Opinion

Rape prevention must begin with society
Viewpoint
by Steve Peake
Columnist

Despite the recent efforts to raise the effectiveness of the Mountaineer Escort program, campus-wide responses to the issues of rape and violence against women are still woefully inadequate and misguided.

Aside from the fact that the Escort program has not been active in the past, at the times during which most rapes probably occur (weekends and past 1 a.m.), there are more pressing problems.

Attitudes prevail in our society that attach responsibility for sexual assault not to the perpetrators of these offenses, but to the victims and potential victims of such crimes. One has only to look at recent comments and articles printed in The Appalachian to see the truth of this statement.

For example, instead of stepping up patrols on campus, or targeting forums and workshops toward men (overwhelmingly the primary assailants in sexual assaults), spokespersons for University Police have generally reduced their suggestions on how to promote campus safety to requests that women surrender their freedom of movement to prevent rapes and attacks.

Likewise, some of the catch phrases that commonly appear on posters around campus and flow smoothly from the mouths of officials closely resemble platitudes such as, "Be safe-don't walk alone" or "Don't make yourself a statistic." Common to all of these suggestions is that they are imperative statements directed toward women.

In fact, as recently as in the October 8 issue of The Appalachian, the same distorted attitudes were espoused freely, even if subconsciously, in an article by Sandra Isley ("Wellness Peer Education Addresses Issues of Rape").

Perhaps it's not surprising that men trained by years of socialization are compelled to redirect responsibility away from themselves. After all, membership in a group responsible for various atrocities towards women over the years is not one of the most comfortable states of being.

Still, what's worse is that Isley's article confirms that women, too, often blindly place the bulk of responsibility for their safety on themselves rather than society at large.

For instance, after a reasonable and useful discourse on some important questions related to rape, the article unfortunately concludes with nothing more than a list of techniques that women should employ to "protect" themselves from danger.

The problem here is not that such suggestions are completely useless and unnecessary, but that they appear in lieu of demands for men to respect women and control themselves.

Perhaps it's time for universities to sponsor forums on the danger signs that precede the impulse to rape in men rather than programs which barrage women with the idea that they must direct all their energies toward avoiding "potential rape situations."

Maybe it's time we stop presenting behavioral tips to women to which an "or else" could easily be applied. For example, Isley's article recounts some tips, suggested by women during the Wellness forum, that could help ensure their safety. One of these is, "Know your own limits and don't go beyond them." With this suggestion, they stop just short of adding, "Or else you'll be at least partially responsible if you are raped."

It's time to turn the tables of responsibility and start placing accountability where it belongs. If a man commits rape or a related sexual offense, he should be punished severely.

Not only should he be kicked off the football team, expelled from his fraternity, or banned from the Chess Club (after all, rapists don't necessarily fit into stereotypes), he should also be removed from school. Finally, he should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

But who are we kidding? None of this can happen in the current social climate that still views women, at least implicitly, as secondary human beings. As long as boys' clubs, whatever their affiliations, hold the power, men won't be held accountable for their actions as they should be. And, what's worse, they won't be educated properly about the seriousness of sexual offenses and the necessity of respect for women.

So as long as law enforcement officers persist in posing to women routine questions such as "What were you wearing?" during rape investigations, these attitudes will not change. Misogynist attitudes, however latent or blatant, will continue to thrive and fester in our social fabric as they have for hundreds of years.

Furthermore, even if the Mountaineer Escort program does extend its hours to 2 a.m. and remains active during weekends, it will only be a secondary tool in helping to stop sexual assaults. After all, such a well-intentioned program works according to the assumption that women should and must make allowances for their personal freedom to avoid being raped.

We must dig deeply into our most ingrained attitudes if we want to address the problem of sexual violence toward women in the most thorough way. This is no small order, but if we want to progress as a society, we must be willing to recognize and rectify the problem of cultural bias, if we want to conquer the more visible problem of rape itself.

[back]

Alien parking techniques
Bruce Threlkeld
Columnist

Let's suppose you just flew in from some outer-world planet and decided to take a few classes at Appalachian State.

Well, the first thing you would have to do (after putting wheels on your spaceship of course) is to go down to the friendly people at the traffic control office and pick yourself up a sticker. Bring plenty of money, because parking is not cheap around this part of Earth.

"IZHNOB," you remark, as you hand the woman a Benjamin ("IZHNOB," being the alien word for "pain," particularly that on the posterior section of the body).

Fortunately, like most tourists in a foreign country, you haven't learned the value of a hundred dollars yet. It seems to you like a lot of money. Parking on your planet was an indelible right, and was included in your tuition fees.

