Get five in a row to win a free lanyard

With the beginning of the new year now underway, here is a BINGO card of some things you should expect to hear freshmen saying around campus. Feel free to print one out and play along with your friends!

Written by: ETHAN VICTOR — ejvictor@ucdavis.edu

Fragile masculinity is a byproduct of the social construction of gender

Masculinity is more fragile than it’s ever been.

The tendency now by some men to overcompensate for perceived slights and threats to masculinity has invited a wide range of responses, from the sarcastic #MasculinitySoFragile to products like grenade-shaped bath bombs. “Masculine” Q-tips, advertised as a multi-tool for detailing, cleaning and building, have hit the shelves.

While the hashtag in particular uses humor to question the state of masculinity, there is an underlying issue here — some men really do believe that expressions of tender emotion and floral-scented soaps pose an existential threat to manhood and masculinity.

This is a ridiculous notion. Gender is a social construct, a made-up grouping that we have allowed to hold meaning in society. And with our conception of gender comes gender roles — the behaviors, emotions and personality traits we deem appropriate for each gender to exhibit.

This means that masculinity and the attributes usually associated with it — strength, heterosexuality, inability to feel pain — are also made up. The same goes for femininity. There is no real reason a man is supposed to be the head of a household and a woman is expected to be more domestic. These are views based not on biology or anthropological fact but in traditions and stereotypes. No one is born to behave in masculine or feminine ways — at least not in the ways we have to come to define the terms. Rather, we are socialized from birth to believe in these constructs and behave according to them.

The question is this: if masculinity means being strong and tough and unafraid, why do some men seem to be easily threatened by the mere notion of anything even vaguely feminine?

Frankly, it’s sad that some young men immediately default to defensive cries of “no homo” after expressing affection for another man. This is as if to suggest only gay men are affectionate or that being gay is unmanly, or that expressing affection and love for one’s friends is effeminate and therefore degrading for a man to do. This is one reason our current definitions of femininity and masculinity are harmful.

Expectations restrict people. They leave little room for variation, though they leave plenty of room for ostracism and judgement. Moreover, expectations imply that gender is fixed and binary, when in reality it exists on a spectrum. This means gender is not solely based on sex or gender identity but also on gender expression and how one chooses to behave and present themselves to others.

There shouldn’t be any limitations or expectations on how we express ourselves, and yet our current definition of masculinity restricts young boys and affects how men see themselves in relation to women. Gender roles can pigeonhole them into being emotionless, “tough” men who do not show weakness or vulnerability.

But the truth is that men do cry, and sometimes they might even want to talk about their feelings. Men are, despite gendered expectations, people capable of feeling the full range of human emotions. And they should not feel threatened by stereotypically feminine behaviors. Being feminine does not mean being weaker. Femininity is not the opposite of masculinity, and it is definitely not lesser than masculinity. Men should be allowed to like flowers and hug their friends without fear of social ostracization or having their gender or identity insulted or called into question. No one should feel pressured or forced to conform to a gender assigned role.

To do so, we need to stop generalizing and stereotyping those around us based on their perceived gender. There is no way to determine behavior based on gender, nor can we use gender to excuse, restrict or dictate behavior.  

So instead of focusing on traditional definitions of masculinity and femininity, we should focus more on being decent and respectful human beings to one another.

And if being decent isn’t a good enough reason, consider this: The American Foundation for Suicide Prevention reported that men are 3.5 times more likely to die by suicide than women.

When boys are taught to hide their emotions, it can become more difficult to discuss depression as adults. There is already stigma that comes with getting help for mental health issues. Social enforcement of gender roles that punish men for being emotional and vulnerable, or admitting to hurt and asking for help, make the stigma that much worse. Mental health issues are serious, and while there are certainly other factors involved, it’s likely that fragile masculinity and pressure to conform do play a role. No matter how small that role may be, the risk is far too great not to give it the attention it deserves.

