Deconstructing the Shopping Cart Theory: An Ethical Discussion

Deconstructing the Shopping Cart Theory: An Ethical Discussion

We have all heard of the shopping cart theory in some way or another. It gained popularity when it was shared as a “copypasta” (which, full disclosure, I don’t fully understand as a concept) and became the default virtue ethics rallying cry of the internet. While, in general, the “shopping cart theory” is harmless, it has the potential to become harmful when used as a litmus test for basic morality.

The shopping cart theory is simple. It postulates that what a person does with their shopping cart can tell you everything you need to know about their moral character. It assumes that returning the shopping cart to its appropriate resting place, usually some sort of corral, is the morally “right” thing to do. Using this assumption, it states that its the ultimate litmus test to determine if someone will choose to do the right thing when there is no benefit to them and when not doing the right thing will not cause anyone any harm or cause them any negative repercussions. It asserts that someone who does not return the cart is of morally questionable character and a “bad” member of society.

From an academic standpoint, this assertion is dishonest. However, this isn’t an academic assessment of the social theory of the shopping cart. Either way, it’s a narrow minded way of looking at morality and an unfair litmus test to put anyone under.

The biggest issue with this theory is its bias. The theory states that returning the cart is the OBJECTIVELY correct thing to do. This is the core of the theory, and the reason the theory fails. Returning the cart is morally neutral. It neither helps nor harms anyone, and has the potential to both help and harm. The same can be said for leaving the cart where it is. Any possible harm is theoretical – a schrodinger’s harm of shopping carts.

The theory also contradicts itself and presents a false equivalency. It refers to returning the shopping cart as an “easy, convenient task.” It then goes on to say that NOT returning the cart represents the full depth of a person’s moral code. THe theory establishes the shopping cart as a low-value moral object and yet asserts that it represents a high-value assessment of someone’s morality.

The reality is that there are countless reasons a person could not return the cart. Because it is such a low value task, it is easy for other priorities to take over it. The theory removes the humanity from making a decision, asserting that a small insignificant act represents the entirety of the human experience. 

There are three main schools of ethical thought: deontological, or rule based, ethics; utilitarian, or outcomes based, ethics; and virtue, or values based, ethics. This theory is the ultimate bastardization of virtue ethics. This theory dubiously purports that returning the shopping cart is both deontological and utilitarianly “correct” and therefore must be correct by virtue. This is a bastardized understanding of virtue ethics.

Virtue ethics suggests that something is moral if the person is doing it as a way to act out their values. A person can certainly believe that a good person returns the cart every time, and use the shopping cart theory as their justification. The issue comes when taking that virtue and applying it to every other person, without considering what their personal virtues are. 

FDOH Issues Political Fueled Transgender “Guidance”

FDOH Issues Politically Fueled Transgender “Guidance”

The Florida Department of Health (FDOH) released new guidance for treating Gender Dysphoria in children and adolescents on Tuesday. In their guidance, FDOH condemns the use of hormone blockers for youth as well as social transitioning. While trashing the federal guidelines, the Florida Surgeon General’s guidance cites studies which provide little evidence to support his claims or are marred with political and religious bias.

The guidance provides three specific directives in relation to the treatment of Gender Dysphoria in children and adolescents. The first is that “Social Gender Transition,” which is the term describing when someone takes on the social role of their identified gender, should not be a “treatment” option for children or adolescents. The cited materials refer to this as allowing a child to explore their gender identity and expression by using a different name, pronouns, hair style, clothing, etc. The alternative to this is pushing the child to adhere to characteristics generally associated with their gender assigned at birth. The guidance also indicated that anyone under 18 should not be given puberty blockers or hormone therapy. 

One of the articles that the Surgeon General cited lists three possible “treatment options” for gender dysphoria. One is social gender transition, one is physical transition involving hormones, surgery, etc, and the other is essentially conversion therapy, where a counselor works with the child to bring them back to the “right” gender identity (in this case, the one assigned at birth).

“In a politically motivated stunt, the Department of Health has shown that they do not have the lives of our transgender youth in mind.,” said Rand Hoch, President and founder of the Palm Beach County Human Rights Council “They have willfully misread the research and disregarded the nationally established best practices in another desperate attempt to stick it to Washington like a petulant child with a parent.”

“The very research the Department of Health is referencing was reviewed with bias,” said Sean Conklin, Public Administration PhD Candidate at FAU and member of PBCHRC’s board of directors. “The results look at how many children continued to experience gender dysphoria in adulthood, which is essentially an irrelevant measure. The Surgeon General is attempting to say that because so few people ‘need’ the more advanced treatments that they should be disallowed.”

Conklin noted that the research mostly comes from conservative and religious academic journals. One study asserts that gender and sex are the same thing, and that there are only two sexes, therefore only two genders. Another study was a review published in the Linacre Quarterly, the official academic journal of the Catholic Medical Association, which seeks to explore the relationship between spirituality and medical ethics.The press release from the DOH specifically indicates that they intentionally reviewed research in order to counter the guidance from the federal Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), which provides lifesaving programs across the country for people facing a myriad of healthcare issues. The guidance discusses clinical practices, knowing that readers will assume it’s referring to medical interventions, when clinical practices in the research refer almost exclusively to mental health practices in a clinical setting.

“The governor of what he declares ‘the freest state in these United States’ is once again sticking his nose where it doesn’t belong,” said Julie Seaver, Director of Compass LGBTQ+ Community Center in a post on facebook. “On Wednesday, Governor DeSantis’ Department of Health (DOH) issued bullshit guidance advising against medically necessary life saving measures for transgender children and teenagers. It was another mean-spirited effort to profit politically from struggling Floridians.”

But the Department of Health left out one critical issue in their guidance – that children and adolescents who do not get access to gender-affirming care often end up dead or facing other negative health outcomes due to the distress related to their identity. According to the Trevor Project, youth who have their identities invalidated by having their pronouns ignored in the home were twice as likely to attempt suicide as youth who did have their identity validated. Deny access to gender affirming care kills our children.

“FDOH should be aware that identity development is strongest in teenage years,” said Conklin. “Exploring different identities is necessary for healthy development. Allowing our youth to socially transition or block puberty can mean the difference between life and death. The guidance seems to suggest that conversion therapy is the only option the state will allow.”

