791 items found for your search. If no results were found please broaden your search.
(02/26/14 6:41pm)
I did not plan to write for the Campus this semester. I am studying abroad and had hoped to spare the Middlebury community my whining and myself the dangerously inflated ego that being published in the Campus might cause. And, frankly, I was looking to get away. Alas, many things are easier said than done. Ideally, someone better read than I would construct the argument I present below. Due to the apparent absence of such a voice in this debate, I feel compelled to add my own.
During the last semester, the SGA began to consider the issue of distribution requirements. As a dutiful cabinet member whose position had little connection to academic matters, I decided it was best to keep my opinions private. Now, however, I can be more candid. While it is important that we discuss and debate the value and nature of our education, I believe that efforts to remove the Europe (EUR) requirement are misguided. Studying Europe — its history, culture, literature, languages — is essential to a liberal education. Contrary to what proponents of reform argue, European thought is, particularly with regards to our education, more important than that of other parts of the world.
I suspect that last sentence is controversial. It shouldn’t be. This is not a matter of pro-Western jingoism. Liberal education is a European invention. It is the product of centuries of thought which, aside from a crucial period in the middle ages in which Islamic scholars translated, interpreted, and resuscitated the likes of Aristotle and Plato, is uniquely Western. This is not to say that only Europeans can be liberally educated. The value of a Western education is that it is universal. Rational inquiry is not the domain of Europeans alone. The rational study of human nature transcends class, race and sex, even as it gives insight into all of those subjects. Sciences and humanities as we conceive of them today are the products of a European tradition. It is no coincidence that Nietzsche, Marx, and Freud — perhaps the greatest critics of Western thought — studied Aristotle and Plato, Hobbes and Locke, Homer and Virgil. More recent critics such as Richard Rorty and Foucault did likewise. If one seeks to criticize the West, one should study it first.
As Requirement Reformers correctly argue, education has moral implications. What we study affects how we think. Most education systems teach their students what to think. They seek to impose a belief system on their students. Liberal (Western) education takes a different approach. Its goal is more ambitious and more just. At the end of a successful liberal education, one is not expected to hold any particular belief, but rather to be able to think for oneself. The study of Europe is not merely the study of a certain ethnicity or language, but rather a necessary part of an attempt to free one’s mind.
Critics of Western education often point out all the bad things for which Europeans are responsible. Yet they attribute these sins not to the flawed human condition, but rather to the much derided “dead white males.” Thus, one rarely hears complaints about the Ottomans and no one seems to mind that Jordanians occupied the West Bank and Egypt controlled the Gaza Strip. Not to mention China’s ongoing oppression of its Uyghur Muslim population or the atrocities the Indian government has committed in Gujarat. Alongside the Western tradition’s very real errors is a debate about the Good. In other words, it is hardly coincidental that we spend so much time criticizing British imperialism while no one in Qatar seriously complains about the slave-like conditions Egyptian and Palestinian workers face in Dubai’s shiny new hotels. Our self-criticism distinguishes us far more than our sinful past and present.
The ridiculousness of an argument over whether to require the study of Europe is that it is itself a Western discourse. If we do not study the history and development of that conversation, how will we ever understand the purpose of a Middlebury education?
HARRY ZIEVE-COHEN '15 is from Brooklyn, N.Y. Artwork by NOLAN ELLSWORTH.
(02/19/14 9:38pm)
Let’s talk about vaginas. Or, rather, let’s talk about The Vagina Monologues, a student produced play performed on Valentine’s Day in the Hepburn Zoo.
Writer Eve Ensler ’75 wanted to start a taboo conversation about female genitalia, and she started interviewing women about their views on sex, relationships and violence, compiling a piece that is ultimately a celebration of vaginas and femininity as well as a movement to stop violence against women. The monologues themselves are endearing and whimsical, heartbreaking and powerful, enlightening and shocking. Inspired by interviews with over 200 women of varying ages, ethnicities, nationalities and sexual experience conducted over two decades, the play reveals tales of feminine oppression, liberation, discovery and shame by discussing that most elusive part of the female figure: the vagina.
Premiering in 1996 at the HERE Arts Center in New York City, The Vagina Monologues also enjoyed a limited run at the Kevin P. Mahaney ’84 Center for the Arts in the same year. Eventually gaining popularity through a word of mouth campaign, the play has been performed at Madison Square Garden and was featured in an HBO television adaptation.
Traditionally performed around the country on Valentine’s Day, the productions usually benefit rape crises centers and shelters for women. All of the proceeds from Middlebury’s production were donated to WomenSafe, an Addison County organization working toward the elimination of physical, sexual and emotional violence against women.
Director Rebecca Coates-Finke ’16.5 became involved in the production through discussions about staging the play with fellow Chellis House Monitors.
“I volunteered [to be director] kind of on a whim,” Coates-Finke said. “I’ve had a solid amount of experience working on shows in the Hepburn Zoo and I’ve worked closely with so many directors I wanted to try my hand at it. Also, I’d never seen The Vagina Monologues and that seemed so wrong.”
