Persuasion

Soda has become a very popular fad in the United States. According to Dr. Joseph Mercola, author of the article “The Real Dangers of Soda to You and Your Children,” the “average American drinks an estimated fifty-six gallons of soft drinks each year.” He also states that, “Teenage boys now drink, on average, three or more cans of soda per day, with ten percent drinking seven or more a day”(Mercola 1). It’s not just teenagers that are hooked. A large number of people that you pass on the streets are either firmly clutching or have just finished off a bottle of pop. It’s becoming an alternative to coffee and has quickly replaced milk and other healthier options. These dangerous drinks have no significant nutritional value and only leave you with a sugary aftertaste and an overwhelming amount of health problems. Many people do not realize that soda is poison in disguise.

Many people use soda as a way to make it through the long, hard workday or to boost energy levels when they feel like they’re falling asleep. It is becoming more common to see 64-ounce jugs of Coke instead of giant mugs of coffee. This is all for one simple reason: soda contains caffeine. Yes, caffeine--the same drug we rely on every day to help us pry open our tired eyes and stimulate our sleepy brains so that we can at least function. The Coca-Cola company argues that “Because the caffeine levels used in soft drinks are low, it is unlikely that side effects would occur from a cessation of soft drink consumption” (“Key”). It is true that there is not nearly as much caffeine in a single can of soda as there would be in a cup of straight black coffee. However, most people do not drink one can. Caffeine has also been proven to be addictive. Sally Squires, author of the article, “The Amazing Statistics and Dangers of Soda Pop,” says that “Over half of soda consumers that do not receive their usual dose of caffeine suffer splitting headaches, slight rises in blood pressure, irritability, and even stomach problems” (Squires 2). Someone who suffers from the absence of a substance would be considered, by most, to be addicted. Squires also states that “Diet colas often pack a lot more caffeine than regular colas. A 12-ounce can of Diet Coke has about 42 milligrams of caffeine, while Coke Classic has about 35 milligrams” (Squires 2). Many women choose to drink diet sodas because they are calorie-free and prevent weight gain. Therefore, they are taking in that extra amount of caffeine. But what is the purpose of caffeine in soda? According to Squire’s article, “The industry claims that small amounts are added for taste, not for the drug’s power to sustain demand for the products” (Squires 3). However, a recent blind taste test was conducted, and Squires gives the results[:] “Only eight percent of regular soft drink consumers could identify the difference between regular and caffeine-free soft drinks”(Squires 3). Caffeine must not have a very strong flavor.

Pop is also responsible for a large amount of lost bone density and tooth decay, especially in young people[;] “Animal studies demonstrate that phosphorus, a common ingredient in soda, can deplete bones of calcium” (Squires 3). Calcium is very necessary to help growing children build strong, healthy bones, preventing future osteoporosis and numerous amounts of bone breaks and fractures. “There is a strong association between soft drink consumption and bone fractures in 14-year-old girls. Those who drink cola are five times more likely to suffer bone fractures than girls who don’t[,” states] Squires (3). Bones become weakened because the phosphorus leaches the calcium out of them, leaving them thin and brittle. If left untreated for a long period of time, the process can no longer be reversed. Dr. Robert Heaney, author of the editorial “Got Soda?” in the Journal of Bone and Mineral Research, states that, “The good news is that you can have soda and good bones too, so long as you drink your milk” (Heaney 18). However, many kids are no longer drinking milk because pop has completely replaced it. Therefore, this theory does not stand.

Lately, diet cola has become the popular “slim drink”--it tastes good but doesn’t contribute to weight gain. Sugar substitutes, such as aspartame, were created to take the place of sugar, which is loaded with calories. Aspartame was developed in the 1980’s and since then, many have doubted its safety. The Coca-Cola company claims that “Aspartame is a safe, low-calorie sweetener that has never been linked to any health risks” (“Key”). However, according to Sarah Chandley, author of the article “Aspartame: the Potential Risk Lurking in Your Cabinets,” aspartame “contributes to ninety-two different ailments, including headaches, dizziness, depression, seizures, insomnia, nausea, and hearing and vision problems. It has also been linked to brain cell destruction, particularly in the area used for learning” (Chandley 1). Chandley also notes that, “For eight years, the FDA refused to approve aspartame because it caused seizures and tumors in lab animals” (Chandley 2). There was real reason for the FDA’s hesitation. The composition of aspartame is cause for serious concern. Chandley explains that “Aspartame is made up of methanol, aspartic acid, and phenylalanine. Methanol is a highly toxic substance that, when heated above 86 degrees F (as it is in your body), is metabolized into formaldehyde (embalming fluid) and formic acid (the poison in fire ants)” (Chandley 2). Ingesting such toxins is very dangerous, especially in the large amounts that people are consuming today. Chemicals are not meant to be flowing through your body, especially not any of that nature. Soda industries argue that it has not yet been proven that aspartame is directly linked to cancer, but it doesn’t seem worth it to take the risk. By the time it is realized, it may be too late.