In addition to this guidance, the Surgeon General released a “fact sheet” challenging the “academic rigor” of the research cited by HHS, ignoring the same flaw in the research they cited. While no one article is generalizable to all situations, the research supporting gender affirming care far outweighs the opposition.

This news comes not long after the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), a branch of HHS and administrator of the National Ryan White HIV/AIDS Care Program, indicated that Ryan White funding can be used for gender affirming care for persons with HIV. AS transgender individuals are disproportionately burdened by HIV, this direction from the Department of Health deals a blow to both the transgender community and people living with HIV.

PBCHRC is watching the situation closely and will continue our work to ensure our youth are protected from conversion therapy and provided life-saving gender affirming care.

One Day, You Will…

“One day, you will be hired to do program evaluation for an organization, and they will love it, but it won’t be here.”

That sentence resonates with me, because it was one of the last things an old employer told me before being let go, exactly a year ago today. I harbor no ill will toward this employer, because as it turns out – they were right. The very same day I left that job, my current job was posted. I applied that night.

One point of contention in my old job was that I believe program evaluation is paramount in improving programmatic outcomes and I believe that includes staff and volunteer outcomes. I believe it includes both quantitative and qualitative outcomes. It requires assessment at every level – an administrative task that not every organization believes is worthwhile.

It was not long before being let go that I was accepted into a PhD program. This fit my interest in data and numbers and assessment and finding causal links and indicators both quantitative and qualitative. I was finishing my masters and eager to apply my new skills and knowledge to the field. I was not long for that position, no matter what my employer thought. I hoped to mold it to fit my skills, rather than leave, but that was not a possibility.

I realize now what I struggled to understand then: that I do not thrive in task oriented positions. My strength is not in my ability to do many tasks quickly and efficiently, but in my ability to take information and process it and understand it in a dynamic and complex way. It was why I longed for evaluation and assessment. It was why I was always critically examining things that were presented to me. It was why I found taskwork monotonous and dull and unengaging.

It has been a year since I finished my master’s and left my old job. It has been a year since I applied for my current job. Looking back, it all seems so simple and silly. Knowing then what I know now, I may have done things differently, but if I didn’t leave that job on the day that I did, I wouldn’t be where I am now.

I have an amazing job that I am happy to do every day, that challenges me and directly impacts the populations I long to serve. My old employer was right. I am doing program evaluation for an organization that values me – and I value it.

Never question your value, your skills, or your trajectory. You are exactly where you want to be if you stay true to yourself. That’s what this last year has taught me.

I am building the world I want to live in, one assessment at a time.

Tax Exempt Churches Are Not (Really) the Problem

You see this complaint repeatedly come up on progressive websites and in progressive memes: Churches should not be tax exempt; Especially those super churches that make so much money they can afford multi-million-dollar homes for their pastors. The issue at hand is that these organizations are raking in so much money and are, essentially, acting as a for profit organization. This criticism is valid, though the solution is not to make all churches automatically tax exempt.

Before discussing the issue of churches, a brief exploration of tax exemption must be completed. The theoretical and philosophical reason for tax-exempt statuses is that the tax-exempt organization is providing a public service that the government would otherwise need to provide, or otherwise spend tax dollars to respond to. Therefore, money given to and spent by that organization is essentially equivalent to giving money directly to a government program(aka taxes), except, theoretically, more efficient, since the government does not need to manage the funds itself and accrue administrative costs. Therefore, both spending by certain nonprofits as well as donations made to certain nonprofit categories are tax deductible.

The most common type of nonprofit, at least, the most common we think of when the word nonprofit comes up, is a 501(c)(3) charitable organization. These are your neighborhood nonprofits, foundations, and, yes, churches. A 501(c)(3) organization serves a specific tax-exempt purpose, and that tax exempt purpose is what is actually tax-exempt. Religious services are a tax-exempt purpose, and so any activity a church takes related to a church service is tax exempt. Nonprofits across the board have become exceedingly skilled at relating their activities to their tax-exempt purpose. Churches are no exemption from this rule. However, there are actual exemptions for churches. These exemptions are the true issue – not tax exemption of churches in general.

One large difference between a religious organization and any other is that the IRS has a limited ability to audit and assess these organizations. A church is NOT required to complete the same annual forms as another tax-exempt organization. In general, a 501(c)(3) organization must file a at least a Form 990 every year, and other forms depending on their size or activities. Churches are exempt from this requirement. In general, Form 990s are what are reviewed for financial inconsistency in a nonprofit organization. One solution to the church issue is to require religious organizations to complete these forms annually to maintain tax exemption. There are a few issues to consider.

Most 990s are never actually reviewed by a person. In fact, unless something has magically changed recently, there is no system in place to check form 990s for inconsistencies at all. The general practice seems to be for auditors to grab a random form 990 and review it for inconsistencies. Very rarely does this lead to any action, as the majority of 501(c)(3) organizations are small local organizations that have gross annual incomes of under $10,000 and do not commit any actionable offenses that can be seen on their forms. This would likely result in smaller churches getting pushback from the IRS due to incorrect filing and not actually due to financial mismanagement.

This lack of consistent accountability leads to an array of problems. A nonprofit is unlikely to be audited if its public perception is good. The IRS does not want to audit an organization that the public is fond of, especially if they are not sure there are actionable offenses. These organizations are aware of this and focus much more on their public perception than their accounting principles. There is an added layer with religious nonprofits – Section 7611 of the Internal Revenue Code explicitly states when a church may be audited. Essentially, a church can only be audited if a high-level treasury official “reasonably believes,” based on documented facts, that a religious organization is violating one of the tax-exempt criteria. This is clearly an unlikely situation to happens as well, as there are bureaucratic issues related to getting the right people the right information and hoping they find it actionable and timely.

The final issue with religious organizations is that in addition to not being required to file annual paperwork, many of them do not need to complete the initial paperwork to become a nonprofit. Most churches are “automatically” given tax exempt status if they show they are doing religious services. Because they do not need to complete this paperwork, the interpretation of religious activities is vague and can apply to almost everything a church generally does, rather than a specific tax-exempt purpose.