One of the first monologues, “Hair,” perhaps says it best. “Vagina” is not an enjoyable word. As the piece points out, it sounds more like a harsh medical instrument than a revered part of the body, and saying it in any context will undoubtedly provoke squirms and blushes of embarrassment from people of any age or gender. The Hepburn Zoo was packed with male and female audience members from ages 18 to 65, and Coates-Finke began the show by informing the crowd that hearing words like “vagina,” “pleasure” and “clitoris” throughout the night did not constitute an emergency. These are words that do not appear in everyday conversation, but The Vagina Monologues aimed to, at least for a few hours, create a forum for open dialogue about a part of the body that has so much effect on women, and indeed, men, but is rarely acknowledged or discussed.
“When Eve Ensler wrote the Vagina Monologues, she tore away the stigmatizing silence surrounding women’s vaginas,” wrote Coates-Finke in the Director’s Note of the program. “She gave a voice to thousands of stories and empowered thousands more to spread them. In this moment…we are adding ourselves and our stories to the many that have come before, and the many still to come.”
As Coates-Finke noted, the show began with a piece written and performed by Jiya Pandya ’17 based on interviews with every member of the cast. Aptly named “The Period Monologue,” Pandya breathlessly exclaimed her 12-year-old excitement at becoming a member of the exclusive ‘club’ of womanhood only to discover that the implications of this transition involved serious mental and physical pain, confusion and maturity. The choice to begin with an original, relatively relatable monologue successfully eased the audience into the rest of the play.
Four narrators, Katie Carlson ’15, Akhila Khanna ’17, Marium Sultan ’16 and Helen Wu ’16.5 provided contexts for each of the monologues, discussing the origin of each piece and adding statistical information when necessary.
Dana Tripp ’14 sat down as if she was about to get a haircut in “Hair,” but she wasn’t talking about the hair on her head. Looking pointedly at the audience, she explained her husband’s request for her to remove the hair around her vagina and her subsequent embarrassment and physical pain. The cheating husband insisted that it would save their relationship, and even a female marriage counselor agreed that everyone must make sacrifices, but in the end Tripp’s character decided that the hair was there for a reason and that it is a personal decision for each woman. The audience was nervous, shifting and looking around for other reactions, but Tripp’s captivating delivery of the monologue successfully captured the attention of the spectators, leaving everyone wondering what else to expect.
In each interview, Ensler asked, “What would your vagina wear?” and “If it could speak, what would it say?” and the responses are peppered throughout the piece.
Two ensemble presentations near the beginning of the play aimed to provide a sampling of responses to these questions. In the second, more memorable piece, the women paired up and formed – what else – visual vaginas, hands stretched up and together and bodies curving inward. As each pair recited a phrase that vaginas said, their bodies moved outward and inward, ‘lips’ opening and closing as the words were spoken. Nervous laughter and squirms were rampant throughout the audience.
Fourteen women comprised the cast of the production, all dressed in black with a few key red accessories. The play included students from many majors united by their interest in feminism and portrayals of the female body. Seven of the actors were international students, a much higher percentage than is usually present in theater productions on campus.
“I’m proud of the women I’ve worked with—or I guess inspired would be a better word,” Coates-Finke said. “They are amazing, brave and bold, and they took risks without hesitation, even though for many of them this type of theater and/or these kinds of conversations are new and can be kind of intimidating.”
Adara Wicaksono ’17 acted the story of a woman in her 60’s who had never experienced an orgasm and only referred to her vagina as her “down there.” In “The Flood,” she recounted with nuanced pain and regret an encounter with a handsome young man from her adolescence, haltingly revealing that she had unwillingly flooded the seat of his car after their first kiss, prompting his judgment and her decision never to enter into relationships again. She remembered with glee her dreams of ‘Marlon and I,” in which she and Marlon Brando went out for dinner dates only for the restaurant to be flooded with water, fish and Marlon’s good friend, Al Pacino, swimming by. The embarrassment and longing caused by her natural bodily reaction was heartbreaking, and raises questions about why women (and men) are so afraid of vaginas.
Lorena Neira ’17 sported pink pajama pants as the rest of the cast circled around her, enraptured by her tale “Because He Liked to Look At It.” The audience was equally enraptured by Neira’s subtle use of humor and insight as she described Bob, an ordinary man who was not smart, interesting, funny or handsome. He was the most ordinary man she’d ever met, she explained, until their chance meeting led to a revelatory bedroom experience. Bob, it turned out, was ordinary in every way except that he wanted to look at Neira’s character - not her face, she soon discovered, but to really look at the essence of her – her vagina. Initially uncomfortable, Neira eventually described her most powerful and connected sexual experience through acceptance of her vagina’s existence and appearance.
Sarah James ’17 recounted another story of empowerment in “The Vagina Workshop,” in which she described her experience at a class full of women as they lay back on mats with mirrors, looking at their vaginas and eventually finding their clitorises.
While this may sound like the most uncomfortable workshop ever invented, James delivered the monologue with a gentle seriousness that distracted from the awkward nature of the class. For James’ character, finding her clitoris (“I’ve lost it! I’ve lost my clitoris!”, she exclaimed at one point to her instructor) reconnected her to her femininity and allowed her to embrace her vagina.
In deciding to incorporate multiple players into a dramatized rendition of each of the monologues, Coates-Finke created a more visually engaging theatrical experience, capitalizing on the vivid textual material and individual talents of each involved student. They also broke the mold with these innovative staging decisions, as the play is traditionally presented as a series of “single-actor-on-stage” monologues.
