of behavior completely. I'm not expecting people to riot in the streets and call for these creepy guys to get strung up by their ankles. I do, however, expect a society that purports to be progressive to have a little more savoir faire in these instances and back off the victim blaming just a bit. We have a common enemy here and it is not boobs. Just something to think on.

A Eulogy for Robin

There isn't much that can be said that hasn't already been said. But that doesn't mean it doesn't bear repeating.

Today, we lost a great man. Like many of you, I was shocked to hear the news. I wanted to know why someone who brought me so much joy would suddenly extinguish his own life. I was even a little bit angry. But, when it comes right down to it, I have no right to be. I never knew Robin Williams personally and can never know the motives behind his decision. I do know what people tell me: That he battled addictions and depression all his life. Fortunately, I have the luxury of knowing neither of these conditions.

Having never suffered the demons that Williams battled with, I cannot hope to ever truly define him as a man. No eulogy I could ever write would ever be an honest and full depiction of Robin Williams. All I have to go on are those brief moments in which he shined through the screen and met me halfway, inviting me into the life of a man who filled every role he ever took with the life and passion of a thousand ordinary men. I can write about the first time I ever watched Good Will Hunting (my favorite movie of all time) and cried like a fucking baby when Williams, playing Matt Damon's therapist, repeated those four little words, "It's not your fault." I can talk about growing up with a VHS copy of Aladdin and laughing hysterically at the Genie, voiced by Williams, as he sang "Friend Like Me" or laughing hysterically at a loving father who, in an attempt to be near his children, dresses up like a female nanny....or laughing hysterically at every single Robin Williams appearance on The Late Late Show with Craig Ferguson with whom he had such great and lively chemistry.

I can even proudly say that, after watching Dead Poets Society for the very first time this summer, Robin Williams' rousing role as an unconventional professor of English brought my love of literature and writing back to life. Obviously, you could say that many of the scenes I've referred to above were written and scripted by other people and that Robin Williams was merely reading the words off a page. But that's where Williams' true talent came to the forefront. His talent for ripping words off the page and turning them into brilliantly funny, and often beautiful, performances that warmed the heart.

Strange as it may seem right now, Williams' greatest gift was his ability to bring energy and life to the world. And though he may have ended his own, I know that his vibrant soul remains in every single person that ever had the pleasure to watch him, know him, and meet him. He was infectious and I never met a single soul that didn't glow at the mention of his name and his movies.

It is both difficult and awkward to write a eulogy for a man I never met. But I would be remiss if I did not pour my heart out for a man that, in no small part, shaped who I am today, if only through the medium of my television.

I imagine, being a comedian, that Williams would be disappointed in his fans for sending him away in tears. He would have much rather preferred that we smiled, laughed, and remembered the good times. Unfortunately, not being a scholar on the subject of Robin Williams, I do not have a substantial record of his thoughts on death. What I do have is an episode of Louie wherein Williams and Louis attend the funeral of a mutual "friend." Later, at a diner, they both confess their mutual hatred for the man and laugh about how big a piece of shit he was. Recounting how he used to always pester them about attending his favorite strip club, they both decide to honor him by going themselves. When the strippers hear about the death of their friend and frequent patron, they all cry and a sad 80s ballad is played over the loudspeaker in his honor. Afterwards, a scene cuts to Williams and Louis exiting the club and, after looking at each other for a beat, they burst into a fit of laughter. As they're saying their goodbyes, Williams says to Louis: "Hey, would you do me a favor..."

 Louis knowingly nods and says, "Oh, I'll go to yours."

Williams smiles and adds, "Whoever dies first."

They laugh once again and part ways.