This is the ultimate issue with churches. It is not that they are tax exempt, though some individuals may argue that religious services should not constitute a tax-exempt purpose, but that they do not have the same regulatory policies as other nonprofits. This, in theory, leads to waste and corruption. There are, of course, conceptual issues with applying these requirements to churches. One benefit churches possess is the benefit of low administrative costs. Adding more administrative burden to a religious organization adds to administrative costs and therefore decreases its ability to provide the services. A counter argument would be that, overall, this would ensure monies are being spent appropriately and more efficiently, and the money saved by decreasing waste would be greater than the administrative cost. An argument against requiring more paperwork for churches would be that they would now need to spend money on those administrative costs instead of on their community. It would be a strong argument. However, leveling the playing field would be the most equitable way to address the issue of churches.

Another issue is that there are likely some organizations that are currently tax exempt under this system that would not be able to stay tax exempt under a more regulated system. These organizations would likely crumble, and it is likely that the parts of them that are providing tax-exempt services would not survive. This would remove that service from the community. This argument is likely the weakest, as the capitalist system argues that where there is demand, someone will offer it. This argument would also suggest that churches are only capable of surviving if engaging in for-profit activities, which goes against the entire purpose of a church and their exempt status.

There is another solution that would likely be a great equalizer. An automated system needs to be developed to scan and process form 990s for issues. Developing this system using some sort of AI algorithm to search for issues would put everyone on the same playing field. Nonreligious nonprofits which benefitted from skirting IRS requirements would be under the same scrutiny as religious nonprofits. Corrupt and unscrupulous nonprofits would be identified across the board. The question is whether these organizations would change to for profit structures or simply dissolve under the weight of back taxes owed (Though likely a change would not examine back taxes). If the former is the more common, then new tax revenues from these organizations may make up for the administrative burden a system like this would require.

However, there is a chance that these organizations will simply scale back their for-profit activities. What impact that would have on their services is unknown, though its likely to be a negative impact, particularly if the for-profit activities were supporting the nonprofit activities.

Ultimately, there is no real way to fix the tax-exemption issues without completely changing the ways nonprofits work and developing much stronger financial oversight of the nonprofit sector. A study must be conducted to see if the financial results are worth it. If further regulation of churches and other nonprofits and the development of algorithmic AI to scan tax forms will result in fewer dollars in the nonprofit sector, would it be worth it? Progressive are ever searching for ways to increase tax revenue and churches seem like an easy target to the uninformed and nonreligious, but the answer is not so simple. It seems like a simple principle – organizations that do not provide services that should be tax-exempt should not be tax exempt. But when it gets difficult, there are no easy answers. Is that legitimate principle more important that the actual provision of the services? This is not just a question of whether churches should be taxed – it is a question of what the priority is and what the government should care about more.

Let me know your thoughts on this topic. Is further regulation worth it? Why or why not?

Cancel Culture: The Dark Side of “Cancelling”

Cancel Culture is the current buzzword among online social discourse. Every time someone says or does something deemed socially objectionable, there are calls to “cancel” that person, or claims that the person has been “cancelled.” This can take on many different forms. It could be refusal to consume that person’s intellectual property, or literal removal from a job or position of power, or even the more aggressive attacking of the person.

Contrary to popular belief, “cancel culture” is in no way new. History is littered with instances of individuals being “cancelled” for their behaviors, beliefs, and outcomes. It’s also often interesting that many of these “cancelled” people went on to be very successful (Looking at you, Martin Luther). Individuals have been written out of historical events because the authors were mad at them. Individuals were painted as demons and monsters based on the writer’s perception. “Cancelling” someone deemed socially objectionable is by no means new – no matter how much the internet wants to claim it is.

But “cancel culture” is certainly a new, toxic form of this phenomenon. I was just scrolling the Tik Tok “For You” page, as one is apt to o when they have lost all control of their anxiety and are procrastinating things they actually need to do, and I came upon a video of a  young, straight, cisgender man apologizing for some comments he said. This particular situation intrigued me because the man was essentially defending wearing jewelry and nail polish. In his defense, he showed his privileged, bastardized perception of the social strides made in our culture in the last 50+ years by LGBTQ+ activists and even specifically mentions the LGBTQ+ icon, trans activist Marsha P. Johnson. This defense was more inflammatory than the initial criticism, and it showed some sensitive, raw issues in the nature of activism.

I am not here to comment on this specific situation, though. Instead, I wish to examine a phenomenon I noticed while scrolling aimlessly through the comments. First, there’s obviously a massive disconnect between different proponents on either side. There seemed to be as many LGBTQ+ people criticizing him as there were LGBTQ+ people defending him. But even so, that is not what was noteworthy. Someone, who I assumed was LGBTQ+ identifying based on context, asked “Are we really going to cancel a straight guy for wearing nail polish and pearls?”

I hadn’t thought much about the concept of “cancelling.” I always just viewed it as a buzzword. But this one comment made me think of where the idea of cancelling came from. Then I realized it. I examined a simple question: When people say “cancel” in this regard, what do they actually mean? They mean stopping that particular brand of thought, expression, or behavior from being seen by the general public. I emphasize general public, because we do not use the term in one on one interpersonal relationships. So I thought of where that idea came from, and it was obvious.

The toxic nature of cancel culture is not that it seeks to stop an individual from expressing themselves or criticizes problematic views. The toxic aspect of it is that it relates interpersonal, real world social issues to episodic, crafted storylines. It relates interpersonal relationships to media. What else gets cancelled? Television shows, books, and movies.

There will be no more episodes of this person because we don’t like the message they are spouting. This is the ultimate message of “cancel culture” and this message is not intrinsic in firing someone or discontinuing their work. It has been assigned to that behavior by modern culture. It likens cultural attitudes to television shows that we can tune into or out of at our personal leisure. It reflects the increased marketization and commodification – and even weaponization – of ideas. It reflects a usurpation of activism into a prepacked episodic that can be enjoyed and ignored like an episode of Friends. Rather than expressing these ideas as a part of life, they are sold as individual units of goods that can be traded and commodified.

This is an issue for both the canceller and the cancelled. “Cancelling” someone rarely actually addresses the cause of the problem. It’s an easy, self-satisfying way of feeling like we are enacting change, when its really just pushing those people into rabbit holes like Qanon and Incel subreddits. In an ironic twist, this behavior attempts to apply a capitalistic mindset to culture and ideas. The logic seems to be to artificially drive down the “demand” so there is less supply.

Unfortunately, ideas do not follow a capitalistic economic structure. It’s easy to measure culture and ideas in the terms that capitalism has defined – but that’s just playing into capitalism. Capitalism doesn’t care about the ideas and their merits. Capitalism has never and will never truly reflect morality or ethics in a culture. Capitalism has confounded the ideals of activism and attempted to apply economics to activism. As long as we measure our activism transactionally, we will never move out of it.