“The play was a little hard to grapple with at first. It’s usually done very informally with women just sitting on chairs to deliver their monologues, ” Coates-Finke said. “I didn’t want to do that because I didn’t like that from an artistic or aesthetic standpoint, and I wanted the women in the cast to be a constant and active part of every moment in the show.”
In perhaps the most lighthearted monologue of the night, Maeve Grady ’16.5 portrayed “The Woman Who Liked to Make Vaginas Happy,” describing her transition from a corporate tax lawyer to female dominatrix, strutting across the stage in red heels as she described the feeling of empowerment stemming from making women moan. As she culminated her monologue, each of the cast members rested back on their hands, facing away from the audience, each demonstrating one of the many moans classified by Grady, prompting the biggest laughs of the night. A few of the linguistically describable include the Jewish Moan—Oy, oy—and the Irish Catholic moan—Forgive me, Father!.
Positioned as a stark juxtaposition, Sandra Markowitz ’16 recounted one girl’s traumatic experiences from ages 5 to 16 in “The Little Coochie Snorcher That Could.” Markowitz described a familial rape that caused her to want to hide from her sexuality forever before detailing her “salvation” at age 16, when she was seduced by a powerful, 24-year-old woman who gave her such a positive sexual experience that she felt “healed,” though she never saw the woman again. This monologue originally included the line “If it was rape, it was good rape,” which was removed from later versions. Is it more heartbreaking that she was only able to start the healing process through another form of abuse, or is it a relief that she was able to again confront her sexuality? It is for the audience to decide.
Coates-Finke thinks that though the play is performed from a female perspective about the female body, people of any mature age can benefit from a viewing.
“Male-identified, male-bodied people do not belong in this play because it addresses oppression affecting female-identified people with vaginas,” Coates-Finke said. “But men should be feminists; men should support gender equality; men should seek solutions, and so this play is important in that it is educational and eye-opening for anyone to see. I love that this play is extremely sex-positive and body-positive. A lot of time is spent discussing the ways that our bodies do not function or look the way we want them to, and no time is spent talking about the awesome things they do for us—like sex!”
Celeste Allen ’16 burst onto the stage to confront a word with a mostly derogatory connation, “Cunt.” At the beginning of the performance, she unbuttoned her black dress shirt to reveal a tank top falling above “CUNT” spelled in red tape above the area it described. Bracing and cold, the word is almost more uncomfortable to say and hear than vagina, but Allen’s alternating rapid and slow patterns across the stage, fluid arm movements and smooth, relaxing voice worked to change that. By the end of the performance, the word did not sound as harsh or jarring. The monologue revealed that a word is only as embarrassing or crass as it is made out to be.
Jingyi Wu ’16.5 closed the show with a performance of “I Was There in the Room,” a monologue penned by writer Eve Ensler about watching her grandaughter’s birth. As Wu poetically described the opening and the motions of the vagina in childbirth, the rest of the cast formed a half-circle in front of her, each woman leaning against the cast member in front of her. As the birth progressed, the circle began to move, waving in and out until Pandya made her way, sitting on the floor, out of the middle. This piece of dance added a powerful layer to the monologue, prompting even more thought about what childbirth really means for the female body.
Talking about the vagina is uncomfortable. Actually, even writing this article was uncomfortable. The Vagina Monologues asks why society is so scared to talk about this part of the female figure and invites women to open up about their own relationships with their vaginas. In sharing their stories, they connect with audiences around the world while bringing attention to the abuse and pain suffered by so many. It’s supposed to be uncomfortable, but Coates-Finke and the cast and crew of the College’s production tackled the task with grace and depth by adding choreography and personal experience. The audience laughed, squirmed and was forced to think, at least for a little while, about a subject that is usually completely ignored, which, in my mind, is a recipe for a great night at the theater.
(02/13/14 12:17am)
There are two types of people at Middlebury: those who are in committed relationships and those who wish they were. If you’re not in a “Midd Marriage”, you’re romantic life is limited to either alcohol-fueled hookups or banishment to the desolate land of loneliness. We’re pinned between meaningless sex and sexless solitude. Certainly Middlebury would be a better place if we all just dated a little more.
We have a collective interest in asking others out, getting asked out, going on dates, sampling for soul mates. Yet at the individual level, we’re often unwilling to step into this dangerous territory; the fear of embarrassment is very real. I’m not sure if it’s the chicken or the egg, but our reluctance to take romantic chances is definitely connected to the “get-smashed-go-cray” atmosphere that dominates Middlebury weekends.
Admit it, you’re afraid to ask her out. With this column, I venture that I’ve got the best excuse of anyone to ask girls out, and yet I’m nervous with every approach. If I’m not nervous, it means I don’t care enough and shouldn’t be asking in the first place. However, what’s worse than the unnerving approach is when I let feigned apathy mask my fear of rejection, and use it as an excuse to do nothing. It’s easy to get cold feet and say, “Oh, I don’t really care that much.”
After all, I regret what never happened vastly more than I regret whatever has. The sting of a rejection fades a lot quicker than the lingering pangs of wondering, “What if?” There are times when I’m rooted to my seat, sickened by my pathetic inaction. I know I should do something, but instead settle for a sleepless night, frustrated at my chicken-hearted swooning.