However, you are happy to have received a small piece of blue plastic which, when peeled and placed on the back of your spaceship, will grant you parking privileges for an entire year. Not only that, but you have also received a small pamphlet, delineating the laws and regulations of campus transportation.

You quickly scan through the information (without even opening the booklet), and discover that the map inside is not a diagram of parking lots, but of buildings. How strange, you ponder.

Since you thought you had just purchased a parking sticker, you had counted on the parking lot map to go along with it. The lady smiles and circles a small group of lines on a page saying, "You're in the stadium parking lot." Ironically, "stadium," in your language means, "a place where one travels to find that honest intention is illusory."

Afterwards, you travel to the area where you were told there would be a spot for your spaceship, but you see signs saying, "restricted parking only." You assume that the word, "restricted," must have synonymous ties with, "stadium," though your electro-dictionary-translator does not verify this.

You would feel much better if there was at least one sign (any size would do), designating the area as "stadium parking." There isn't. Nor do you find any signs pointing out where to go if the stadium parking lot is full. You finally decide that this must be the place, although it is presently filled up.

"OOZHNOB," you declare, using the word metaphorically, as the actual definition is, "to be slapped about on the head."

You circle the parking lot a few times, noting many earth-vehicles without proper parking stickers, some with no stickers at all! (You find out later, much to your dismay, that you would have been held less liable had you removed your sticker before parking in the spot you eventually chose.)

Reaching for your zapgun, you hesitate, realizing the impoliteness (in accordance to earth laws) of disintegrating an illegally parked car. You decide to let the earthling's justice system handle the removal of the offensive vehicles.

Strangely, there are no traffic cops around to ameliorate the situation, so you decide to park in a safe spot, with about 20 feet between your narrow spaceship and the curb. Plenty of room, you figure, for two or three primitive earth-vehicles to pass.

As you leave your spaceship, you sense that justice will prevail, and the intruders who do not have proper stickers will be swiftly removed, allowing you to exercise your hundred-dollar right to access the lot you are now crossing.

In fact, with your outerworldly perspicacity, you espy a number of officers, hiding in bushes and trees, waiting with pen and citation book, to pounce on the illegally parked vehicles. You make a mental note to return in one hour, after class is over, to revel in the justice about to be served.

A little over an hour later, you return to find several parking spots now available. As you approach your craft, you notice a small yellow slip of paper stuck on the windshield; a thank-you note, no doubt, from the officers who received your telepathic message to remove the non-blue-stickered invaders from the stadium parking lot.

"IZHNOBUT," you cry, as you read the message and determine that you have been given a ticket! ("Izhnobut," loosely translated in this context means, "pain, in the lower posterior portion of the body.") You believe someone has committed a mortal error, as you reach for the zapgun again, ready now to tear a new one in the next...

...patience gets the best of you, and you set the zapgun down. You can't help but mutter, "#&*$!+*" (which is universal and needs no translation) as you decide to head to the traffic control center to rectify the situation.

[back]

Video games aren't fun anymore
My Turn
by Daniel Bothun
Columnist

The promotions for the new Nintendo 64 machine compelled me to think about the history of video games. Since most of my classmates during middle school were haughty and supercilious, I was forced to spend my youth with Atari and Nintendo. Some of my childhood friends were Mega-Man, Kangaroo, the grossly overweight players from R.B.I. Baseball and the blue dildo from Double Dribble.

The appeal of the early video games to many was their simplicity. Now a lot of people are being driven away by the games' increasing complexity.

Most people who played video games during the 80's have played Pac-Man. Pac-Man is one of the most popular video games of all time. It was so successful during its heyday, that it even inspired a television show. Pac-Man was simple and fun. There were no cheat codes or special moves to memorize. There weren't even any buttons! All the player had to do was move the joystick to guide Pac around the screen.

Even Nintendo was a simple system to play. In the old Super Mario games, Mario could pretty much do three things: run, jump, and swim. In Mario 64, Mario can jump in six different ways, slide, crawl, punch, throw, and even break-dance, among other things. All of these new features in Mario 64 make the game too hard to play. One must master most of these moves in order to defeat the game, and some moves are hard to do.

In the old days, the cheat codes were easier to remember than they are today. Remember up-up, down-down, left-right, left-right, B-A Start? That cheat code could be used for a slew of games, like Contra and Gradius. Now, cheat codes are different for every game. When putting in a cartridge for my Super Nintendo, I almost always have to look up the cheat codes somewhere.

The ultimate examples of how complicated video games have become are Mortal Kombat two and three. In order to play these games, the player must memorize codes for special moves, fatalities, animalities, and friendships for each character.