Although diet soda may contain risky ingredients, regular soda is packed full of sugar. It is estimated that one can of pop contains ten teaspoons of sugar and 150 calories. Mercola states that “Soft drink manufacturers are the largest single user of refined sugar in the United States, and one can of soda usually fulfills 100 percent of the RDA (Recommended Daily Allowance) of sugar” (Mercola 1). That means that, after one can of pop, you do not need to consume any more sugar for the rest of the day. There are few foods that pack this much sugary punch. The Coca-Cola company defends this statement by arguing that whole milk and orange juice contain a large amount of calories and sugar as well. However, these drinks also contain calcium, vitamin C, vitamin D, and other necessary nutrients that keep our bodies healthy and strong. Soda does not. The empty calories found in sugared soft drinks are only contributing to the obesity epidemic occurring in the United States today. Pop lures young people, causing them to become overweight at a much earlier age. Squire states in her article that “A study done by a team of Harvard researchers found that 12-year-olds who drank soft drinks regularly were more likely to be overweight than those who didn’t” (Squires 1). The sugar in these drinks also causes tooth decay and basically serves no real purpose in a healthy diet.

Many Americans are hooked on soda, and it is slowly destroying their health. It is not necessary to finish off a whole six-pack of soda in a day and neglect drinking things that your body needs. At one point in time, milk was the drink of choice for children , as it still should be today. The next time you’re craving a pop, consider an ice cold glass of milk or water instead.

Chandley, Sarah. “Aspartame: the Potential Risk Lurking in Your Cabinets.” 24 Nov. 2004. < http://www.downtoearth.org/dtenews20/aspartame.htm >.

Heaney, Robert. “Got Soda?” Journal of Bone and Mineral Research 2003: 1570-1571.

”Key Facts of Coca-Cola Soft Drinks.” 25 Nov. 2004. < http://www2.coca-cola.com/ourcompany/hal_facts.html >.

Mercola, Joseph. “The Real Dangers of Soda to You and Your Children.” 24 Nov. 2004. < http://www.mercola.com/2003/jul/9/soda_dangers.htm >.

Squires, Sally. “The Amazing Statistics and Dangers of Soda Pop.” 24 Nov. 2004. < http://www.mercola.com/2001/mar/10/soda_pop_dangers.htm >.

I remember the first time I was called a geek. It was a couple of years ago. Both of my roommates stared me in the face and said I was a geek. My first reaction was denial. I took the mental image of what “geek” was and tried it on. I didn't like the way it fit me. I saw the label of “geek” as a put-down, or a fairly weak form of hate speech because it identified a part of me in what I considered to be a hurtful way.

True hate speech can be defined as "speech intended to hurt and intimidate someone because of their race, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, disability, or other personal characteristics, or to incite violence or prejudicial action" (“Hate”). This definition is rather vague because the term "personal characteristic" can be applied to any part of someone, including his behavior. Characteristics are what make individuals unique and help define them to the world. So hate speech can be seen as any form of speech that hurts or intimidates someone based on any characteristic they have. With that broad of a swath, saying “murderers should be put to death,” for example, could be seen as a form of hate speech to those people who have committed murder.

What can be done about hate speech? Specifically, how could I react to being called a geek? There are two main ideas: regulate or ignore. While both methods have been tried, to some extent, neither one has worked to stop the ill effects of hate speech. There is a third option, which I found to work best: instead of concerning ourselves with the actual creation of hate speech, let's encourage each person to take personal responsibility for their reactions to that speech.