And as far as leaps of faith go, romantic ones are the best ones to take. You can’t be more vulnerable with someone than by sharing your feelings; people have emotionless sex all the time. Forget what the doctors say, the heart is far softer and more delicate than the penis. (Don’t think about it too much.) But truly, you win the most when you risk the most. It’s beautiful to be vulnerable.
What it comes down to is this: a healthy dating scene is like the legendary stone soup. We’ve all got our singleton vegetables that we’re afraid lose by putting out on the table, but maybe if we throw it all into the pot and mix around a little bit, we can make something delicious for everyone to share. You can’t drag your feet to a party then blame everyone else for not being fun. If we want dating to be a part of our culture, we each have to make an effort to date.
Tomorrow is Valentine’s Day; it’s also the full moon, which makes it an exceptional day. You don’t have to be in love with someone to bring her a flower or take her out for a coffee. The whole point of casual dating is to trial run romance before anything gets too serious. Go for a country drive through Ripton; split a few chocolate truffles made by my good man Erlé (farmhousetruffles.com). Tomorrow night I want to see everyone out on the moonlit snow, floating in pairs to the Organic Garden. C’mon now, take a chance!
I’m no authority on dating, just another kid who wished he dated more. In any case, defining the “right” way to date is like choosing the bluest shade of blues; it’s subjective and circumstantial. This column represents nothing more than my opinions about the predicament of not-dating at Middlebury and my effort to inspire a romantic rebellion. Let me know how your perspective coincides or differs at rkim@middlebury.edu.
(02/12/14 4:49pm)
This has been a good year for movies. Tom Hanks gave a mesmerizing performance in Captain Phillips, Mud captured the spirit of the South with subtle grace, and 12 Years a Slave depicted slavery without resorting to revisionist comedy and violence. The movie that most blew me away, however, was Martin Scorsese’s The Wolf of Wall Street. Unsurprisingly, as Wolf has garnered as much criticism as acclaim, ambivalence towards its 180 minutes of relentless and unabashed sex, drugs, and pump & dump isn’t really an option.
The Wolf of Wall Street tells the story of Jordan Belfort, a former stockbroker whose career was cut short by dozens of felony convictions on charges of securities fraud and money laundering. Indeed, he cut himself short. This wasn’t hubris; it was intentional criminality. As one of Belfort’s prosecutors and Middlebury graduate Joel Cohen ’84 says, “[Belfort was] a guy who woke up every day [...] and said, ‘What crimes can I commit today?’
Scorsese does not shy away from bringing these crimes to life. In almost every scene, we see Belfort or one of his cronies break the law. They are constantly under the influence of drugs (cocaine and Quaaludes are usual suspects), they inaugurate a new elevator in their building with a statutory rape, and, of course, they establish Statton Oakmont with the sole purpose of scheming and stealing from investors. Yet, for every crime, there is a victim, and critics of the film insist that many of these victims are not given the focus or face-time they deserve. I’d agree if this was a movie about condemning Belfort, but it’s not. Wolf is about a lot more than that.
The film opens with Belfort snorting blow out of a hooker’s ass before abruptly cutting to him receiving conjugal road head while speeding down the Long Island Expressway. If you saw the movie and weren’t at least a little titillated after the first sixty seconds then my hat’s off to you. From there, the movie barely slows down, orgies and drug binges become commonplace, but so does Belfort’s selfishness. He is portrayed — quite rightly — as a compulsive liar and a cheat, to both his clients and his wife, Nadine. In one of the darkest scenes of the movie, Belfort hits Nadine before driving drunk and high with his young daughter in the passenger seat. There should be no doubt in anyone’s mind as to the moral depravity of the title character and yet he just seems so likable and inviting. Perhaps its a testament to DiCaprio’s performance, but you can’t help but want to spend a day with Belfort.
Wolf is less of an exposé of Belfort’s crimes than a mirror of the American psyche. Last week nearly eight million people watched ABC’s The Bachelor, now in its eighteenth season. That’s right, millions of people actually tuned in to watch a glorified and one-sided mating ritual. A year after twenty children and six adults were murdered at Sandy Hook Elementary School thirty-two million people had purchased “Grand Theft Auto V” and not a single law had been passed by Congress to restrain gun violence. Justin Bieber’s marijuana use is headline news and Robin Thicke can make a song about rape into a platinum record by putting naked women in the music video. The only thing more exciting to the American people than a movie about drugs and violence is a movie about drugs and violence starring a woman in black leather. We tell ourselves that these are guilty pleasures, but such assertions are nothing more than evangelical pretension.