Written by: Jeanette Yue — jyyue@ucdavis.edu

After decades of international peace and a domestic sense of invulnerability, the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001 left Americans feeling shattered and helpless — their very psyche deeply wounded. Since then, the same sense of vulnerability that came with the fall of the Twin Towers is creeping in with the onslaught of harrowing, yet almost routine, mass shootings that plague our nation.

This time, however, the enemy may not be an overseas terrorist with radical religious beliefs, but rather our own people — the neighbor you saw every morning walking his dog, the quiet guy in your math class, the person who sat next to you getting a haircut. The American psyche’s wounds are being opened once more and we are grimacing in pain.

Mass shootings have affected the dynamic of American public life in two important ways. The first deals with the collective psychological trauma inflicted on the masses. The second explores the subtle yet ubiquitous cultural, religious and social divides that these mass shootings have created.

Dr. Laura Miller, a social worker and psychotherapist, explained in a CBSDC interview last year that the collective trauma many Americans experience has perpetuated a daily defense mechanism that “can resemble the post-traumatic response of actual trauma survivors […] many people become more hyper-vigilant, less trusting of strangers and […] more paranoid in spaces they once associated with safety.”

Instead of being a safe place where refugees seek asylum, America has become a land filled with people who are distrusting, defensive and paranoid, giving way to a deeply flawed collective attitude. Dr. Miller goes on to state that those with anxious or depressive tendencies also tend to be vulnerable to the psychological impact of mass shootings, with the shootings reaffirming their pre-existing notions that the world is a dangerous or cruel place.

According to one survey, 41.6 percent of college students list anxiety as their top concern and 36.4 percent list depression. College students dealing with pre-existing mental health conditions — conditions compounded by the recent increase in media coverage of gun violence — are bound to have feelings of hopelessness, stress and paranoia, all of which take an indescribable toll on an individual’s psychological well-being.

The incessant and often sensationalized media coverage of gun violence has a profound impact on the cultural, religious and social relationships that exist between the American people, especially between those color and those not. Linking race and criminality has been identified in a study conducted by Color of Change as a neurological process related to the rapid firing of neurons.

Every time a news report portrays a person of color associated with a crime or as a violent criminal — which it does much more often than it does a white person — the neurons in the brain that associate race with criminality fire. And the more often these news reports air, the more the link is triggered, and the more often these neurons fire. Thus, prejudices against

people of color are born. This can potentially lead to an inherent mistrust between people of color and white people.

Think of the tension between white police officers and the black communities they patrol. Following the tragic shooting of Alton Sterling in Baton Rouge, President Barack Obama reminded the American public that when racial disparities exist within the criminal justice system, trust between law enforcement and the communities they serve break down.

It is important, however, to remember that this mistrust originally stems from that traumatized psyche, which attempts to defend itself by clinging to what it knows. Communities band together, shunning and viewing other communities, cultures and religions with a distrustful eye in an effort to preserve their own safety. Although a unification of those with common characteristics may seem effective, it is superficial and undermines the diversity America has worked so hard to protect. It fosters a cultural divisiveness that must be prevented.

This is not to say that communities must give up their cultural, religious or social identities, but, as Americans, we must strive to learn about and remain open-minded to the multitudes of cultures that surround us. Only then can the walls of mistrust start to come down and our psyche begin to heal.

Few contemporary problems strike a chord among college students like that of gun violence. Tamanna Ahluwalia, a second-year neurobiology, physiology and behavior major, wants to take a critical, nuanced approach to an issue which often sees flaming rhetoric dominating the conversation. She will consider the role this nation’s lack of gun control regulation plays in creating a culture of violence, misogyny and instant gratification. Her column is the latest to weigh in on a topic that requires more urgency since the gun-related tragedies in Sandy Hook, Dallas and Orlando.

Written by: Tamanna Ahluwalia — tahluwalia@ucdavis.edu

René Descartes shows the importance of studying across disciplines

Growing up, I never excelled in STEM classes or even wanted to be a scientist. My burning passion for science never extended beyond the time I accidentally set an entire Bunsen burner on fire. Still, I felt chained to the notion of engineering. After all, I had to keep in mind the job market, my future salary and, most importantly, the sweet, prestigious title gained from being an engineer.