I do not argue that people should or should not be “cancelled.” Instead, I argue that the application of economic, capitalist ideals onto our modern notions of activism is detrimental to our causes. Cancel culture seeks to artificially alter the capitalistic concepts of supply and demand, but the “good” in question has no true supply and demand. Cancelling an idea does not remove the demand for the idea – it just sends it somewhere its not visible.

The true issue seems to be the commodification of activism. This criticism is obvious when companies and brands cling to trendy social causes that they believe will increase their profits, but much less obvious when we start applying capitalist themes to our activism. Just like ideas, people cannot be cancelled (at least, not without literal death). People need to be addressed, and ideas need to be shared and challenged.

Of course, there is a caveat to this. Activists did not invent the concept of “Cancel culture.” It was coined by frustrated people who kept getting their ideas challenged. The issues come with engaging in this discussion. The issue comes with using the phrasing, even if ironically or sarcastically. It was coined to delegitimize the arguments that were being made. It was coined to create a straw man argument against the activism. The reason it is so contentious is because we all know, deep down, that we cannot apply these concepts to ideas. That’s why the cancel culture argument goes nowhere. That’s what it is designed to do.

Someone gets “cancelled” and suddenly we are arguing about cancel culture, rather than what the person actually did. Gina Carreno said anti-Semitic things in a public forum. Why are we talking about cancel culture? Where are the articles and arguments from people bashing anti-Semitism? Yes, I know they exist, but the continuing conversation is on cancel culture and not on what she actually said. The issue here is not cancel culture. It is our cultural positions on certain issues. The thing is, activists have won the anti-Semitism battle. Everyone knows anti-Semitism is bad. They cannot argue against that, so they create a straw man to argue in its stead.

This is the goal of cancel culture, and we are playing into it whenever we engage in this cancel culture discussion.

Activists need to stop engaging with the discussion of cancel culture. They need to challenge ideas head on, instead of hiding behind a shield of cancel culture. Cancel culture protects people with objectionable ideas, beliefs and behaviors. To move beyond these ideals and truly move them into obscurity, we must reject the idea of cancel culture. Cancel culture is simply disguised “whataboutism” and “devil’s advocating” designed to undermine activism. It succeeds when we engage it.

Ideas are not commodities. We need to stop treating them that way

The Lost Art of Storytelling

I have always been moved by stories. Since I was little, I remember being inspired by and empowered by stories of people doing incredible things and overcoming what seemed like impossible odds. My favorite stories were the ones of hope – of people coming together and making a stand when nobody else would or could. My favorite stories were the ones when things seemed dark, but faith in other people remained the beacon that saved the day. I believe in people, and am inspired by stories that affirm that belief.

This belief in hope and people doesn’t seem to be mainstream in our current society. I have been saying to my friends for quite some time that we live in a dark age of storytelling. Even our stories of heroes are dark and dismal. Consumers have become jaded to the idea of the altruistic hero, the ragtag team of hopeful nobodies, or the opinions of society overall saving the day. Everything must be “gritty” and “real.” If characters aren’t dying or suffering somehow, it’s not “realistic.” Every story needs to be completely logical – and things need to “make sense” in the rules of realism. If a story doesn’t fit this litmus test, it gets lambasted.

But that isn’t what stories are about. The best stories – the ones that stick with us – do not stick with us because of logical consistency. I want to go back to elementary school English for a moment. There is a concept that this current lens of story consumption tends to bastardize and destroy. It is the concept of suspension of disbelief. Suspension of disbelief refers to the state in which a media consumer ignored the fact that what they are watching is completely made up and not based on reality. This simple concept explains why people are so moved by made up stories. They believe the rules of the world – even if they differ from our own.

This is where the issue comes. People, particularly moviegoers, head into the theater expecting to see something that could happen in real life. They come in expecting the story to follow the perceived rules and laws of their own lives. However, this is an intellectually dishonest way of looking at a story. In fact, the purpose of the story is the exact opposite – it is to give perspective and to make people realize that there are other perspectives and other ways of viewing the world.

Modern viewers are not interested in the suspension of disbelief. They are not interested in thoughtful symbolism, metaphor, theme, and all the core elements of good stories. They lambaste basic literary tropes like McGuffins and criticize when the hero’s journey ends with the hero overcoming the challenges they have faced and growing along the way (which is the point of the hero’s journey). They take any sort of satisfying story as immature and idyllic – leaving creators trying to create darker, “realer” stories that leave viewers feeling listless and unsatisfied. True substance has been replaced with realism. Thoughtful symbolism and metaphor are discarded as “illogical” or “disjointed.”

Viewers are now coming in to movies, and even reading stories, expecting too much. Nobody will jump into a story for the stories sake. They must read reviews and look at scores online before deciding to take a chance on a story. They need others to tell them if the story is relevant to them. It’s objective. Does the story meet the proper criteria: The generic, socially agreed upon standards of a “good” story?

This over-obsession with logic and “reason” and undervaluing of true story elements and styles has infected the movie community. It has given rise to shallow, plot-driven narratives with easy to meet expectations and cookie cutter characters. Its thrown imagery, symbolism, metaphor, foreshadowing, and the other story elements away for direct, in your face and forced moments of character development. If the audience isn’t given it exactly and specifically, they reject it outright.

So what do we do? Where do we go from here? As creators, it is our duty to respect this ancient tradition – perhaps the most ancient of traditions – from being boiled down to nothing but residue. We need to create. We need to create things not for mass appeal, but for purpose. We need to tell stories that mean something and not just stories that say something. We need to make people relate to the stories, we need to talk about stories in a real way. We need to bring back the suspension of disbelief that makes out stories so powerful in the first place. Keep telling stories.

STOP TELLING TEENAGERS ITS OK FOR ADULTS TO DATE THEM

 

I know this might seem dramatic. I know so many of you are like “Nobody thinks its ok for adults to date teenagers!” But I’d be willing to challenge that assumption and say, “YES YOU DO!” Why do I know? To clarify my point, I need to bring up a situation that happened recently.