Mortal Kombat two and three are the reasons I rarely go to the arcade anymore. Whenever I play these games in the arcade, some little kid always throws in quarters right when I'm about to do a fatality. This little kid then proceeds to beat the snot, and other fluids, out of my character in about 20 seconds. This hand-eye coordination makes Franz Liszt look like a six-year-old struggling with hot cross buns.

I remember when my Dad and I used to play Tetris on the Nintendo. I remember both of us sitting in front of the warm glow of the television screen, playing Tetris to the beat of "The Nutcracker Suite." This game was simple, fun, and something that both of us could play with ease.

Today, there is almost no possibility of a father/son video game experience ever happening. Fathers, who are unfamiliar with video games, couldn't figure out how to play Crash Bandicoot with their sons. These fathers are then forced to be uninvolved with their son's favorite hobby.

The focus of game development these days is toward better technology, not fun. Games today are designed to have more features and better graphics, instead of being simple.

If this trend in development continues, the fun of video games will be lost forever. Video game companies will soon regret making games for themselves, and not the customers.

[back]

Letters to the Editor

Bigots should not remain anonymous

To the Editor:

I can no longer sit still and allow silence to be my complicity. It saddens my heart to see the iniquitous defacement of the tunnels, which had been painted with pride and good spirits in honor of National Coming Out Day. Once again, faceless cowards felt the need to express their ignorance through hatred. This letter is written to those of you that took part in such a spineless attack against innocent people.

How dare you have the audacity to say such draconian things to people? Sure, you have a right to your feeble-minded opinions, but to actually preach aspersions of hate and death to others that you don't know, where do you get that right? Where do you get off standing behind the mask of your angry God in order to express your putrid and baneful thoughts? I might be better able to tolerate your opinions if they were in any way, shape or form based on accurate facts. But they are not; they are nothing more than catchy phrases based on your own erroneous, homophobic thoughts. If you are so adamant of your opinions, why don't you put down your can of spray paint, stand up, and have the nerve to put a face with your malicious words? Or are you too insecure and scared? I can only imagine how easy it is to be so brazen when you stand behind the shield of anonymity.

May you all find enough peace and happiness within yourselves to allow others the opportunity to simply live their lives.

Rachel E. Bowman
ASU Box 13465

[back]

Hate grafitti disturbing

To the Editor:

Has everyone seen the hateful slurs in the tunnel under River Street? I suggest you all go take a long look. Take another. What this says about us as an intellectual institution, as a student body, and as individuals is appalling. Perhaps those of you who painted the tunnel thought you were being funny. Or perhaps you supposed you were being good Christians (the irony there is pitifully evident). Maybe you wanted to exercise your freedom of speech to make a vacuous statement. You sure made a statement all right. You made a statement to your peers, your doctors, your therapists, your siblings, your professors, your politicians. In short, you condemned a lot of people you are in contact with everyday. It's easy to do when one can hide behind such anonymity.

I will not challenge anyone's freedom of speech. Neither will I allow ignorance to represent me. As a heterosexual woman, I find your opinions fulsome and morally degrading. Indeed, I am ashamed to be affiliated with you because I am straight. If you want to draw ugly lines to divide people between straight and gay, then do not count on my solidarity. In my world, such lines do not exist.

Laura Michele Kallus
ASU Box 6789

[back]

Ball's reference to Bible bad

To the Editor:

Jeremy Ball's article in the October15 issue is sugar-coated swill. I get the feeling he wrote it just to make himself feel better. His only solution to the homophobic graffiti in the tunnel is prayer? Jeremy didn't even condemn the people who created the anti-day graffiti; he suggested forgiving them because "we are all sinners." I am sick of God as a solution to society's problems. The title of Jeremy's article led me to believe he was going to castigate homophobes and offer a little open-mindedness. I was tricked. His article degenerated into religious dogma that could have easily been lifted from a Billy Graham column.

I wish The Appalachian would provide more interesting and diverse viewpoints besides the continuous stream of jaded religious right opinions. In my opinion, anyone who would hate or not hate someone because of what the Bible says is a fool. The Bible is outdated and continues to warp people's minds. I wish The Appalachian columnists didn't feel the need to push their parents' ethics on the student populace. I disagree with the homophobic graffiti in the tunnel, but my reasons have nothing to do with John 3:16. I wish people would listen to each other and not preach when problems arise. Jeremy says God hates the sin, not the sinner. Using this "logic," God hates the act of rape but not the rapist. Why would anyone want to submit to a God that follows that ideology?

Jeremy claims his religion is a "faith built upon an eternal love which conquers death and hatred." I have a question for Jeremy: How many wars has religion started? In the future, I hope The Appalachian will refrain from printing slanted articles.