Regulation of hate speech has been tried, but does have at least one flaw. It can be considered a violation of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which states that no law shall be made which impairs the freedom of speech. However, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that a specific segment of hate speech known as "fighting words" is not protected by the First Amendment. Fighting words are those that prompt an immediate, violent response. According to the Court's 1942 Chaplin v. New Hampshire decision, fighting words “are no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to the truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality” (qtd. in Hudson).

School campuses tried to apply this hate speech doctrine to any and all forms of expression; however, recent Supreme Court rulings have overturned those campus policies because they were overbroad and tended to suppress expression of all kinds. Ironically, the new policies were used to suppress “hate speech” most successfully by those groups who historically were the oppressors. A white man sued successfully because he heard a black person refer to some people as “white trash” (“American”). Some colleges have responded to these policy issues by incorporating anti-hate language into some form of anti-discrimination policy, rather than being a separate policy by itself. Unfortunately, regulation of hate speech will not work in the long run because it is treating a symptom of a much larger, more systemic problem: bigotry. If the expression of these bigoted views is suppressed, the bigots can go underground and thrive in the underbelly of the culture, away from the light of day.

Currently, the only other option being considered is allowing speech in all its forms. The First Amendment guarantees the right of speech. So, by allowing speech, we honor the intent of the First Amendment. However, this allows for the possibility of hateful speech in today's society. Minorities of any kind may be exposed to speech that disparages them in some way. But outlawing speech that may be perceived as hateful may be overly protective of minorities. Some minorities may feel that protecting them from bigots is treating them as if they were unable to deal with that kind of person.

Outlawing hate speech has problems, but allowing hate speech also has problems. I believe there's a third option that hasn't really been addressed. Each person should be responsible for their own actions and reactions, yet also be self-reliant enough to detach themselves from any situation that may arise. In other words, I believe it's best if we neither offend nor take offense.

How is this possible? We have a beautiful moment in time between a stimulus and response, and that is choice. Some stimuli create an immediate response regardless of our own desires. These are the reflexes that keep us alive in potentially harmful situations. However, fighting words and hate speech should not be reflex-inducing stimuli. We have a choice of response to what's being said around us. This moment of choice is where we can diffuse the effect of hate speech.

In the case of being called “white trash,” no matter how explicitly the individual is singled out, the course of action prescribed by this idea is to believe that the label does not apply to the individual. Some people might equate this line of thought with a denial of the speech itself. It's not a verbal denial at all. Rather, it's the realization that the name is just that—a name. It has nothing to do with who the person is or what kind of life they may lead.

One way to remove the power of hate speech is to take ownership of the label with pride. I believe most of the power in hate speech comes from the ability to place a label onto someone that is not his or her choice. One of the first reactions to a disparaging label is to deny it. Owning a label, and thereby fully understanding its meaning, removes all or most of its power. In my case, my roommates walked me through a definition of the term “geek” and compared it to myself and my situation. Once I realized that I was a “geek,” and that being a “geek” does not make me any less of a person, and in fact defines me and my personality pretty well, the power of the word lessened. I no longer wasted energy trying to deny that the label fit. It became a part of who I am.

This method of taking control of a label has been tried. I believe this is why Jennifer Lopez recently created controversy when the remix of her single, “I'm Real,” contained a highly-charged racial epithet. The song itself was written by another artist, Ja Rule, who is black. The lyrics he wrote contained the racial epithet “nigger” (“Jennifer”). If he had performed the song, I believe the controversy would not exist. I think the controversy is there because Lopez is Latina, not black, and therefore, some people don't think she can use that term regarding black people. However, if she changed the words at all, she would be changing the song, which would be dishonoring the intent of the songwriter.

What would the best middle ground be? Personal responsibility for our actions. After any words are said to us, we have a choice to make before we act. Choosing wisely is the best thing we can do. This is what I've done with being a geek. I'm a geek who knows it, and that allows me to smile my way through any sneers about geeks. Some people would say that the only thing I'm missing is the pocket protector. Sorry, those are for nerds, not geeks.

“American Civil Liberties Union Briefing Paper Number 16.” American Civil Liberties Union. 20 November 2004. < http://archive.aclu.org/library/pbp16.html >.

“Hate speech.” Wikipedia.org. 6 November 2004. 20 November 2004. < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech >.

Hudson Jr., David L. “Free speech on public college campuses.” First Amendment Center. 10 September 2004. 20 September 2004. < http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/speech/ pubcollege/topic.aspx?topic=campus_speech_codes >.

