It’s (still) an uncomfortable time to be a woman.

This week, the Women’s Resources and Research Center is holding Gender Equity Awareness Week, spreading the all-too-unknown information that women, in fact, have yet to reach an equal status to men in the United States.

Although this is evident through an infinite number of statistics (women compose only 14 percent of executive office positions in Fortune 500 companies, 17 percent of Congress, 5 percent of movie directors, etc.), it is compounded by the more subtle effects of the portrayal of women by the media — which largely goes by unquestioned.

A recent episode of “Modern Family,” for example, portrayed all three ladies of the Dunphy family having reached that time of the month simultaneously, and, oh, the hilarity that ensued. These poor victims of womanhood poured orange juice into cereal bowls, burst into tears with the slightest provocation and unleashed their shrill female voices against the terrified Phil Dunphy — in short, pure chaos of the most epic proportions.

The show’s intentions may have been innocent enough, but women cannot thrive in a society where family television allows basic reproductive processes to be perceived as terror-inducing threats to all that is peaceful and holy. How can women reach equality in government when a majority of the country still believes that once a month smart, collected women will break down into emotional ineptitude, exposing Congress to unparalleled disaster?

It is this type of misrepresentation of women that allows men like Rush Limbaugh to call a female law student a “slut” and claim she is asking to be “paid for sex” on public radio for suggesting that contraceptives be covered by health insurance. This following a recent birth control hearing on Capitol Hill made almost entirely up of male witnesses.

The most egregious success in the battle against women’s rights was won by Texas, which has now passed a law that requires doctors to show women images from sonograms, play fetal heartbeats and describe the features of fetuses, and then force women to wait 24 hours before returning for an abortion. A similar law that would have required women to have transvaginal ultrasounds was narrowly scrapped after protests in Virginia last week, and states are finding new ways to curb the right to choose all the time.

But these are just large-scale examples of the types of gender disparities that occur every day. Women are more likely than men to be judged by their appearance rather than the content of their words and actions, and less likely to be covered in the news.

Here at UC Davis, we have only had one female ASUCD president in the last decade — though that is about to change with the incoming president-elect. The same problem goes for editor-in-chief of The Aggie, who is chosen by the Campus Media Board, which is overseen by Student Affairs.

What this all comes down to is that women have yet to reach equity in the United States, a point that many of our generation are still unaware of. In fact, women’s progress has stagnated; last year women lost ground in U.S. corporate boardroom representation, the number of women behind-the-scenes in top-grossing movies has only gone up 1 percent since 1998 and women’s election to statewide office and state legislatures has declined since 2000. Women are still making 80 cents to the dollar earned by men.

It is not only necessary to be aware of these discrepancies, but also to think critically about the way women are portrayed by the media. Pay attention next time to the way a female political candidate is talked about on the news, or the way female roles are written in your favorite sitcom. Characters, including the images of real people projected by the media, aren’t born — they’re produced, and they very much shape the way we as individuals construct our own roles and behavior as we try to reconfigure our position in the world.

I am writing to apologize for my behavior on Feb. 27, 2012 at the Israeli Soldier event at Wellman 106. While I was one of a group of hecklers, I became the face of the protest. Though I am still upset about the Israeli-Palestinian political situation, the manner in which I expressed my frustration was extremely inappropriate. I apologize for my behavior and my disrespect to the speakers and the university. In the current climate on campus with the spirit of Occupy, my ego and my mouth got out of hand. I know this is no excuse for my actions. I behaved in a way that is unbecoming of a student of the university and a member of my community.

Tirumular (Drew) Narayanan
Second year medieval studies major

I am generally a calm and peaceful sort of fellow, but Sam Hoel’s Feb. 28 column “Thank God for religion” filled me with uncharacteristic frustration and anger. The entirety of the text felt like one long insult to ethical atheists such as myself, and revealed the author’s complete ignorance in every subject discussed.

Hoel’s claim that “religion is essential if you wish to hold humanity to a universal standard of morality” ignores centuries of progress in law and philosophy. His summary of “nature” as “dignity is given to the strong, and death comes to the weak” suggests a failure to understand basic biology. His implication that virtue stems only from religion is a slap in the face to virtuous atheists, and makes me wonder if he has ever even met one. His claim that the UC Davis Principles of Community are “firmly based on a religious foundation” (I thought this was a secular university?) is as nonsensical as it is insulting: should people of different religions, then, be held to different Principles of Community? Should nonreligious people be exempt?

The column’s entire premise is founded on outdated and pretentious ideas of moral absolutism; that “right” and “wrong” are set in stone and anyone who disagrees is in error. But moral absolutism leads to stagnation and inflexibility, and inhibits growth and change. Does Hoel really believe that his culture knows more about “right” and “wrong” than any other culture in the world, past, present or future? What arrogance! A simple survey of history shows that morality shifts with every generation, and it would be the height of folly to pretend that our generation just happened to finally get it right. Two hundred years ago slavery was “right”; one hundred years ago barring women from voting was “right”; fifty years ago imprisoning gays for being gay was “right.” I wonder what Hoel thinks is “right” today that his descendants will find just as shameful.

Furthermore, Hoel’s assertion that “religion universally decrees” that people should “treat each other with dignity” is insane. I will gladly agree that there are many religious people who do treat their neighbors kindly, but the word “universally” actually means something. If religions universally promote this dignity, why don’t we see every religious person take action against institutionalized indignities such as slavery, prison brutality, racial segregation, gender discrimination and marriage bans? Moreover, why is religion often used to justify many of these? Yes, religion can be used to encourage beneficial behavior, but it also can be and has been used to encourage very harmful behavior. Or does Hoel think that “universal” means “for white male heterosexual Christians”?

I have one final question for Sam Hoel. Your religion makes many specific claims about the nature of reality. Are these claims true or not? If they are true, then let them stand on their own veracity, not on their supposed effect on human behavior. If they are false, then please do not insult humanity by suggesting that we can only be kept in line by lies and threats.

Barnabas Truman
UCD Alumnus and Friendly Atheist

The March 1 edition of The Aggie contained an article on former UC Davis student and current contestant on “The Voice”, Lindsey Pavao.  It was a well written article, and I’m glad Lindsey is getting the attention she deserves from her former campus community.

But something struck me that I hope struck other Aggie readers. The author of the piece, Dominick Costabile, mentions that Pavao left Davis for financial reasons after her sophomore year. I consider myself fortunate to have met Lindsey while she was a student here, and I can say firsthand that she is brilliant, funny, kind and exceptionally talented.  She was an asset to this campus and would have been an even greater asset had she been able to stay.

She is also not the only bright and talented person I know forced to leave Davis because the university and the state of California refuses to support students who cannot pay full tuition. I wonder how many similarly talented students we lose every single quarter because they’re not able to pay the increasingly exorbitant fees this (allegedly public) university demands. Frankly, I wonder also how administrators sleep at night, knowing that while they pull in six figure salaries, extraordinary Aggies slip through the cracks.

I don’t mean to make Ms. Pavao a martyr to my own personal sentiments, or to imply that I speak for her or for anyone else. I don’t. But how disappointing that someone who brought so much life and talent to this school was effectively denied access to our university because UC Davis no longer cares to admit any but the richest students.

Kathryn Hempstead
Senior English and sociology double major