Sincerely,

Denver Hill
ASU Box 8308

[back]

Gay and Lesbian ad misleading

To the Editor:

The October10 ad in The Appalachian supporting civil rights for gays and lesbians included as supporters the psychology faculty. I doubt that my colleague or colleagues who helped pay for the ad intended to incriminate the psychology faculty as a whole; however those reading the ad could easily assume that the total psychology faculty, which consists of almost 30 people, instead of one or any number less than the total, was supportive of the ad. Please clarify this matter in your next issue.

My concern does not mean that I am opposed to legitimate civil rights for anyone. I do believe that in the current politically correct climate, the gay and lesbian awareness movement is demonstrating its intolerance by seeking to intimidate people who do not agree with them as being "uneducated" and "homophobic" or worse! From my perspective, much of the agenda being pushed by the movement is neither civil nor is it right. Furthermore, the agenda is not good for Appalachian State Univerisity, for North Carolina, or for the United States; therefore I do not wish to possibly be identified with it.

Sincerely,

Boyd Max Dowell
Professor of Psychology

[back]

Seeking prayer group interest

To the Editor:

I regret that I have nothing to complain about. In fact, it is my wish to bring some of us together. I am putting out a call to all fellow brothers and sisters in Islam with hopes of starting a Friday prayer group here at A.S.U. This invitation is also extended to those non- Muslims who have an interest in Islam and in hearing the word of Allah. Perhaps, if the response is good, trips to the mosque in Gastonia or Charlotte could be arranged. Please feel free to contact me if you are interested.

As-salaam
Rlaikum,

Kerry Fowler
ASU Box 11022

[back]

Art coverage positive

To the Editor:

First let me begin this "Letter to the Editor" with a word of thanks and congratulations on your organization's commitment to provide the university and its community with a diversity of articles and features. With my background in the visual arts, I would especially like to commend you on strengthening your coverage of the arts. Representative of this effort is your recent article focusing on the "banned" works of local artists Troy Tuttle and Krysti Adams.

I am fortunate to have attended this reception, and hold the highest regard for the artists. I found their work both visually exciting and thought provoking. The question of why the works were banned is certainly important, and continuing discussions would provide a multitude of responses with supporting arguments. This is the type of tough question that must be faced in today's complex world. Being a visual artist myself, I understand the fear of being censored, and an incomplete vision of my ideas being presented.

However, the issue of censorship is not one that I would try and tackle in one letter. The real reason for this letter is to express my support, not only for artists, but for the venues, often community-centered, that provide exhibition opportunities. Over my years in Boone, I have had numerous occasions to deal with Cherry Johnson, Executive Director of the Watauga County Arts Council, her staff, and hard-working volunteers. It is my deep concern that, while we discuss important issues like this, we do not misrepresent the work of people (like Cherry Johnson, the Arts Council and the Jones House) who have been such strong advocates for the arts in our communities. These people work quietly, steadily, and often with low or no pay, and are often the only reason many opportunities for artists exist in the community.

In closing, I extend my sincere interest in this issue to the artists, and my sincere thanks to organizations like the Jones House and Watauga County Arts Council that continue to operate amidst differing opinions about this and other issues. Thank you for your kind attention, and for your journalistic diligence.

Sincerely,

Hank T. Foreman
Acting Director
Catherine J. Smith Gallery

[back]

Game Day advice

To the Editor:

How would I rank crowd enthusiasm and school spirit at Mountaineer football games? A pathetic 3 out of 10. As an overseas visitor at this university, and a former athlete, I must admit surprise at the lack of vocal support for the team.

It has been my experience that home ground advantage translates into a bonus of at least a touchdown a game. Two weeks ago, 300 supporters from Furman outcheered and outgunned the12,000 spectators from A.S.U. A spectator is someone who observes an event but doesn't take part. That appears to be the root of the problem. A.S.U. has lots of spectators. True, they make the effort to come to the game, but they are only there in body and not in spirit.

I assume students attend the games because they believe in their team. I have attended lots of training sessions in the past three months, and the team does train hard, and is deserving of your support. And how frustrating must the students be for the talented, enthusiastic band and cheer squad. The cheer squad especially attracts my empathy. They see very little of the game; they continually attempt to get the crowd involved, and are consistently ignored by all but the faithful few.

This Saturday, the Mountaineers play the number one team in the country. They will need your vocal support for the entire game. When I return to Australia in December, I would like to be able to tell my colleagues that not only is A.S.U. a first class university nestled in the foothills of the incredible Appalachians, but it has fanatical (dare I say it), enthusiastic student supporters of the football team.

Barrymore Ward
Visiting Professor
Health, Leisure, and Exercise Science

[back]

[News] [Opinion] [Sports] [Etc...] [Online Extras]