“Jennifer Lopez Uses N-Word in Song Lyrics.” About.com. 11 August 2004. 23 November 2004. < http://racerelations.about.com/library/weekly/aa071601a.htm >

In the face of grievous death and mass killing, it is often hard to say that war is a “right” decision. There are certain criteria agreed upon by many that can either justify a war, or prove it to be the wrong decision. Sometimes war is justified.

There are those who would declare that war is never legitimate. Many of these people call themselves pacifists and anti-war activists. Merriam Webster’s definition of Pacifism is: “1 : opposition to war or violence as a means of settling disputes; specifically : refusal to bear arms on moral or religious grounds. 2 : an attitude or policy of nonresistance.” Pacifists argue that government authorities do not have the right to declare war because the government should not be trusted to make decisions of morality, and that war is not justified because it corrupts the hearts of man. Further, nuclear and biological warfare can come from the escalation of war. Pacifists believe that killing is never justified no matter the circumstance because all human life is sacred, and one human does not have the right to take the life of another human.

There are several things that can justify entering into war, and there are several things that must happen for a war to be justified after it has begun. First, the authority or sovereign of a nation must be the one to declare war. It is not up to a person or group of persons to declare this themselves or to move a nation to war. The authority or sovereign acts (or should act) for the good of the nation, not personal vengeance or gain. It is the duty of the ruler or authority of a country or nation to take action to protect the people of that nation. Likewise, the authority or sovereign must move to war if, and only if, all other negotiations or options have failed to produce results, and are definitely not going to do so. War should not be the first option because it produces grave results.

The authority or sovereign must be the one who declares war, determines just reasons, and evaluates chances of success. In the Catechism of the Catholic Church, the teachings on war state, “there must be serious prospects of success” (Ratzinger et al. 555). It would be folly to sacrifice men and women in war if there were no reasonable chance of winning. Furthermore, it is the duty of the sovereign or authority to determine when the declaration of war is for just reasons. Just reasons would be to free an oppressed people, to defend ones country, to prevent attack, to destroy a threat, or to punish a wrong. Saint Augustine says, “We do not seek peace in order to be at war, but we go to war that we may have peace. Be peaceful, therefore, in warring, so that you may vanquish those whom you war against, and bring them to the prosperity of peace” (qtd. in Aquinas 135A).

Secondly, the evil of war is often in the hearts and minds of those fighting it. If someone kills with their mind and heart full of hatred, vengeance, or pleasure in killing, then that killing is most certainly wrong. If one must kill in a time of war, they must have the correct intentions in their heart and mind. If a soldier kills another soldier, and while doing so, thinks to himself, “I hate you,” “I’m happy I’m killing you,” or “You deserve this,” then that soldier is killing wrongly. But, if a soldier kills and has a disposition of the heart that says, “You are another human being. I regret that I have to kill you,” then this soldier’s acts can be justified. Augustine says this perfectly when he states, “The passion for inflicting harm, the cruel thirst for vengeance, an unpacific and relentless spirit, the fever of revolt, the lust of power, and such like things, all these are rightly condemned in war” (qtd. in Aquinas 135A). This indeed, is what many pacifist are opposed to--the corruption of the human heart that often occurs in war. This evil is not acceptable, and is wrong in itself. If the war can be justified, the justification of the killing in that war is dependent on the intentions of those doing the killing.

Sometimes war is unavoidable. When this happens though, there are certain things that most countries agree must occur. Prisoners and wounded must be treated well. Religious buildings such as churches and synagogues must not be destroyed without grave cause. Whole cities of innocents must not be destroyed in order to kill the guilty among them. When standards are violated, such as the torture of prisoners, these are considered war crimes, and are punished.

As technology and military capabilities improve, there are new factors that come into the equation. What of things like the atomic bomb or nuclear weapons? The Catholic Church says, “the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modern means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition” (Ratzinger et al. 555)[--]for example, the use of nuclear weapons. To wage nuclear warfare could destroy so much that the evil the nuclear warfare would produce would be worse than the state of the world before the war began. It would produce and evil greater than the evil it destroyed; the consequences need to be measured against the gain.

War is a grave thing. It must not be entered into without just cause and the right intentions. It must be well thought out and brought about for the advancement of good or for the prevention of evil. The rules of war must be upheld. Even in war, when countries oppose each other, the dignity of humans, cultures, religions, and nations must be respected.

