You can run, but you can’t hide
Sexism still exists in different form
KAY PRAUNER is a senior
news-editorial major,
assistant copy desk chief
and a Daily Nebraskan
columnist.
I need to ask a favor of you.
I’d like you to set aside whatever
you’re doing, and -1 know this may
be taxing - think about sex.
I’m not talking about knock-over
lamps-as-you-hurl-undergarments
and-scramble-toward-the-nearest-des
ignated-coital-comer sex. I’m not set
ting up a fantasy forum, here.
I’m asking you to think about
something with true significance -
your very own personal sex. And then
consider this sex of yours ... with an
attachment.
And let’s say this aforementioned
attachment is, oh... an “ism.” What’s
an “ism,” you ask? Let’s just say it’s
sex with a twist. It’s no secret, trust
me. In fact, I know we’ve all encoun
tered sex of this sort - and, unfortu
nately, at quite a vulnerable age.
Before you prudishly wave this
aside, I want you to try something for
me. Imagine yourself placing this
“ism” right next to your sex.
So this sounds perverse? You bet
it is. This is sex in its raunchiest of
forms. This is the type of sex for
which we often feel guilt, shock,
embarrassment and remorse. This is
the type of sex that gives me goose
bumps of Andean proportions.
Certainly this is a concept that has
been around the block countless
times. It’s as ancient - and by the
same token as jaw-slackening - as the
Kama Sutra. By no means is sexism a
new - or for that matter, rare - breed.
But in a sense, the sexism of
which I speak is new. Even though
women have managed to shatter the
mythical glass ceiling, and men have
whipped out their dustpans and
whisks to help clean up the mess, sex
ism has not disappeared.In fact, it has
evolved into something drastically
different from days past.
I guess one could say that sexism
has undergone a sort of conceptual
Darwinism, emerging in a more
robust form, marking its collected ter
ritory, and wielding a new pouch of
finely honed skills for survival. It also
could be said that we have enabled
sexism to alter its appearance so dras
tically that one can no longer sense
how or in what form it continually
lurks overhead and underfoot.
And when sexism leaps from its
respective crack or crevice, we see
that it has transformed into, well, an
overwhelmingly adaptable, highly
advanced beast. And this beast is not
selective when stalking its prey. It
attacks men and women alike.
For example, a recent study by the
University of Ottawa at Ontario sur
veyed 123 men and found that 80 per
cent, or 95 of the subjects, feel
extreme levels of anxiety and uncer
tainty around women in upper-level
management positions. According to
the survey, this sexism - although
more covertly applied under its new
guise - strips women of mentoring
and networking opportunities normal
ly doled out to men in similar career
positions. And as the problem esca
lates, the animosity that women com
monly feel toward their male co
workers continues to be fed by such
misunderstandings, even though in
most cases men don’t realize they’re
helping to shape these misconcep
tions. In fact, neither men nor women
can determine for certain whether or
not sexism is the catalyst for such dis
tress. Hence, workers find their
careers rife with much more than the
usual confusion or general malaise
they find themselves face-to-face
with the beast.
This new strain of sexism (dubbed
neosexism by the Ottawa study)
comes forward because it fails to
manifest itself in any certain dis
cernible manner - especially to the
many career-hounds who believe they
are far too developed to exude some
thing as pedestrian and passe as preju
dicial stereotyping.
These people need to remove their
White Album glasses for a moment
and closely inspect the situation. This
problem cannot J)e solved by the
adage “ignore it, and it will go away.”
Of course, we haven’t completely
brushed off sexism; we’ve attempted
to create a universally protective
shield by unfolding our neo
PC/Renaissance-worker umbrellas.
But as with those pesky gremlins, all
it takes is one tiny water-leak for the
beast to multiply.
So what can we do to protect our
selves? I mean, this implicates a com
plication in - dare I say it - our sex
lives, or in other words, in our experi
ences as men and women trying to
work together. And if politically cor
rect, supposedly aware career super
humans can’t dominate the trend, who
can?
Well, since sexism is changing at
such an alarming rate, perhaps our
best defense would be to change as
well. Maybe if we were to weed out
our weaknesses, i.e. misunderstand
ings based on our maleness or
femaleness, we could once again take
up the dominant gene.