I have a friend. He is about twenty years old. He is constantly posting very dumb things on Facebook, and I am always commenting on them telling him how immature, sexist, or just plain ludicrous it is. Recently, he posted this:

Now, this isn’t that crazy or insane, and I am aware. But I messaged him and told him that it was intense for a guy his age to think this was normal. He is young and shouldn’t be putting so much pressure on a relationship. He proceeded to tell me that he has been in a relationship for a few months and its been going well. I was immediately skeptical. It was odd, not because he said he had a relationship, but because I had no idea it was happening. He is the kind of person who posts everything on social media. He thinks that his random 4 am musings are relevant. But not a single peep about this girl on social media. I begin to question him. Why do they never post picture? Why do they rarely tag each other? Why is this the first I’m hearing about her? He claims that they just don’t like using social media and use Snapchat mostly, which is an even bigger red flag (snapchats lasts a few seconds, and stories a few days). I understand people not wanting to post their relationship on social media, but if you knew him, you would think something was very wrong. Every other relationship he’s had, he’d post a picture with the girl, talk about her all the time, etc. It was just uncommon. And it started to seem like he was trying to hide something.

If you haven’t guessed, the thing he was trying to hide was that this girl is seventeen years old. And a bunch of you literally just decided that I’m overreacting – I’m willing to bet. I had a conversation with a few people after this revelation. Surprisingly, most people are completely fine with an almost 21 year-old dating a 17 year-old. “I was 14 when my boyfriend was 18” someone would say. “I dated much older men as a teenager.” Another would comment. “Men are more immature than women as teens” the general public might assert.

But no, they are not. At least, not because they are incapable of maturity. Not to bring personal anecdotes into this, but when I was 17, 14 year-old girls were gross. When I was 20, 17 year-old girls were gross. Now, I don’t think its too large of a leap to assume that a normally developed 20 year old should also think that undeveloped 14 year old girls are gross (gross may be dramatic, but lets say “unattractive” instead). Maybe I’m weird, but I don’t think so.

What I think is happening is that society has somehow decided that its ok for adult males to date teen girls. Try having a conversation with someone about this topic. It’s normal for a 20 year old male (A verifiable adult) to date a teenaged girl. But what if it was reversed? 20 year old girl dating a teenaged boy? They will immediately say something along the lines of “that is weird” because, in their heads, there is no reason a 20 year old woman would in interested in a 17 year old boy. And there really isn’t. But why should it be the other way around?

This issue is made starker when you view it in terms of life position. The way a high school student thinks is much different from the way a high school graduate thinks. The things that they need to think about are drastically different. And I’m not even including college in the mix, which many young men are in at that point.

It’s weird. And these young men are, in fact, young men. They are pretty much adults, and they are fully aware of their position and power over teenaged girls. And we accept that. Why do we, as a society, decide that older men dating younger women is acceptable? I’m not talking about when both people are adults and don’t have power dynamics in the way. I’m talking about when there is a clear issue.

Why do we think this is ok? I quite honestly think the “maturity” argument is ridiculous. The men who I know who date women in that situation tend not to be “immature” as much as they are manipulative, emotionally unstable, or just lazy.

Why date a woman your age, or at least in the same life stage as you,  who will challenge you to be better, when you can date a teenager who doesn’t know any better? By virtue of you not being in high school, or being in college, you are already better than every guy she could possibly know. Why would she push you to be better when you are already drastically “better” than her other dating options? What sort of personal development do you feel you need to do when you can easily get a young girl to fall in “love” with you without even trying?

This barbaric practice needs to stop. Young men should not be finding girls to be romantically or sexually attractive. One thing I learned as I matured is that I thought I was a lot more mature than I was as a teenager. These young girls are being taken advantage of by these boys who know for a fact that they have the upper hand. Why do we justify this behavior? Why do we think this is normal? Where do we draw the line?

It’s, quite frankly, disgusting. The more I think about it, the more I feel grossed out. The more women say “but I did it” or “but he was pretty immature” the more I say “Why is it acceptable for men to be more immature?” I know plenty of men who were not “immature” for their age. It’s not “normal” for men to be immature – it is just a societal construct that men are immature. Why do these “immature” men get a pass? why are we not calling them out on their immaturity?

Immaturity is not the reason we allow this. We allow this because we have a misogynistic society that doesn’t care about men taking advantage of young women. It doesn’t care about telling women that their role is to allow weak, immature men to control them. It’s disgusting.

Let’s smash these ideals. Tell men its not cool to date someone so young. Stop making excuses that minimize then men’s decisions and make it the woman’s responsibility to make the right choice. We need to make sure that young women understand that older men who are interested in them have something wrong with them. We need young men to realize that the is something wrong with finding a teenaged girl attractive. We need to break down these dangerous and oppressive relationship ideals and show young people that there is a better way.

We need to teach women that one of the signs of an abusive relationship is for a man to be attracted to a young girl. It shows that he is interested in dating someone he has a clear power advantage over. We need to stop this foolishness. Call out your sons, brothers, cousins, nephews, friends, colleagues, etc., who do this sort of thing. It is not normal. It is not cool.

Change the world.

What’s the Deal with Captain Phasma?

When Star Wars: The Force Awakens revealed that Gwendoline Christie would be playing Captain Phasma, a Stormtrooper captain with unique armor, theories about her involvement and her role abound. Everyone believed that, at the least, Phasma would prove to be a dangerous enemy to our group of ragtag intergalactic heroes. The marketing surely portrayed her as such and many fans were excited to see what Disney would do with this character, which was truly a first for the franchise’s cinematic installments. Never had we seen a female Star Wars villain on the big screen.

When the Force Awakens came out, fans were less than impressed by what they saw. If you haven’t seen it, Captain Phasma plays almost no role in the movie. Her role is really just to provide exposition for Finn, a stormtrooper deserter who joins the resistance. Throughout the whole of The Force Awakens, Phasma is painted as a threat to Finn. We see Phasma and Finn as opposites: She is the obedient, loyal automoaton while Finn is the freethinking, independent rebel. The story plays with the idea, and we know that Phasma either wants to kill him, or force him back into subjugation. This causes viewers to expect, in some way, some sort of deciding conflict between the two characters. A conflict that confirms one of these ways of thinking as correct.

However, that moment doesn’t come in The Force Awakens. When Finn and Phasma finally meet toward the Film’s climax, she doesn’t even resist. He manages to force her to shut down the shields so resistance fighters can destroy the Starkiller base. Then, she is thrown into a trash compactor off screen. All without even putting up a fight.