In the past two years, I went from confidently wanting to be an engineer, to questionably wanting to be an engineer, to finally realizing the global chaos I would unleash if I actually became an engineer. After months of existential deliberation and turmoil, I ultimately settled my issue with the only sensible solution: I started studying Comparative Literature. I know, I know. Now I can both read and adopt the title of Dostoevsky’s The Idiot.

So what exactly is driving me to pursue a so-called useless humanities degree?

Our era cherishes STEM degrees for good reason: we’re in the midst of a technological age, and science plays an intrinsic role in humankind’s advancement. More now than ever, there’s a pressing need for STEM workers that isn’t going away any time soon. Unfortunately, this increasing emphasis on scientific disciplines seems to be resulting in a decline in the number of individuals seeking humanities degrees. And for some, a degree in the humanities just isn’t taken very seriously.

In defense of the humanities’ importance, I’d like to take the time to discuss someone who is, well, timeless: René Descartes.

Let’s start with his impact on philosophy, since this will be one of the only times philosophy gets prioritized over math. An independent thinker, Descartes unapologetically divorced his work from all formerly-established philosophical ideas. He nullified all preconceptions about philosophy, discredited his own senses and trusted only undeniable facts. During a time of severe conformity and stagnation within philosophy circles, Descartes kindled a radical movement toward skepticism that continues to influence philosophy today.

He eventually resolved his metaphysical inquiries by concentrating on science. The inventor of the Cartesian coordinate system and standard algebraic notation, Descartes developed many integral (pun intended) components of calculus and math analysis. Perhaps he sounds villainous to most students, but contemporary math would be unrecognizable without his contributions.

Believing that all truths were entwined together, he successfully used mathematical facts to unspool philosophical ambiguities. By weaving together two independent subjects, he simultaneously pioneered essential scientific and metaphysical processes — hence being dubbed the Father of Modern Philosophy and Father of Analytic Geometry. He almost has as many titles as a character from Game of Thrones: “René Descartes, First of His Name, Protector of the Two-Dimensional Plane, Breaker of Logic Chains.”

Now, Descartes was obviously a genius in several subjects, whereas most of us are just lucky to be somewhat talented in anything at all. We can still learn a lot about discovery through Descartes’ work, though.

Innovation almost always blossoms at the crossroads of science and art. (I think my former government teacher said that — thanks, Mr. Adams!) We need science’s momentum, rationality and practicality in order to cure diseases, prevent and alleviate environmental damage and create electronics that we rely on every day. But we also need the humanities’ balancing contemplation, empathy, and imagination to teach justice and morality, challenge established beliefs and help us appreciate our differences in cultures, religions and political affiliations. Therefore, science and the humanities aren’t just intertwined; when balanced perfectly, they bring out the best in one another.

That’s why I’ve come to terms with not being an engineer. If our goal is the advancement of mankind, and if advancement is often rooted in interdisciplinary collaboration, we shouldn’t neglect our personal skill sets. They could respectively help push humanity forward, even in the most microscopic way.

I still want that prestigious title, though.

Written by: Taryn DeOilers — tldeoilers@ucdavis.edu

The story of an eager freshman who didn’t exactly have an ideal start to his time at UC Davis.

First-year students are often prone to embarrassment when starting at UC Davis. Between learning (or at least trying to learn) how to bike on campus correctly and trying to find their way around our large campus (with many buildings named after mysterious men), starting college can be a difficult time.

Michael Podd, an incoming first-year chemistry major and medieval studies minor, hoped that he could get through his first day of college without any major problems. Nice try, Michael.

“What happened was that I took an evening nap and woke up at 8 o’clock. I thought that it was 8 o’clock the next morning, but it was actually just 8 o’clock the same evening. Don’t ask me how I didn’t realize that it was still dark outside,” Podd said. “Thinking I was going to be late for my first college class, I rushed to the Sciences Lecture Hall via the hoverboard that my mom bought me to get around campus. So when I arrived, I thought that I was just the first one to get there. I sat down in the front row of course and got ready for class. I waited for a long time, thinking that everyone was just running late. Turns out I was just an entire 12 hours early for class and by the time it actually started, I had fallen asleep and missed the whole thing. There’s always tomorrow,” Podd told The Aggie, not realizing that today was Friday.