With Wolf Scorsese tests this lust for perversion: when the veil of fiction is removed will we still fall for the villain? Needless to say we failed the test quite miserably. People criticize the director for glorifying Belfort, but not the viewer for eating it all up. Art is made so that those who encounter it question the very fabric of the world around them. A simple recitation of Belfort’s transgressions is better fit for the front page of the Wall Street Journal than the silver screen. In Vladimir Nabokov’s Lolita, a middle-aged man, lusts after a 14-year-old girl, eventually raping her. My (much missed) co-columnist, Harry Zieve Cohen, tells me that the brilliance of the book lies in how difficult Nabokov makes it to resist feeling at least some excitement in reading about the protagonist’s wicked behavior. This analysis also holds for The Wolf of Wall Street. The very elements of the film that many denounce are exactly what makes it so great. Indeed, the very fact that people see the film as a glorification of Belfort is evidence that they, like I, were unable to fully resist the attraction of vice. In portraying Belfort as a hero, Scorsese makes us the villain. Could we really say he’s wrong? In portraying Belfort as a hero, Scorsese makes us the villain. Maybe he’s on to something...
Artwork by SAMANTHA WOOD
(02/12/14 4:45pm)
To honor Valentine’s Day, what better to discuss than relationships and sex? Middlebury is probably not unique in its messed up idea of courtship.
Think about how you usually meet the people you sleep with. It’s at a party full of grimy, sweaty students that you weave your way through. As a woman, it’s common to have someone grab your butt and push it into his or her crotch, as you wait for a sign of approval from your friends. The music is loud, and it’s pretty much dark anyways, so do you even really know what they look like? It’s sad that that’s all the courtship we need to exchange saliva with someone and, maybe later on in the night, perform the most intimate act you can with someone.
The classic booty text has the same function. We’ve all sent them and gotten them — that post 10 p.m. “hey what are you up to tonight?” or if you’re feeling really courageous, a “we should meet up later.” I even know someone who was told she was being taken to the Grille to talk, and then went straight to Painter to a guy’s room because she was so drunk.
Alcohol is no excuse for disrespect, but we have set our standards so low that even a gracious ‘hello’ from last night’s hookup the next day seems like a gift from God. Yet we all, myself included, complain that nobody here dates, hook-up culture sucks and nobody treats anybody well. I’ve heard several girls say, “I can’t text him because I don’t want him to think I’m crazy” or “I have to give it a few days because I don’t want him to think I’m already attached” or “I’ll just wait for him to text me or I’ll text him next weekend”.
Why should we have to wait to text? Why is it always that the women are often stereotyped as being clingy, emotional and attached after the first hookup? If this stereotype didn’t exist, I think that the hookup scene would be less emotionally draining. I have had experiences and have seen my friends have experiences where a guy will ask a girl to hang out and watch a movie or prophesize his desire to take her on a date. A few weekends of casual sex, and then they never talk again. Expectations build if you set them. Casual sex is absolutely fine, but not when it’s peppered with sweet things that give someone hope for more. Even a text the next day saying “I had so much fun last night, hope to see you soon” can be interpreted as “he is totally into me,” because why else would someone be bothered to text you the next day?
Hookup culture exists because we are attractive people around the same age who are stressed out, want to have fun and we have a lot of choices. But what about people who aren’t conventionally attractive? What about exoticizing? I have heard so many minorities say that they feel like white people don’t think they are attractive or they feel like nobody wants to hook up with them except to “experiment”. It could just be that people are attracted to those similar to them, so for students that have grown up in a homogenous environment, only people who look like them fit the mold. But attractive people are attractive people, so why is there a stark lack of bi-racial couples on campus? Shouldn’t we move out of our comfort zone and be open to new possibilities?
As someone who is colored, I have had my ethnicity referenced in every sexual interaction I have had on this campus. I’ve hooked up with guys who have told me that they’ve never hooked up with someone of my ethnicity before, that their parents would think this is cool since they’ve traveled to my country of origin, or that they really like the food from my country. I know Africans here who have had several comments on their penis size — how many of us have heard “once you go Black, you can never go back”? I’ve heard girls describe guys by saying “he has a thing for Asians” or “he lost his virginity to an Indian girl, so maybe he likes them.” People of color are often sexualized and experimented with, and through this are othered.
I think that I am really pretty. Just not here because here the image of beauty and what’s acceptable in a partner is so skewed. I feel like people don’t see me as attractive and am surprised when someone approaches me, all because I am not white and don’t fit the mold. I know other minorities feel this way too — you either feel like you stick out and everyone is looking at you, or that nobody sees you. It’s never blending in.
We slap a racial label on minorities the second we see them and then define them by it forever. Think about it, have you ever heard of someone having “White Fever”? We have to remember that whether you’re making out with someone or having sex, it’s with a person, not a race. You connect with people, not their ethnicity. We aren’t foreign. We’re just a few hues darker! There seems to be a sort of fear of more than a one-night stand with someone who looks different or speaks differently because it’s the unknown.
We are in a liberal arts school and are supposed to learn, change and grow. We can’t do this unless we get rid the blinders with which we entered college. So the next time you’re at Atwater, try talking to the girl you hope to dance with. Or ask your Proctor crush on a date! Don’t let race be a boundary or a reason for you to make your move and defy the rules of hookup culture.
Artwork by NOLAN ELLSWORTH
(01/26/14 9:42pm)
[audio mp3="http://middleburycampus.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/jan26campusvoiceTHESES.mp3"][/audio]
On Sunday, Jan. 26 hosts IAN STEWART and GRETA NEUBAUER spoke with two super-senior Febs about their last homework assignments ever. Hanna Mahon '13.5 talks about the class she's teaching (yes, teaching), and Peter Murray '13.5 discusses his thesis on Catholic relationships to same-sex marriage.