Needless to say, this left a lot of fans unhappy. There were expectations that the movie set that were never fulfilled. It was a cheap shot, and it didn’t really fit with either the character of Phasma or of Finn. It was one of the biggest criticisms of the movie overall, and its important to note that this is the first cinematic female Star Wars villain we have seen. The way they treat her is similar to the way Hollywood treats most female characters: they have their use and then they are sidelined, often with little to no explanation, or just a single off-hand remark (for example, Han asking Finn about trash compactors).

Fans were excited when previews for the Last Jedi showed Finn and Phasma fighting in what seemed to be the middle of a battle. It seemed like Phasma would take a larger role in this movie, to make up for her lackluster role in the previous. The logical path for her character seemed to be that she would be angry at Finn for his betrayal, but also for her embarrassment at Starkiller. It would be logical that Phasma could potentially be a primary antagonist in this film, or at least to take a role similar to Jabba the Hutt or Bobba Fett, where she is hunting for the heroes and is still a looming threat, even if she is not a direct threat. But she does not end up playing much or a role in the story at all.

In fact, Phasma only appears at the very end of the film, after Finn and Rose have been captured by the first order. There is a very brief fight sequence between she and Finn, and he ends up defeating her by hitting her in the back of the head with a weapon. For me, it was one of the most disappointing parts of the movie. As a writer, I could have (and have) thought of a million ways to incorporate her into the already existing story without making her a cumbersome story element. Instead, what the Last Jedi did was make her into essentially a set piece. It disregarded a whole entire movie’s worth of characterization just for an average fight scene. And then we seem Phasma plummet into a fiery death, almost certainly gone for good.

I think it was the most disappointing part of the movie for me. Rian Johnson has stated that there was no room for Phasma in the movie’s plot – that she would make an already bloated movie bloat further – but I disagree. The decisions that Rian’s team made in regards to this movie were odd, starting with Phasma.

Phasma, in my opinion, is much more interesting than Hux, who I feel I still don’t really know after two movies of him. It also would seem like they are missing out on a fantastic opportunity to tempt Phasma. One of my thoughts about Phasma upon first meeting her, and one of the reasons why I though she didn’t fight back, and why I thought Finn didn’t just kill her, was that perhaps she was losing faith in the First Order. I thought that, perhaps, Finn would be able to convince her that the First Order was evil, or at least, that there was a better way.

After Kylo Ren becomes the Supreme Leader, my feelings about this idea grew stronger. I could see it now – Phasma seeing Kylo Ren growing increasingly unstable, and all of these soldiers blindly following him. She, being a smart and able woman, realizes that Kylo is not a worthy leader, and that he is endangering the system she worked so hard to help build and protect. This could give both she and Finn some much needed development and closure. This would have opened up doors that lead in the direction that Rian was going. The overarching theme of the movie was that ordinary people can do extraordinary things. She could have inspired a whole group of stormtroopers to betray the Empire and join the resistance!

I know I’m just posturing here, but my main point is that Phasma had a lot more promise than Rian and his team care to admit. If they wanted to include her in the story, they could have easily changed some scenes around to incorporate her. Hell, instead of having Finn and Rose get arrested by local authorities, they should have had Phasma after them instead. That would have taken absolutely nothing away from the movie.

My point is that Rian and his team intentionally chose not to have Phasma play a larger part. For whatever reason, Disney wants to use this character to market their movies, games, and merchandise, but not as an actual character in their movies. It baffles me, in all honesty. I can’t imagine why they would take a fan favorite character with so much potential and essentially make her a set piece.

Her role in the end of this movie could have been replaced with literally anything else. It could have been a random stormtrooper Finn was fighting and it would have made almost no difference. Rian says that the fight at the end was intended to show that Finn has overcome his past and is forging a new future, which is a strong theme of this movie overall – but even that I do not see. He did that in the first movie when he first confronted her. At this point, Phasma was only included as fan service, adding no real weight to the movie, emotional or otherwise.

I have decided that I need to see the movie again. This time, I am going to actively plot a storyline for Phasma that would not have interfered with any of the existing storyline. It might just be punishing myself, but I don’t really care. Phasma deserves more than this.

The CW’s Female Problem

CW’s Female Problem

Three years ago, CBS announced they were creating a Greg Berlanti led Supergirl Show. I, among many others, were elated at the news. Still, many were unhappy that they chose Supergirl, throwing all manner of sexist insults at the show before it even had a teaser. I wrote a little op-ed about why we needed Supergirl, and I still stand by that op-ed (which ended up being almost 100% accurate, by the way). But after the first season of Supergirl, it was picked up by the CW to join the other Berlanti DC television series Arrow, Flash, and Legends of Tomorrow. I was worried, since that would lead to a smaller viewership, but it would also lead to more flexibility in the roles. Once going on the CW, Supergirl’s episodes became more culturally relevant, adding positive LGBT+ representation, as well as dealing with sensitive subjects like immigration and feminism. However, they also lost a few of their bigger name people. Calista Flockhart, who played Cat Grant in the show, was a powerhouse of feminism and female power. She returned for only a few episodes, as the CW couldn’t afford her as a series regular. Peter Facinelli, who portrayed Maxwell Lord, the series’ Lex Luthor stand-in, also was lost into the abyss, never even mentioned again.

However, this opened the door for some great female characters. We were introduced to Katie McGrath’s Lena Luthor, Lex Luthor’s adoptive sister, and throughout season two the audience was left guessing whether she would follow in her family’s footsteps or become an ally to Supergirl. We got to see Sharon Leal’s M’gann M’orzz, or Miss Martian. We got to see Dana Delaney’s Maggie Sawyer, love interest to Kara’s Sister, Alex. We even got some great villains along the way, too numerous to recount here.

Most of these characters were done well. They had fulfilling story arcs and felt like real characters. In the current season, we were introduced to Samantha Arias (Odette Annable), a seemingly original character. We are introduced to her separate from the main cast, and we see that she has just moved to National City for a new, high pressure job. She is a single mother and works very hard to take care of her daughter and deal with her high demand job. It is revealed in the season 3 premier that she had some sort of superpowers, and she spends the first half of the season exploring their lengths. We also learn after a few episodes that her new job is acting CEO of L Corp while Lena is acting CEO of Cat Co.

Samantha quickly becomes friends with Lena, Kara, and Alex. They have an amazing friendship that you just love to see portrayed on a television. Rarely ever talking about men – dealing with real life problems – open and accepting of each other’s differences, etc. Samantha is my favorite character on the show, because she seems like a real snapshot of a struggling mother thrust into a job she wasn’t really prepared for.