Podd was joined by several dozen other first-years who were naturally attracted to the scent of a fellow first-year — explaining why these new students often travel in large, roving packs across campus.

Written by: Brian Landry — bjlandry@ucdavis.edu

Number of crashes in and around bike circles sees greatest decrease

Davis updated its transportation laws early September after a recent study by TAPS showed that Welcome Week bike accidents decreased 46 percent when skateboards, cruisers and some bikes were banned.

The city changed its laws to forbid “four-wheel objects, such as skateboards and golf carts” (Section 3.1.81e) on the UC Davis campus. The new amendment also lists “cruisers and bikes that do not have a second and third speed option” (Section 3.1.81g) as dangerous and prohibited. UC Davis’ mobility assistance shuttles will be protected amid concerns that medical services would be hurt by the new ordinances.

“We are excited in the new, faster direction our campus is moving,” said David Landis, director of TAPS. “We felt that single-speed cruisers were actually slowing down the flow of traffic, which, as any experienced driver can tell you, is a danger to those on the road.”

While the move makes sense in terms of decreasing time on the road, there are economic and health concerns that surround the new change. Students who currently have cruisers and bikes will now mainly have to resort to walking. Bike shops say they will now be faced with a surplus of bicycles that have no function.

“While I understand the move, I don’t appreciate what it has done to my cruiser business,” said Tim Lillard, owner of Doug’s Bike Shop. “Many students choose to go with the cruiser for its safer features.”

Accidents are expected to increase if students reject the law, which has become an increasingly likely prospect for such a bike-centric campus.

“The law was a knee-jerk reaction,” said a UC Davis biker who spoke under the condition of anonymity. “Just get off your phone and ride faster. Pay attention to the roads. Welcome Week is always a nightmare. Students don’t know how to ride here, especially the new ones.”

Freshmen and transfers will have a difficult time adjusting to the fast-paced life that Davis now brings, but they are expected to spend less time on bikes than prior classes. For now, although the current state of transportation seems to be uncertain, once adjustments are made, students are expected to get to class in a safer and in less time.

As much as he didn’t want a change like this to occur, it’s something that Landis and TAPS said was “necessary for growth.”

Written by: Ethan Victor — ejvictor@ucdavis.edu

On campuses big and small throughout the United States, invited speakers are protested, teachers are penalized and presidents are stepping down because of the content of their speech.

While the country embraces speech freedoms more completely than ever, there is a simultaneous and increasing demand for sensitivity. All speech, when heard by a broad audience, has the potential to effect serious change. College students in particular are demanding more respectful, more politically correct and more aware speech.  

When Wesleyan University nearly shuttered its oldest campus publication after it published a student op-ed criticizing the Black Lives Matter movement, when the president of Claremont McKenna College stepped down after backlash for an email saying that a low-income Latina student has trouble fitting into the mold of the school’s typical student and when Yale students called for for two educators to step down after they questioned whether or not administration should lecture students on the potential cultural insensitivity of Halloween costumes — one should stop and wonder whether this kind of outrage really does contribute to the making of a more peaceful world.

This conflict, in which many who speak out against the restriction of speech are attacked, is riddled with irony. Students call for increased dialogue on controversial issues while silencing the people who may make disagreeable comments. Students abridge speech against those with unpopular opinions on topics like LGBT+ rights, affirmative action and immigration as they become the majority, even though it was free speech that allowed those movements to become part of popular opinion. There is even irony in the way some students protest the speech they dislike. These students are not of the opinion that right speech can trump false speech — they look to administration to take down those who speak against the issues they hold dear.

Comedians face the some of the most stringent sanctions on their speech if their material can be seen as offensive to any group.

