Can we Talk?

Bozeman Daily Chronicle, April 27, 2011

The recent tragic events on the Rutgers University campus have prompted a variety of responses. For me, this was significant because not only do I teach at Rutgers, but I have a son who is a freshman there. The official RU responses to these events have been appropriate and compassionate. Students and faculty have expressed shock and sadness. On a larger perspective, the media has responded by distorting some of the facts while searching to place blame. The gay and lesbian community held a rather poorly attended demonstration on the New Brunswick RU campus and called this a hate crime. The death of Tyler Clementi was not a crime of hate, bullying or gay bashing but rather a crime of stupidity.

The coming of the internet has brought many positives into our lives; easy access to information, an instant connectedness to people far away, increased efficiency in the workplace, jobs and of course the blog. At the same time it has taken from us giant, whole pieces of what makes us human. We are quickly losing our ability to communicate and to take responsibility for that communication.

A real life exchange requires a person to think, listen and respond, all the while taking responsibility for what is said. Even a negative exchange allows time to retract or restate statements and the ability to say, “I’m sorry” or “I understand”. An internet exchange provides none of these. Within seconds the most foolish comment is available for the world to see—and interpret. Not only is there an issue with time, there is the problem of context. The words, “I could kill you,” can be interpreted to be ominous, funny, clever, joking, happy, surprised, angry…the possibilities are many. When removed from their context words have different meanings. Internet communication also fails to provide body language and tone. Yes, there are the occasional smiley faces that can accompany a snide remark to show that it is only meant to tease, but for the most part body language and tone are absent. Much of our talking and listening happens when there are no words being exchanged. A laugh, a wink, a shrug, leaning forward or back, our voice going up or down. A face to face conversation provides time, context, responsibility, emotion and body language.

Instead of engaging with each other, we are spending time in a world that provides a veneer of anonymity—a mask of sorts. When most communication is done via email, status updates, texting or twitter, there is confusion between the real world and the mask. A person who would never dream of describing their innermost feelings or fantasies in a face to face conversation, all of a sudden feels a false sense of security. Just read a few status updates on Facebook for a minute or two; “Feeling rather empty right now plz only comment if u do love or care about me!… Stop holding out on me Jew damn Jew… Ted’s a retarded &*#% that should be chemically castrated!…Jared has aids… Tammy go f— urself and go back to hell…Is diarrhea a sign of syphilis?”and it is evident that any shred of civility has vanished. Posting every feeling and every emotion all the time, has led to a jaded, apathetic, cynicism toward real human pain. My response to this constant stream of needless information?  Stop stating your feelings! Try talking to someone instead.

An average American spends eight hours a day on the computer. Eight hours is the time it takes to hold a full time job, get a good night’s sleep, fly to the EU, have a leisurely dinner and enjoy a movie or read a great book. I find it pathetic that people are replacing human contact, compassion and care with status updates and tweets. Instead of meeting for coffee or lunch, people resort to stating every single emotion on the internet. Some post minute by minute updates. The sheer absurdity that someone can actually claim to have 600+ friends has diluted the very meaning of the word friendship. Everyone wants to be heard and to be known. But when everyone is screaming, no one is listening.

The place to find trust, honesty, compassion and care, is in our small real world circle of family and friends. Instead of spending eight hours on the computer, spend it talking to a friend, meeting a family member or lending a helping hand to someone in need. Perhaps if someone had taken a moment to have a real, live, accountable, honest conversation with Dharun Ravi, Molly Wei or Tyler Clementi we would not have read Tyler’s  haunting last words on the internet.

Freedom for Women—Veiled in a Burkha or Revealed in a Bikini?

Natalie Behring-Chisholm/Stringer/Getty Images

This week French President Sarkozy called for a ban to be placed on Muslim women who choose to express their faith by observing hijab and donning a burkha.  The French have been the most vocal and active in the arena of attacking religious freedom.  In 2004 they outlawed the use of headscarves, Sikh turbans, large Christian crosses and Jewish skullcaps in their state schools.  The French defend their law which is designed to strictly adhere to their ideas of separation of church and state, but French liberalism is coming dangerously close to ending religious freedom.  Even worse it seems to be spreading to other parts of Europe.  Italy, Turkey, three Belgian towns and seven of Germany’s 16 states have banned headscarves.  While speaking in Cairo President Obama said it clearly, “it is important for Western countries to avoid impeding Muslim citizens from practicing religion as they see fit – for instance, by dictating what clothes a Muslim woman should wear. We cannot disguise hostility towards any religion behind the pretence of liberalism.” Members of the French Parliament, from both the left and right called the burkha an “oppressive dress that breaches individual freedoms”.

Individual freedoms?  According to whom?  There are many in the world who would consider Western women oppressed because they feel compelled to don a style of dress that is made to entice and attract men.  Indeed, upon hearing the new French policy the spokesman for the Muslim Council of Great Britain said, “Unfortunately, there is a pressure on women to dress skimpily in the West.”  I agree.

Perhaps the burkha could provide greater freedom than a skimpy bikini ever could.  It can be said that the burkha is a tyrannical and repressive piece of clothing forced on the women who wear it, but the same could be said of a bikini. Both the burkha and the bikini are worn to indulge the whims of men in the society they represent.  The burkha is worn to mask and conceal that which belongs or could belong to the men, and the bikini is worn to expose and display the same.  Both articles of clothing find their impetus in their effort to control and subjugate women.

Women long to adopt a carefree and liberating expression in their choice of clothing.  There are few women that can wear a bikini and feel comfortable in it.  Even supermodels lament because they feel their thighs or behinds are more ample than they should be.  Donning a large black covering in the morning could provide a liberation few Western women have experienced.  To arrive at work, school, or social occasion without first applying makeup, dressing the hair, and fussing over clothing would be a dream come true!

One need only to read the comments and remarks made about Hilary Clinton’s appearance to long for this type of freedom.  During her run for the democratic presidential nomination, what Mrs. Clinton said was never as important, as how she was dressed when she said it.  The criticism made about Mrs. Clinton’s hair, makeup, body type, and clothing took precedence over what she was saying.  Her legs were compared to tree trunks, her clothes called frumpy, and her hair and makeup was the topic of many water cooler gatherings.  In the same vein, such discussions did not take place about Benazir Bhutto or Indira Gandhi when they were Prime Ministers of their countries.  The political pundits debated their political agendas and viewpoints, not their choice of clothing or makeup.  Perhaps this was because the males in their countries were conditioned to view respectable women in a non-sexual way, and therefore these women were taken more seriously than Hilary Clinton.

Men will be unable to view women as equal—as long as women continue to exercise their right to seduce men, and therefore objectify themselves.  If women will dress in a manner that does not engage a man’s libido and instead engages his mind, they will be able to experience true freedom and liberation.  Both women and men should be disturbed by this fact: the American voting public is unable to elect a woman even as a vice-president.  While India, in 1966 and Pakistan, in 1988—countries thought by the West to have little equality for women, had already elected women as Prime Ministers!