Here's a good question: why can't a woman go topless wherever a man can? Sorry . . . I'm not buying answers like "Because that is the way it has always been" or "Because they are women." Talk about equal rights! The prevalent dress code inequity is motivated by the…
A sorority at De Pauw University booted out a bunch of its pledges and it made the news. Here is the link to the story.
Before I continue, I wish to make my own sentiments perfectly clear. I detest the notion of fraternities and sororities. They are, to me, childish things which people belong to out of some desire to be special without having to rely on their own abilities–special by association. Pass the initiation, become accepted as a member, and you then can “borrow” the prestige of the group.
Or be tainted by it, as with, say, the John Birch Society or the KKK.
This is not to say I see no reason for many of these associations to exist–unions are a very loose form of such things, and I would argue that they serve a positive purpose, although they share the same capacity for abuse of the individual as any large organization, corporate, religious, or social. They are, to put it in as simple terms as I can, a necessary evil.
My prejudice in this regard stems from one of the more persistent myths underlying American culture–that of the coherent and independent individual. I say myth because it is patently untrue–likely an impossibility–and yet we struggle collectively toward instantiating the model through our laws, our national ethos, and our image of ourselves as individuals.
Which makes joing a fraternity or a sorority a particularly perplexing contradiction.
One joins such organizations for numerous reasons all of which center or …
“If I didn’t care about my kids, I’d have an easier time.”
“No real-life problem is ever actually solved, it seems.”
For three years, Geri Anderson has worked as a grade school art teacher. She wakes up every day, willing to try her hardest to make a difference in the lives of the students who attend Walnut Elementary School. “Geri” and “Walnut” are not real names; Geri and I decided to use these pseudonyms to allow Geri to speak freely. Everything else in this article is based on my recent interview of Geri.
Geri is a soft-spoken woman in her mid-twenties. Before being hired for her current job, Geri often substitute taught at expensive private grade schools. She took her first permanent job at Walnut to make a difference.
Geri teaches art to each of the 200 students who attend Walnut. They range in age from preschoolers to sixth-graders. The average class includes about twenty children, although some of the classes have almost 30 children. Not all of the teacher positions are filled at Walnut; for many months, the school has sought the help of adults from the community to fill in for the non-existent science teacher, for example.
Walnut is located in the urban center of a large U.S. city. 98% of the children attending Walnut Elementary are African-American. More than 90% of these students receive free or reduced price lunches. Based upon Geri’s observations, the great majority of the students live in single-parent homes. Classroom behavior issues, including …
Ever since I started doubting the existence of God, I have frequently encountered confusion between the numerous labels used to describe non-theistic belief systems. This is most commonly seen between the words “atheist” and “agnostic,” both of which signify the absence of definitive belief in a deity. At first glance, the distinction may seem obvious: an atheist disbelieves the existence of God or gods, while an agnostic believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God and thus refuses to commit to either belief system. However, in reality these two terms tend to overlap to the extent that two people holding exactly the same (non)belief may label it differently, one identifying as an agnostic and the other, an atheist. Further, one’s label of choice is heavily influenced by the public perception of these terms, the word “atheist” being the more pejorative of the two in the eyes of the public. This probably convinces many non-theists to describe themselves as “agnostic,” as this label seems more palatable and less presumptuous than “atheist.” If one carefully examines the definitions of these terms, however, one should become more hesitant at rejecting one label for another.
I will begin my exposition by quoting from Bertrand Russell’s 1947 pamphlet, Am I An Atheist Or An Agnostic?
…[. . .] As a philosopher, if I were speaking to a purely philosophic audience I should say that I ought to describe myself as an Agnostic, because I do not think that there is a
Check out the Simple Living Network, a non-profit website (absolutely no commercials) that provides lots of information on how to pare down your material excesses. The site is run entirely by volunteers, who sincerely try to practice what they preach. Here's the basic approach, as indicated on the home page:…