September 11, 2001. This date and the lamentable acts that saying it now recalls has dramatically changed Americans’ outlook on the world. Acts that were unimaginable prior to their conception brought Americans out of their idealistic bubbles and focused their attention on the very real threat that terrorism poses to our national security. Immediately following these acts, Congress passed bills which would give law enforcement officials the previously denied authority to limit terrorist activity.

Now that the initial panic has died and the images of planes flying into buildings are stale in our memories, Americans are beginning to look at these bills with fearful scrutiny. The most scrutinized of these bills is the Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism (Patriot) Act which relaxes restrictions on the sharing of information between law enforcement and intelligence agencies. The Act grants more freedom to “roving wiretaps” and Internet surveillance, and it grants the F.B.I. access to business records, criminalizing anyone who fails to comply (“Background”).

Many critics worry that the Act violates the privacy that was previously provided by the government (Van Bergen “Repeal”); others feel that such an act may be unnecessary or an overreaction to an exaggerated danger (Van Bergen “Planned”); a third group says that the specifics of the Patriot Act may imply fear and instability in America because they seem to contradict the Constitution (Magnusson). In response to the third group, assistant U.S. Attorney Kent Robinson says that it is “fundamentally wrong - the statute can’t change the Constitution” (qtd. in Herrington).

These worries do not represent dangers posed by the Act. They are instead natural reactions to anything new. A look at each will show that the “criticisms are overblown and overgeneralized” (Robinson qtd. in Herrington).

Government agencies can now require information as to who uses public computers and what books, videos, magazines, and CDs people may buy, rent, or take on loan. This will allow investigative agencies to monitor those who distribute terrorism-related information, and it will allow them to track individuals who are studying terrorist operations and tactics so that the agencies can better prevent terrorism (EFF).

In response to the Act’s “violation of privacy,” writers, publishers, book store owners, and consumers will be tempted to abandon genres that could be used as a terrorist’s reference. It could be argued that this will deny our children access to some classic literature such as Abbie Hoffman’s Steal This Book, which promotes the destruction of society, or William Powell’s The Anarchist Cookbook, which promotes the destruction of the individual, but, honestly, what loving parent could demand anything but this denial? This is not the death report of the American dream, but, in a sociological sense, it is the first productive step into a new, more peaceful era.

Our need for such an act on the domestic level is simply that the classes that have something to hide from those who would enforce the Patriot Act are themselves morally degenerate. Should they not indulge themselves on such politically dangerous pabulum, domestic terrorism would be an impossibility. But, they have read these things, they have given them to their acquaintances to read, they have encouraged their writing, and these things have come to pass, just as the powers that be have manipulated the ideas of even the most brilliant minds, such as Einstein, into perversions that, if left unchecked, will destroy the earth. The purpose of the Patriot Act is to preserve the government’s ability to protect its citizens. Even lesser-known minds like those who would destroy government buildings in Oklahoma City provide the necessity of the preservation of that ability.

The most commonly voiced objection to the Patriot Act is that it offers exceptions to our right to free speech, our protection against unreasonable searches, and our right to due process of law (Herrington). These rights are naturally of great importance, so let us analyze the need for exceptions.

The right to free speech is one of the most prized characteristics of life in America. But can this right be doled out freely to any person who wishes to use it at any time for any end? In times of national crises, for example, the policies and the institutions of a nation are being threatened, generally, by outside forces. These forces can be in the form of military offensives, of passive contradictions, or of propaganda, all of which are used to reach the common goal of eliminating that nation’s policies and institutions. It would be ridiculous for someone to even suggest that a nation in crisis ought to protect the rights of its nationals to use military force or civil disobedience against it. Just as with military or other force, anti-government propaganda cannot be allowed within the borders of the nation in crisis because such propaganda would serve to destroy the nation that protects it (Dugger).

As well in times of national crisis, the rights of those people who would hide evidence of conspiracies in the open simply because a nation’s policies forbid the search for them would be destructive of that nation's ideals. Not all necessary searches can fit under a pre-defined blanket of what is reasonable and what is not. An encounter with terrorist conspirators is an exceptionally momentous event with a need for exceptions to the rule.