Some comics are now forced to make the decision to either censor their acts or not join the lucrative college circuit at all. Students at the National Association for Student Activities “wanted comedy that was 100 percent risk-free, comedy that could not trigger or upset or mildly trouble a single student,” according to writer and social critic Caitlin Flanagan. Not only do students condemn the comedians whose jokes are in poor taste, but the comedians feel similarly negative about the students. Although many individuals new to comedy rely on the exposure and compensation that colleges and universities can offer, comedians are increasingly unwilling to abide by what they view as unnecessarily strict standards of political correctness.

Chris Rock and Jerry Seinfeld have both said that playing on campuses is not as fun as it used to be, because many students have grown so sensitive. On whether or not a joke ultimately has an important message, Rock says that, “You can’t even be incorrect on your way to being correct.”

But some comedians are unphased by the climate on college campuses. After a comment by Bill Maher during his talk show in which he compared Muslims to the Mafia, students at UC Berkeley protested his presence on campus, but he showed up regardless. Maher told students that hearing things that are hurtful, offensive and wrong may not be comfortable or even “the right thing to do” — but can be funny and informative nevertheless. Often the things that make us laugh do so because they are shocking, absurd, unacceptable or frightening. When Maher makes broad statements about Muslims, the public laughs because we know we shouldn’t make those sorts of generalizations — that they are untrue, ridiculous and a little shocking.

Students will no longer tolerate comedy that is crude for the sake of shocking the audience or getting a laugh. One student writing to Jerry Seinfeld said, “[I] believe there is a responsibility, especially when a well-known comic is talking about sensitive topics like race and gender politics, to have an underlying message to be said.”

College students live in an era in which the things they say and post may cast a shadow over them eternally. Social media perpetuates the life of words, and makes the stand up acts of comedians accessible at any time and by anyone. People can argue that comedians use stereotypes just for the sake of comedy, and that there is value and humor in the absurd and inappropriate. But in our increasingly educated, connected and globalized community, the next generation of leaders seems to be saying that humor at the expense of others must do more than make us laugh — it must also make us think.
There are few genres of art that can strike a nerve as profoundly as comedy at its best. That’s what Stella Sappington, a first-year undeclared student, hopes to examine in her column on the role that comedy plays in the current political and social climate. Students have notably tried to disinvite guest speakers like the sharp-tongued Bill Maher from campus for what they perceive as threatening speech. How to reconcile words that may be offensive with principles of free speech is among many topics Sappington hopes to address head on.

Written by: Stella Sappington — sasappington@ucdavis.edu

Naivete underscores problem of delays and lines in hammock system

First-year Darrell Nusbaum expressed optimism Wednesday that he would actually be able to grab a hammock on a the Quad at some point this quarter. His confidence comes despite previous studies of the hammocks showing that they’re only available to lay down in when you’re not anywhere near them.

“The thing that struck me about Davis when I was looking at schools was how friendly the people are,” Nusbaum said. “I’m sure people are aware of how long they’ve been using a hammock and would be more than willing to give up a spot if they saw someone else waiting.”

Research has shown that when access to the hammocks is limited, people experience a 37 percent decline in ‘good vibes’ and an even steeper 78 percent decrease in stretching out and contentedly saying ‘ahhh.’ One solution — to squeeze two people onto one hammock — seems to be working for some students, but remains relatively uncommon, with sources citing the discomfort that comes with close proximity to another human.

The hammocks were installed on campus several years ago amid increasing demand for spaces where students could take a break from skipping class, waking up past noon and a life of unprecedented freedom from home and the strictures of professional life.

But the need for hammocks quickly exceeded the number actually available for use — six for both the west and east sides of the Quad. Long lines and delays are common and angry students say the whole system is failing.

“Like everybody on this campus, we keep a very vigorous schedule,” said one of the hammocks. “But we weren’t designed to accommodate thirty-thousand students. This is our reality.”

Despite problems, students still ranked the hammocks as the best place to take a nap in the Best of Davis 2016. The hammocks narrowly beat out the Quad, the Arboretum and former Chancellor Linda Katehi’s office.

Nusbaum personally plans to lay watch over the hammocks by sitting nearby and making his move when a space becomes available. As of press time Thursday, he was still waiting.

Written by: Eli Flesch – ekflesch@ucdavis.edu