Before I continue with Samantha, I need to talk about the CW’s Flash. The character of Caitlin Snow, played by Danielle Panabaker, over the course of the previous two seasons, had become the villain Killer Frost. Up until this point, Caitlin was my favorite character. Caitlin’s story arc was characterized by struggle to control her negative emotions, and struggle to deal effectively with her feelings.

Caitlin was the good character that was always struggling. All her love interests ended up getting killed or being the villain in disguise. She had some pretty severe PTSD from all of her experiences. She struggled regularly. For whatever reasons, the showrunners decided to have that struggle overcome her. After a stupid time-changing plot point, Caitlin was losing control of her (new and unexplained) ice powers. She ended up joining with the season’s villain and turning on her team. In the end, she aided them, and went off to figure herself out.

At the start of the next season, Caitlin has regained herself, but whenever she is angry or scared, she can lose control and become Killer Frost. I mention this because both Caitlin and Samantha share a similar story arc, and a similar fate in the DC Television universe. For whatever reason, secondary female characters with powers become villains (or get killed off).

I don’t care if they become villains. What I care about it how and why. Caitlin is the perfect example of the kind, loving, sensitive woman who is also a bit of a badass. She ends up becoming a villain because of how good and kind she is. She becomes tired of being walked all over by everyone else. She wants to take control of her life. That’s a totally reasonable and something many women feel. However, most women do not become murderous ice queens when they reach this point. In fact, CW shows have men who experience similar struggle and end up becoming heroes who, surprisingly, do not struggle between good and evil (I’m looking at you Jimmy Olsen). Caitlin’s story arc seems to tell the viewers that those qualities are bad because they led her to become a villain. Either that they were bad qualities, or that they are too weak to cancel out her inherent badness. It’s a common trope in DC comics (and any comic, really) for a woman’s power’s to be triggered by her emotions, and to reflect her emotions. Presently in the show, Caitlin uses her ice powers for good, but she can still lose control as Killer Frost, as Killer Frost is actually a separate personality. There is even a scene in the four part crossover event, Crisis on Earth X, when Caitlin transforms and Killer Frost says something along the lines of “Where does she get this stuff?” or “I can’t believe she wears this.” I tried to find a clip, but I couldn’t. The point being, they are two completely different personalities. Which doesn’t really help the whole plight of women who are trying to prove that their emotions don’t turn them into irrational monsters.

This brings me back to Samantha. After Killer Frost, I was very jaded about how awesome Sam was, because as I saw her powers developing, I saw her mirroring Caitlin’s story arc. Overworked single mother with little support suddenly gains powers and becomes evil. It’s clockwork. I was waiting for that inevitable moment. I had hope that perhaps Samantha would be a counter to Caitlin – that she would actively chose to use her powers for good.

And while Samantha never descended into the depths of rage and fury, what happened to her was, if not worse, just as bad.

It was revealed in episode 7 that Samantha was a “Worldkiller” called Reign, which is one of Supergirl’s archenemies. This was a secret kept by the creators until then – nobody knew what Samantha’s purpose was. I was, needless to say, immediately disappointed. However, there was still hope. I hoped that, perhaps, Samantha’s strong ethics and well-developed character would have the will to overcome this revelation. The episode even ended on an unclear note. We were left waiting until the mid-season finale if she succumbed to her role or overcame it.

So now, instead of having a woman who succumbs to her weaknesses, we have a woman who becomes a monster and can’t do anything about it. She says she will fight it, but then is almost immediately overcome by it. When she learns she is Kryptonian, she wishes to become a hero like Supergirl. She is given no autonomy and no ability to control herself. Her entire characterization before this point now feels wasted. Why show her as such a strong, confident, kind woman if that is going to mean nothing? We see her give Supergirl a massive thrashing with none of Samantha’s actual character or personality.

I understand why the writers did this. It’s to create a sense of anticipation. Supergirl does not know that Reign is Samantha. Samantha doesn’t even know that she is Reign. I am assuming the idea is that their friendship will overcome Reign, but I am sort of tired of this trope. Why are none of these women strong enough to overcome this wickedness to begin with? Why can’t these women control themselves?

The fans are also an important element. Many fans were more than elated when Caitlin finally became Killer Frost (as her character in the comics is, in one iteration, Killer Frost). Many of these people were the ones who identified with Caitlin strongly, and wanted to see her take control of her life. This is not a fault on them. It’s also just a matter of just pleasing the fans. However, they could have empowered Caitlin in a way that didn’t immediately destroy all her previous characterization, or send a message that her qualities were not valuable. In any Comic Book iteration, there is a delicate balancing act between the source material and what makes sense for the show. The show tries to frame Caitlin’s transformation as somehow empowering, but it really just says that smart, kind, talented women are not valuable unless they can duke it out with the boys in the same way.

I have such an issue with this because of the way it represents women overall. Women are constantly trying to convince men that they are not made into irrational ice queens by their emotions. They are constantly trying to prove to men that they are not easily manipulated. They are trying to prove to men that they do not become irrational and emotional in positions of power. These stories actively fight against those ideals.

I’m tried of watching strong women fail. Society tries to convince women that no mater how strong they are, they will not do what they want. They will not control their emotions, they will not be successful, they will not resolve their inner turmoil. Why can we not see a strong woman who is being forced to be a “worldkiller” successfully say no? Why does a woman have to have some personal stake in something before she can get control? Making only once character capable of doing this while all others are failing is not hopeful.

What would have been better is if Samantha struggled against Reign, and then used Supergirl’s inspiration (a common theme of the show) to overcome Reign’s control. That would honestly be more entertaining that watching them fight for two minutes. There would be much more character and plot development if they did that. I’m not asking for much, I’m just asking for female characters who are good and strong to remain that way and don’t abandon hours of character development for the sake of shock.

The Problem with Fraternity and Sorority Life

I am a proud and active alumnus of my fraternity, Zeta Beta Tau. Since Joining in October of 2011, I have felt great pride in knowing that Zeta Beta Tau is one of the only, if not the only, Social Fraternities that has completely removed pledging from their New Member process. Many are flabbergasted by this, while many more praise it. Pledging is, after all, the time when the most numerous and intense acts of hazing are performed. In fact, in 1989, ZBT abolished pledging primarily to curb the instances of hazing in its organization. Had there been pledging in Zeta Beta Tau, I doubt I would have ever joined.