(01/23/14 2:59am)
If you had sex education in high school, chances are you were a pimply fourteen year old who was too embarrassed to pay attention or absorb any information. Most of what you learned was probably heteronormative and geared towards basic pregnancy and STI prevention — either abstain or, if you must, use a condom. All other information you gleaned about sex came from side conversations in math class, parties and gossip in the bus on the way to soccer games.
It is no wonder that there are misconceptions about birth control and all the options.
While many college students’ knowledge of birth control is limited to the basics — the pill, condoms, and, as a last resort, Plan-B — a wide scope of birth control exists, from daily use options to ten year options with a range of factors determining whether they are right for you. While pregnancy prevention is only applicable in heterosexual sex, contraceptives can be useful to women regardless of their sexuality. Your choice of contraceptive is determined by a variety of factors — STI prevention, pregnancy prevention, and a range of other reasons one might decide to use birth control.
Although there is no J-term workshop to take on birth control options, the College provides a variety of resources to students choosing what is right for them. At Parton Center for Health and Wellness, Senior Nurse Practitioner Laurel Kelliher provides many gynecological services, including pap smears, STI tests, and contraceptive consultations. She is trained to insert contraceptive devices and is able to prescribe the pill. Appointments can be made by calling the Health Center.
Additionally, Barbara McCall came on in June as the new director of Health and Wellness Education and specializes in sexual health, particularly women’s and LGBTQ health. Her office in McCullough marks the importance of student interaction in McCall’s job, where she is happy to chat with students about questions they have or problems they may be facing.
To fill in the gaps in many students knowledge of birth control, the Campus investigated the forms of birth control that you may not know about in this special feature.
Birth Control is a Misnomer
“The name in itself is terrible,” Kelliher said. “It’s probably not well known, but I certainly do have women come in here and I’m not always aware of their sexual preferences and they’re coming in strictly for really bad cramps, their periods last for seven days and they’re sick of it; they’re done. And it may not be at all related to being sexually active or getting pregnant.”
Birth control keeps women from becoming pregnant, but, really, it is a misnomer because it does so much more.
Because many forms of birth control are hormonal, there are many different reasons that women — whether sextually active or not, or whether engaging in heterosexual or homosexual sex — could benefit from or need to be on birth control. Women are prescribed hormonal birth control for a variety of reasons other than pregnancy prevention, ranging from heavy to painful or uncomfortable periods to acne to cyclic depression that comes with menstruation.
One non-contraceptive reason women may want to think about birth control is to regulate their periods. According to Dr. Anna Benvenuto, who works at Addison Associates in OB/GYN, “There’s no medical reason for women to have their period every month, so different kinds of birth control make women not have their periods or make their periods much lighter.”
Furthermore, risk of ovarian cancer rises the more a woman ovulates, and many contraceptives prevent ovulation.
“The risk of uterine and ovarian cancers is decreased with long term use of the pill because you’re not ovulating and your ovaries are resting,” Kelliher said.
Though some women may worry about the effects of long-term hormone use, in many cases, according to Kelliher, the benefits outweigh the downsides.
“If you look at the bigger picture of what we put in our bodies, I think that this is necessary at times and has some great benefits — peace of mind that you’re not going to get pregnant, it generally helps with acne — and I think that’s worth a lot to some people,” Kelliher said.
Some hormonal birth control, however, does not work for everyone. Kelliher cited mood swings, depression, tearfulness, and insomnia as symptoms that bring students to Parton to reevaluate their current contraceptive. These side effects can be addressed by switching pills or trying a non-estrogenic method. Weight gain, on the other hand, is not actually a side effect of most forms of birth control, except for the Depo-Provera shot with can cause a 10 to 15 pound weight gain.
“Unfortunately, some people will come in … and say I’ve gained 30 pounds on the pill, and it’s really hard to sit here and tell the person that it’s probably not from the pill,” Kelliher said. “It’s probably because your eating habits have changed, you’re not exercising, you’re drinking more alcohol here.”
The Best Birth Control
“I always get asked that question when I teach sexual health workshops. ‘What is the best form of birth control?’” McCall said. “And the answer is whatever is the best kind for you. It’s different for every person.”
Kelliher usually starts with a chart that lists different birth control options.
“A lot of times I’ll just get a sense from the patient of what they’re interested in,” Kelliher said. “Most women will say the pill. And I’ll say, ‘do you want me to talk about any other options because there are so many now.’ The birth control pill is great, but there are certainly a lot of different things.”
For college students, the most common options include intrauterine devices (IUDs) (both hormonal and nonhormonal), the implant, the ring, the pill and condoms.
“I think for most college students, the goal is a super reliable form of birth control that has minimal input,” said Benvenuto. “That’s just the reality of it. Day-to-day lives are really different, so remembering to take a pill at the exact same time every day, for example, is really hard for people.”
The wiggle room on the pill is small. Kelliher tells patients to take the pill within an hour each day, although odds are good if you take it within two or three hours.
“But it is 92% effective because of that human error,” Kelliher said.
The implant and the IUDs, on the other hand, require one time insertion without additional maintenance.