The necessity of exceptions to another American right, the right to due process of law, is a bit more complicated. An international terrorist would enter under the jurisdiction of a government intelligence agency. Intelligence agencies, by nature, must keep many details of searches secret in order to promote national security, so to require an open jury trial in which no information could actually be given to the jury because it would alert possible enemies to intelligence secrets would be a waste of national resources. Also, if such a trial were to take place, a terrorist could not be proven guilty and would therefore, under American policy, be found innocent.

The presentation of exceptions to previously indiscriminate policies may imply contradiction within the government, giving the impression of instability. After all, “A house divided against itself will fall.” But these exceptions are not contradictions. They can more rightly be considered adaptations of government policy to a new world - a world in which American freedoms have been abused and implemented as a shield to hide and protect the actions of those who intended to murder thousands of people.

These American rights, in the form in which they can be so abused, must necessarily be adapted if the government of the United States of America is to remain. Perhaps a house divided against itself cannot stand, but a house that provides the means by which its policies shall be undermined and its people slaughtered will fall more quickly. If these rights in their present form threaten our way of life, indeed threaten our very existence, there is no choice but to alter them. In an age of such unthinkable crimes against humanity, the preservation of “the right to shout ‘Fire!’ in a crowded theater” is not among our highest priorities. The mass murders that occurred on September 11, 2001, did force the government into implementing restrictions on our rights, but, as reporter Michael Kelly says in an article entitled “Liberty and Security,” these restrictions are not a threat to democracy: “A real threat could arise, however, should the government fail... to prevent another Sept. 11. If that happens, the public will demand, and will get, immense restrictions on liberties.”

The Patriot Act is not the beginning of the end of democracy, it is rather the foundation of a new world in which the United States of America can protect its citizens, and in which the government that America’s people comprise is stable, strong, and just.

"Background: Liberty After 9/11" About, Inc. 29 Aug. 2002. 15 May 2003.
< http://civilliberty.about.com/library/weekly/aa082902a.htm >.

Dugger, Ronnie. "Give War a Chance." The American Prospect Vol. 11 No.6. 31 January 2003. 17 May 2003.
< http://www.prospect.orgiprintNII/6/dugger_r.html >.

Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF). "EFF Analysis Of The Provisions Of The USA PATRIOT Act That Relate To Online Activities" 31 Oct. 2001. 16 May 2003.
< http://www.eff.org/Privacy/Surveillance/Terrorism_militias/20011031_eff_usa_patriot_analysis.html >.

Herrington, Gregg. "Provisions of USA Patriot Act debated with benefit of 9/11 hindsight." Columbian 8 May 2003. 15 May 2003. C3. ProQuest. Alan Thompson Library, Longview, W A. < http://proquest.umi.com >.

Kelly, Michael. "Liberty and security." Washington Post. 28 Aug. 2002. 16 May 2003.
< http://www.townhall.com/columnists/michaelkelly/rnk20020828.shtml >.

Magnusson, Paul and Lorraine Woellert. "Don't Tread on Us: The Revolt Against the Patriot Act." Business Week 3833 19 May, 2003. 15 May 2003. ProQuest. Alan Thompson Library, Longview, W A. < http://proquest.umi.com >.

Van Bergen, Jennifer. "Repeal the USA Patriot Act." t r u t h o u t 3 April 2002. 15 May 2003.
< http://www.truthout.com/docs_02/04.02A.JVB.Patriot.htm >.

Van Bergen, Jennifer. "The USA Patriot Act was Planned Before 9/11." t r u t h o u t 20 May 2002. 17 May 2003.
< http://www.truthout.orgidocs_02/05.21B.jvb.usapa.911.htm >.

How many men does it take to screw in a light bulb? Two—one to change the bulb and one to collect the medal. What do you call a man who’s lost 95% of his brain? A widow. What do you call the useless fatty tissue at the end of the penis? A man.

Jokes like these can be heard around our country, even at such inappropriate places as schools, conventions, and workplaces. While I admit to laughing at some of these jokes, I find it astonishing that these obviously insensitive remarks are spoken out loud in such public circumstances. To me, it signifies the way our culture is starting to view men: as the butt of jokes, as being without feelings, and especially to some, as being deserving of such remarks. I am talking about the habit of male bashing that is typical and seemingly acceptable in most scenarios, including television, advertising, and everyday life in general. We need to rid our society of this anti-male attitude and realize that no one gender is better than any other.

