You know that awkward moment when you’re sitting in the car with your mom, a good song comes on and all of a sudden the lyrics get sleazy and sprinkled with cuss words? It gets really uncomfortable. When did Selena Gomez and Justin Beiber’s songs get so sordid?  

Songs now aren’t any more sexist than they used to be. ”Brown Sugar” (1971) by The Rolling Stones details the rape of an African American slave woman. “Blurred Lines” (2012) by Robin Thicke jests about sexual conquest and entitlement, effectively condoning rape. It’s disconcerting how normalized lyrics like these have become.  

Artists are praised for (and even fight over the right to bear ownership to) songs that subjugate and objectify women. Even women have joined the game, singing songs about virtual enslavement to male sexual desires, advertising themselves as simple playthings. When a man’s ready, he can “come and get it.”

Why has the generational propensity for this type of music not dwindled?  Sex simply sells. There’s no secret that human beings possess a natural inclination for sex. Advertisers are especially adept at exploiting sexual desire in youth culture. It’s part of the human experience and will always live in our society. What is most troubling is that there are powerful men who stand on pedestals and choose only to disseminate messages of violent, non-consensual sex.

These messages are finding their way into the impressionable Millennial subconscious—although not equally.  According to Audrey Becker, who wrote for the Journal of Popular Culture, women are much more susceptible to implicit messages in media. Modeling is a means of learning; females more readily emulate the idols they listen to than their male counterparts. Furthermore, young women look to stars like Selena Gomez and Miley Cyrus for lessons on popularity. Research has shown that girls look to media for sex education. The more sexual content young adults are exposed to, the more likely they are to engage in sexual activity. Stars both desensitize fans to sexual objectification and are entrusted with giving sex advice — sounds like a conflict of interest to me.

While women in music and media tactfully model the submissive sex toy, men model the overpowering conquistador. Lyrics are chock full of abusive behavior, cheating and ignorance — not exactly the kind of virtuous example the role models of the Millennial generation should be following. The double standard in music is ominous and endless.

Many of my male counterparts are now quick to point out songs that categorize all men in a negative light and portray women as powerful. Yes, women too have begun to join the attack party. Taylor Swift has made a living off songs vilifying her ex-boyfriends. While her frivolous dating habits and broken heart lamentations are single-sided and vengeful, they are not sexist.

Sexism is the prejudice and stereotyping on the basis of sex, but stereotypes hold no weight without power. Women do not hold the same political, economic or institutional power as men: oppressors do not come from a lesser states of advantage. Thus, by means of the patriarchy, sexism pervades music.

Patriarchy feeds us this music. Patriarchy profits off this music. Patriarchy facilitates this music’s incorporation into our beings. As long musicians continue to sell and market sex, and as long as we continue to listen, sexism will always be in songs.

KATELYN COSTA is a first year Nutritional Science major clearly studying the wrong material.  Her sweet tooth prompted her to investigate life alternatives. Instead of vegan recipes, her Twitter feed is now flooded with political articles and feminist tweets. Her job in this column will be to hunt the Elephant in the Room: challenging your safe conceptions of unspoken issues and cultivating a healthy discussion. Cheers to perspective!

You can reach Costa at katelyn.costa97@gmail.com.

UC Davis has already banned the consumption of alcohol on its campus. On Monday, the sale and production of alcohol was stopped at the Mondavi Center in response to this policy. Students have been complaining about “unfair treatment” for what they see as a double standard on the university’s part.

“If I can’t get rowdy with my friends on the Quad, then the Mondavi Center shouldn’t get to sell its wine,” said third-year engineering student Ben Mack. “Davis is just as much known for its social life as it is its wine, so if we can’t have one, there’s no way we’re having the other.”

The school’s policy on alcohol reads, “UC Davis strives to maintain a campus free from the illegal use, possession or distribution of controlled substances. Manufacture, sale, distribution, dispensation, possession or use of alcohol and controlled substances by University students and employees on University property.”

“We understand and hear the complaints of our students,” Joe Tupin, the chair of the Mondavi Center’s Board of Advisors said in an email interview. “We will continue making grape juice in place of our wine.”

UC Davis, ranked as one of the top Viticulture and Enology schools in the world, will continue making wine at its vineyard in Sonoma. Transportation will be provided to students to continue their studies, as classes will be offered in the laboratories. Construction will begin for classrooms starting May 23.  

You can reach ETHAN VICTOR at ejvictor@ucdavis.edu.

In our daily lives, we may joke around about a city, a state or a people that wants to become independent. According to a 2009 Rasmussen Reports survey, 18 percent of Texans support their state’s secession. The survey concludes that Texas exhibits comparable results to other states, but we just hear a lot about the Lone Star State in the news. But it does raise the question of whether there could ever be a time in the near future when a place or a people united in a common cause asks for separation from the United States.

There are many forces that may pressure a people to want to become independent. They may have a distinct culture which runs contrary to the mainstream of the rest of the country. Potential secessionists may feel absolutely alienated, or feel as if they are subject to some gross injustice. These people feel so strongly about breaking apart from their own country that they are willing to accept the great risks involved. Economic troubles or grave social injustices may unite previously polarized groups to seek independence from a country that they feel no longer represents them.

Nationalism or patriotism does not necessarily prevent secession. What ultimately keeps people together is a set of common values. A cohesive national identity holds people together no matter where they reside, or what their political or religious beliefs might be.

We must ask ourselves — what forces exist today that might have prevented secession in 1860? The U.S. at the time was a looser union than our present one. People at the time often identified with their state or religion before their country. After the civil war, “these” United States became “the” United States. The country became a single entity, rather than a country whose people had greater loyalty to their region. If a potential secessionist movement were to arise in 21st century America, it would have to destroy the central beliefs that exist despite many social divisions. Since the Civil War, we have never seen a people severely isolated to the point where they wish to leave the rest of the nation.

Ukraine is a recent example of a country that has increasing separatist sympathies. Much of Eastern Ukraine, through language and culture, shares many commonalities with citizens of Russia. In fact, many of the people who live in Eastern Ukraine identify as Russian.

Events in the last three years have certainly pushed people in this region to side more with Russia and to lose their sense of unity with the rest of Ukraine. They feel at odds with those from Western Ukraine, who predominantly speak Ukrainian and tend to identify more with the rest of Europe. With the coup and toppling of pro-Russian president Viktor Yanukovych, Russian-speakers in the east have seen event after event push them closer to separatism. The new Ukrainian government has failed to answer the concerns of Russian-speakers in the east. The Ukrainian government objected to Russian becoming the second national language, laid the blueprints for speedy integration into the European Union and enforced great cultural changes which include downplaying Ukraine’s historic relationship with Russia.

Whether or not you are convinced that common national identity can prevent secession, it’s important to have a conversation on this topic. You might come away with a different perspective about the United States, a country that has been generally successful in putting national unity ahead of any loyalty to state or social class. Analyzing the situation in Ukraine can provide explanations for secessionism. There are many other reasons a nation might want to secede. This will surely complicate how we gauge whether or not secession will become a reality in the United States.

You can reach JUSTIN CHAU at jtchau@ucdavis.edu.