The implant, or Nexplanon, is inserted into the arm, where it is more than 99 percent effective at preventing pregnancy. This 1.6 inch rod releases a steady low-dose of hormone for three years and can be removed at any time if the user decides she would like to become pregnant. Although side effects may include breakthrough bleeding and random spotting, after three months, 20 percent of women stop menstruating entirely. Moreover, this procedure is less invasive than that required for an IUD. Kelliher was recently certified to insert them, although they are not yet available at Parton.
Insurance complications are also influencing Parton’s ability to provide birth control on-site. While they can write prescriptions for the pill or the NuvaRing, patients seeking IUDs and implants must be referred elsewhere.
Kelliher is trained to insert both devices, but because of the Health Center’s billing plan, they have yet to find a supplier. Visits to the Health Center are incorporated into the tuition, so they do not do on-site billing. For STI tests and other billable procedures, students pay out of pocket and are later reimbursed by insurance companies. With a high upfront cost for IUDs and implants, this strategy is more complicated.
“These are probably $600-700, and we can’t just buy that for you,” Kelliher said, who hopes they will figure out a better strategy this summer. “In the short term, it is really simple to figure out how to get an appointment at Porter Hospital OB/GYN or Planned Parenthood.”
The Mirena, a hormonal IUD that is over 99 percent effective in preventing pregnancy for five years. Mirena requires a simple insertion that, similar to the implant, can be done at Porter and Planned Parenthood. The plastic T sits in the uterus where it slowly releases hormones that inhibit sperm from fertilizing the egg. Mirena does this by thinning the uterine lining and thickening cervical mucus to prevent sperm from entering the uterus. It also changes periods in many cases, reducing bleeding in 90 percent in women by the sixth month, though short-term side effects may include cramping and spotting.
For those more wary of hormonal treatment, the ParaGard is non-hormonal copper IUD that is as effective as both the implant and the Merina and lasts for 10 years. Beyond concerns about the result of bodily hormones, women with epilepsy or who cannot tolerate hormones can still have long-lasting, low maintenance birth control through the ParaGard.
The NuvaRing is also often used by women who do not want a daily pill, but want more control than offered with an IUD or implant. NuvaRings are falling out of favor due to recent links with blood clots, though Benvenuto is not ready to close the door.
“If you look at every type of birth control out there, there will be lawyer ads looking for lawsuits for people who’ve had blood clots … so yes, there are reports of women getting clots on the NuvaRing, but there are reports of women getting clots with birth control pills,” Benvenuto said. “The issue is that for women going on birth control — any sort of hormonal birth control — it uncovers a sort of inherited risk of blood clotting disorders that is even higher in pregnancy. So pregnancy has a much bigger risk of a blood clot than any birth control you may use.”
Condoms are also an important part of pregnancy prevention and sexual safety, since none of the aforementioned methods protect from sexually transmitted infections (STIs). Male condoms are 85 to 98 percent effective in preventing pregnancy, and most of the error comes from improper usage. They, therefore, can always be used as a second form of contraceptive to even further reduce risk of pregnancy.
It is also always important for sexually active students to be tested at least once a year if they have multiple partners. One in four college students will contract an STI, with gonorrhea and chlamydia being the most common STIs.
As for birth control methods that are not recommended, Benvenuto cautions against “pulling out.”
“I’ll just put a plug for what I see a lot, which is people’s thoughts about the reliability of ‘pull and pray,” she said. “I’m just going to say that is not reliable for anything. There is actually sperm and semen in preejaculate, so people think they’re protected, and they’re not. I see people of all levels of education and all ages thinking this is a reliable form of birth control.”
A Man's Responsibility
Other than male condoms, the responsibilities of pregnancy prevention lie in the hands of women — it is up to women to take the pill at the exact same time every day, it is up to women to research and decide which form of birth control works best for their lifestyle and body. So, what is the role of a male bodied man in a heterosexual relationship?
“There’s an important tension between agency and self-governance over a woman’s own body and negotiating safety, values and priorities in a relationship, and that’s going to look really different depending on the level of that relationship, how casual it is, how serious it is, the priorities of both people,” McCall said.
In other words, it isn’t an easy line to walk an Regardlessd there isn’t a black and white answer regarding this tension and how to navigate it.
of monogamy and commitment level, there are steps that everyone should be aware of to prevent pregnancy, though.
“It always astounds me how many folks, regardless of gender, don’t know the proper steps for how to put on a condom,” McCall said. “They sometimes wing it, based on what they’ve seen or what they’ve heard, but there are many steps that folks take that really insure safety.”
Another way men can proactively promote sexual health is by getting Gardasil, the HPV vaccine. The vaccine has been on the market for women since 2006, but many men do not know they can be vaccinated too because approval came later, in 2009. The shot is available at the Health Center and involves three doses over a six month period, a series that for some students is hard to complete, despite the protection from certain types cancer and genital warts it provides.
“I see very few men coming in for it,” Kelliher said. “Certainly more in the gay population for men — they’re more aware of it — but the heterosexual men are not.”
The Gardasil vaccine is covered by insurance until age 25, so Kelliher encourages all students to ensure they are up-to-date.
Obamacare and Birth Control
The Affordable Care Act recommends that all birth control be free, but in practice it depends on what your specific insurance plans cover, though all companies must cover birth control in some capacity. This could make a huge difference, particularly because devices like the implant can cost up to $700 without insurance. Under some insurance plans, patients only need to pay their normal co-pay for the visit to the doctor.