This, of course, is not true for most other people. Thousands of young people join Fraternities and Sororities each year and happily pledge. I, personally, do not think pledging is necessary, and am whole heartedly devoted to Zeta Beta Tau’s non-pledging position, and I am not trying to make a statement about pledging. Pledging can be successful, if done right – even if I maintain that the same or more can be done without pledging.

Our community was rattled recently with many large hazing stories. One, from my Alma Mater, the State University of New York College at Plattsburgh, one from Penn State, one from Florida State University, and apparently just last night, one from Ohio State university. As always happens when hazing comes to light, Fraternity and Sorority members step up to denounce the evils of the trade, proudly reporting how their own organization had a no tolerance stance on hazing (usually ignoring some of the very problematic things they would do instead of hazing).

However, what most interests me is the small conversations that sprout up around campuses and among those who personally knew those involved. These conversations are often ignored or undervalued. The conversations I refer to are those where people whisper “So it’s true” or “I thought they stopped that” or “I can’t believe they are still doing that” or, possibly the worst offender, “That’s exactly what they did to [inset name of person here].” Its these small, often short, often emotional conversations that warrant further inspection. It is these conversations that outweigh and immediately cancel out all those talks about how great an organization is, how empowered they made their members feel, or how against hazing they were.

After the Pi Alpha Nu incident at SUNY Plattsburgh, I felt guilty. I didn’t personally know anything about the hazing activities happening there, but I should have done my due diligence as a Fraternity and Sorority Life student staff member and as an Interfraternity Council Vice President to bring these things to light. I now know that they were occurring during my time there, because several of these small conversations from people I know, who either knew members or alumni, made comments confirming it. I was just too blind to see.

This caused me to think about my time as an undergraduate. Reflect. I realized that there were a lot of people who knew what was going on. Girlfriends, boyfriends, friends, alumni – who knows who else. I pondered: Why did none of these people say anything? I can understand why the hazing victims didn’t say anything – hazing psychology is clear on that. But of the countless others who knew, nobody said anything? Of the countless men and women who proudly purport that they are anti-hazing, how many of them said or did anything about it? We do know that a single person can blow the lid off of hazing. We also know it is hard, and a lot to ask of someone. Hazingprevention.org’s Anti-Hazing Heroes are proof of that.

Unfortunately, we can’t rely on the random hero to show up and save us. Hazing is a community problem, and it requires a community solution.

One thing that I rarely ever see when people are discussing hazing is a dialogue about how chapters, even those that do not haze, contribute to the issue of hazing. We tout our organizations as social organizations, but never use that social power to truly affect cultural change, or accept responsibility. Rarely do I ever see professionals suggesting to members to refuse to support groups who are rumored to be hazing. Never do I see chapters calling out other organizations. I’m sure it happens privately, but never is that one of the first suggestions. I read a great article today from a Sigma Sigma Sigma alumnae about this very issue. She provided many ways people can help reduce hazing in their communities, but not even she mentioned using our organization’s social power to affect change.

Never do I see professionals suggesting that Sororities refuse to mix with fraternities who they believe, or more likely know, to be hazing, and vice versa. Rarely do I see people explicitly telling people to actively avoid going to programs and events of groups who haze.

Sure, these things are implied. It seems so obvious that it doesn’t merit mention. But that is not how it works. Our Fraternity and Sorority Community has developed by supporting each other. Many groups fear that by not presenting a united front they are confirming that Fraternity and Sorority Life is not as Idyllic as they try to claim. Sometimes it is out of fear of retaliation – perhaps taking a stand against hazing will get some of their own clandestine activities unearthed. Sometimes it is to keep the status quo.

I am not a Fraternity and Sorority professional, in as much as I do not get paid to work with these groups. As a volunteer, I am quite passionate about, and critical of, Fraternity and Sorority life. Whenever I see a group touting how against hazing they are, I wonder what sort of activities they do that are breeding grounds for hazing. Many groups, for instance, like to play games when it comes to big/little reveal. I have seen new members completely stressed, because the chapter is trying to trick them into thinking their big is someone it is not. Is this hazing? I would argue yes, but most others wouldn’t. However, in this case, where is the line? When do you cross over from fun little game to mental abuse? And how does this benefit anyone? Chapters rarely have those kinds of conversations with themselves, let alone other groups.

The problem with Fraternity and Sorority Life is that we, too often, ignore our faults. We, too often, ignore our own little quirks and blow up those of others. I cannot begin to tell how many sorority women I know who took no hesitation in blasting Pi Alpha Nu, though had no issue mixing with them or going to their programs. When the allegations against Pi Alpha Nu first became public, absolutely nobody was surprised. Even those who didn’t know what was happening were not surprised, because organizations like Pi Alpha Nu are breeding grounds for toxic masculinity. Everyone knew that something bad was happening, or was about to happen, because they saw the way the members acted. Instead, they were more often rewarded than challenged. This is the social nature of our groups at work. Why should Pi Alpha Nu stop hazing when it has not caused them any issues? In fact, they may have been rewarded for doing it with sex, drugs and alcohol.

And nobody did anything.

We cannot continue to post about how great and hazing free our own experiences were. We cannot continue to act like we are morally superior to those who haze when we are turning a blind eye to it. We cannot continue to claim that our own organizations are that different from those like Pi Alpha Nu. We need to take responsibility as a community, because if our community was really so against hazing, it would be doing more to prevent it.

I am tired of seeing groups denounce hazing thinking that is enough. We cannot continue to act like it’s not our problem if it’s not our organization. We are quick to use all positives to reinforce all of Fraternity and Sorority Life, and quicker to single out a person or a group for their bad actions.

The sooner we own our negatives, the sooner we can change them.

The sooner we tackle toxic masculinity and homophobia in our community, the sooner we can have true values driven organizations.

The sooner Fraternities and Sororities become more accessible to cultural and financial minorities, the sooner we can tackle the privilege that often leads to hazing behaviors.

Ignoring a group who I believe to be hazing doesn’t seem like it would really align with the values of any of the organizations I know of. We need to hold each other accountable to values. We can’t rely on the IFC or Panhellenic to fix everything. It starts with the individuals and the individual chapters.

It’s not enough to not haze. You need to make change, using the power you have. That’s the only way.