In stores everywhere, there are male bashing clothing items for young girls and women. Such logos as “Boys Lie” and “So many men, so little intelligence” adorn t-shirts across the nation. But if a young boy went to school wearing the same t-shirt, exchanging the word “men” for “women,” he’d probably be sent home. Anti-male advertising continues to grow every year. Commercials that show men being hurt by women are seen as humorous, yet if the tables were reversed, those commercials would have been pulled the very first time a woman saw them. The men we see on television every day are lazy, incompetent buffoons who can’t do anything right. Take shows like “Everybody Loves Raymond” or “King of Queens” for example. The leading male characters on those shows are constantly saying or doing something stupid that their sexy, intelligent wives have to chastise them for. If that is not male bashing, I don’t know what is.

Certain people believe that the term male bashing has become synonymous with the word feminist. Sue L. Cataldi writes in her journal,

The most straightforward response to charges of male bashing is to differentiate the latter from criticism of sexism and simply to say that feminism is not ‘male bashing’ or ‘man hating’ but is a movement to end sexism-to end violence, oppression, exploitation, or unfair discrimination based on sex. One can be against sexism without hating men, just as one can be against racism without hating whites or against homophobia without hating heterosexuals. (76)

While I agree with Cataldi that we should end sexism, she does not once mention in her entire journal any of the injustices that occur to men. In fact, her journal seems very one-sided, almost as if she’s saying that we should not give men an opportunity to express their feelings when it comes to being discriminated against. It seems that some women feel that men are just getting what they deserve because they oppressed women for so long. It’s their turn to suffer. We force men to be more sensitive, but we ignore their problems. How do women ever expect to be treated fairly if they insist on any double standards?

Women have been fighting for equal rights for at least the past century, but now it seems some women feel they deserve more rights than men. While I admit that not all women are being treated equally, especially when it comes to fair wages, the fact is that some women expect special, not just equal, treatment. Women are treated more leniently in the justice system, and now there is a Violence Against Women Act, which basically means men are charged more harshly if they commit crimes against women. Of course not everyone thinks such demands for special protection are acceptable. Barbara Dority, of the Northwest Feminist Anti-Censorship Taskforce, states, “I see no reason why violence against women is any more reprehensible than violence against men or why it should be punished more severely under the law. We’re never going to get equality with this approach” (qtd. in. Leo 24).

Another problem concerning men being treated unfairly is the way they are treated by the family courts. Children are almost always placed in the custody of their mothers after a divorce, even if the father is just as qualified or even more so, in some cases. I have even heard of a case where a man was forced to pay child support for a child that wasn’t even his. The man had been paying for ten years before he found out, through a DNA test, that the child wasn’t his, but the courts said he still had to pay. I think the mother should have to pay a settlement to the man for knowingly deceiving him and causing him horrible emotional damage. Yet this woman was allowed to profit from her deception. According to William C. Smith, a lawyer who wrote in the American Bar Association journal, “[T]he courts are likely to throw the book at the dads-including fines, wage garnishments and jail time—while letting moms off with a warning to respect the father’s visitation rights […and] Custodial mothers receive on average about 60 percent of their support payments, while custodial fathers collect less than 48 percent” (38).

What will the boys of this country do if they continue to see the way their fathers are being treated in the family courts? They might abstain from getting married or having children at all because they will not want to be hurt the way their fathers were hurt when their kids were taken away from them.

We have evolved to the point that men seem to be inferior, but soon men will fight to take back their rights, the same way women fought so hard for all of their rights. Those rights include not being discriminated against. So what happens if we just keep going in circles, men on top, then women, and so on? We will never be as functional a society as we could be.

As the wife of a very intelligent and loving man and a mother of both a boy and a girl, I feel we need to work to ensure that all sexes are equal. I will teach my children to respect people of the opposite sex and to realize that while we are different as far as gender goes, we all deserve to be treated fairly. I encourage others to follow the golden rule—treat others as you would like to be treated.

Cataldi, Sue L. “Reflections On ‘Male Bashing.’” NWSA Journal Summer 1995, Vol. 7:76. EBSCOHost. 4 Aug. 2003.

Leo, John. “De-escalating the Gender War.” US News & World Report 18 Apr. 1994, Vol. 116: 24. EBSCOHost. 4 Aug. 2003.

Smith, William C. “Dads Want Their Day.” American Bar Association Journal Feb. 2003, Vol. 89: 38. EBSCOHost. 4 Aug. 2003.