I think that simply by being aware
of this new form of sexism we are
wielding our most lethal weapon. If
we expect that sexism continually sits
poised to pounce, it can no longer
take us by surprise. And if we force
ourselves to beware the beast, we will
be fully equipped to put forth our best
efforts and assets - a la natural selec
tion - so as to conquer, rather than
divide.
Watch that mouth
Profanity reveals something about character
GREGG MADSEN is a
senior news-editorial
major and a Daily
Nebraskan columnist.
The Oakland Raiders are //
losers. I f
At least according to last li
Peek’s Time magazine they /ft
are. /( >
In its weekly feature, //
“Winners and Losers,” fj
Time gave the Raiders a l!
thumbs down. \\
The problem here isn’t
just the idiocy of Time having W
a weekly judgment section. // ■ <
It’s the reasoning behind the I
“loser” label. Time said the l
Raiders are losers because
the coaching and management \\
has vowed to crack down on pro- x;
fanity amongst the players.
That makes sense.
Raider management and head
coach Joe Bugel make a discipli- ‘
nary decision that they feel will
help their team win, and for their
efforts, they get to be known as
losers. It’s a perfect example of ilic '
fear of discipline that has become so
prevalent in our society. More
specifically, it seems that any dis
cipline that has a hint of morality
near it is automatically shot ' ,
down and any supporter is /
quickly labeled out of touch or
- in Time’s eyes - a loser.
Time wasn’t lashing out
at Bugel and the Raiders
because they made a rule, j
but because of the sub
stance of that rule. The
Raider management wants a
team that doesn’t talk like
a crew of sailors. Does
that make them losers? Are we to
believe that profanity is now accept
able?
Let’s face it, words are powerful,
and a profane word holds more power
than any other kind of word. It is sup
posed to show extreme emotion, but
today profanity has become a staple
in many people’s sen
tence structure. Too
many of us have trouble completing a
sentence without inserting some
choice expletives to enhance how we
sound. Many of you may be cussing a J
blue streak at me as you read this.
It used to be that you could ask
someone: “Would you say that word
if your parents were here,” and the
person would see the prob
,am with their
nguagc.
aui luuay,
that does
n’t seem
to work
because
t h e
same words are coming from parents
and bosses and even professors in the
first place. Profanity has permeated
all socio-economic classes, races and
both genders. Ask yourself if you
would use your normal vocabulary
were you to talk to a room full of ele
mentary schoolers. Would your
words change? If they would, maybe
it’s time to evaluate what’s coming out
nf irnnr mr\i ltVi
The thing we need to understand
is that profanity doesn’t just affect
those who hear it. It affects you - or,
more accurately, it shows a deeper
problem. If your speech is/the lan
guage of your soul, and your lan
guage is trash, then what is
hiding down there inside
your heart?
Your language is as
^ v clear a
f ) reflection
' M nf your
char
acter as any other trait.
And we can all agree that charac
ter is a major factor in winning, can’t
we? So why should the Raiders be
condemned for trying to improve the
character of the team? They should
n’t.
Maybe next week, Time will list
former UCLA basketball coach John
Wooden in the “loser” section.
Wooden didn’t tolerate any profanity
from his players, and he was such a
loser that he led the Bruins to 10
national titles in a 12-year span and
compiled a “loser-ish” 620-147
record. In his 27 seasons at UCLA,
Wooden earned the nickname: “The
Wizard of Westwood.” Maybe Time
will rename him the loser of L.A.
We can now call Tom Osborne a
loser, too. After all, Osborne doesn’t
accept any profanity from his players,
either. Ironically, most of Osborne’s
players don’t think of him as Time
might; rather, they respect and appre
ciate him - not just because he holds
their playing time in the palm of his
hand, but because they honor
Osborne the man as much as they
obey Osborne the coach.
Osborne and Wooden’s
v clean language - whether
you like it or not - has
had a huge bearing on
the respect their players
have for them. They prove to
their players, and to all of us, that a
person can live a profanity-free life.
It doesn’t matter that Osborne and
Wooden are associated with college
athletics. The Raiders are supposed
to be a professional team, so why
not act as such? Just because
\ their players are older doesn’t
. >y, mean they shouldn’t be sub
\ ' ject to keeping their mouths
clean. There are banners
lining the stadium in
sY Oakland which say,
\ “Dedicated to
Excellence.” The
Raiders’ new rule is a big
step in that direction, no matter what
the so-called mainstream might say.
Time should include itself in its
next “losers” section.
Amy Martin/DN