Additionally, young people can now stay on their parents’ insurance plan until they are 26, prompting some people to choose long lasting options, like an IUD or an implant, while they are still covered.
In light of recent legal challenges, many parts of the ACA are still up in the air, with many patients exempt depending on their insurance, and it could take up to five years for parts to be set in stone. In the meantime, the best course of action for students seeking insured birth control options is to check with their health care provider.
LGBTQ Specific
According to McCall, the population of women who traditionally has less access to birth control and to healthcare in general are queer women, or women who identify as LGBTQ.
“Folks who identify as LGBTQ are far less likely to seek access to healthcare, even when they really need it,” McCall said. “And this has to do with stigma and discrimination in the healthcare arena.”
Because health care visits can be more uncomfortable for people who identify as LGBTQ for a variety of reasons, queer women just aren’t aware of other reasons to take birth control, other than pregnancy prevention.
“A lot of [queer] people aren’t on birth control,” said Katie Linder ’15, co-chair of Queers & Allies (Q&A). “So with things like really heavy periods that are uncomfortable, they’re just like, ‘that’s the way it is,’ because they don’t have a doctor to talk about it with. There could be more awareness about other reasons you’d want to take the pill.”
Additionally, as stated before, contraceptives that prevent ovulation decrease risk of ovarian cancer. Queer women, therefore, could benefit from forms of birth control other than the pill, such as Nexplanon, which significantly decreases or even eliminates a woman’s period for three years.
“There are so many reasons that women can and should take [birth control],” Linder said. “... I was reading an article recently about lesbians having higher rates of ovarian cancer because they’re less likely to be on the pill … I thought that that was really interesting.”
Regardless, queer women’s health issues and difficulty accessing LGBTQ friendly doctors make it difficult to even know that hormonal birth control is an option for women who aren’t engaging in heterosexual sex.
“I was looking at autostraddle.com, which is a queer women’s website that has stuff on almost everything … and I was sure that there was going to be at least one health related article about this but there wasn’t,” Linder said. “There is a void of knowledge on the internet.”"
When All Else Fails
Even with all these birth control options, things can still go wrong.
Plan-B is 75 to 89 percent effective if taken within three days of having unprotected sex, although the effectiveness decreases quickly with time. Plan-B is available at Parton for $14 and over the counter at pharmacies for $50, but students can also have a prescription written at Parton to have insurance cover it.
“I recommend students have two prescriptions written,” McCall said. “Drop one off at your local pharmacy and have it on file in case you need it, and keep the other one with you in case you’re somewhere else and need it filled.”
Plan-B, however, is not effective for all women. The efficacy decreases for women with BMIs over 25 percent or who weigh more than 175 pounds, regardless of BMI. In these cases, ella is the best option.
Ella is not available at any pharmacies in Middlebury, although Planned Parenthood hopes to have it in stock soon. In the meantime, women can order ella online for $40 and have it rush delivered after an online medical consultation. Ella also works for up to five days, making it a more effective option for delayed pregnancy fears.
All emergency contraception pills, however, can be painful, involving side effects like vomiting and heavy and irregular periods that take a while to return to normal. They are also less effective the more often they are taken. Students, therefore, should always use preventative forms of contraception before sex and use these options as a last resort.
A less known option for emergency contraception is to have an IUD inserted immediately after unprotected sex, for which the window is approximately five days.
“It involves calling your provider’s office and getting an appointment for that day,” McCall said. “But usually when you let people know that’s what you need it for [an IUD for emergency contraception], they’re pretty swift about it.”
This option has the added benefit of future pregnancy prevention to avoid the panicked morning after feeling for another five-to-10 years once the IUD is inserted.
In the event that pregnancy does occur, students can seek help at Parton, where they can evaluate their options. At Porter OB/GYN, Benvenuto’s practice, students can seek obstetrical medical care if they decide to keep the child. If they decide not to, abortions are available at the Planned Parenthood in Burlington. The College offers resources, both medical and emotional, for students dealing with these decisions or any other decisions relating to sexual health and safety.
“Sex is an act of trust, whether you know somebody a little bit, a lot, or not at all,” McCall said. “There’s always a risk … I hope folks can be informed about what their options and choice are and the potential consequences, and they can choose the amount of risk that feels comfortable for them.”
Written by HANNAH BRISTOL and MOLLY TALBERT
(01/23/14 12:47am)
It is no secret that Midd has a predictable social scene. You know that, for example, you will usually find the athletes at Atwater and the minorities at KDR. Several friend groups are dictated by socioeconomic status, whether it is being highly privileged or being here on a full ride. I’m somewhere in the middle - I am a minority who is extremely privileged. I am friends with athletes and non-athletes and have tried my best to sample the options on the social platter at Midd. Still, I struggle to find a place where I truly belong and find that the social scene here can at times be exclusive. This article expresses the opinion of someone who wishes for a more integrated nightlife on campus and feels that some themes of parties here are only strengthening the cliquey-ness of the student body, as well as reflecting poorly on the campus’s elite.
“There is no way in hell I am going to the white privilege party,” is a statement I heard last weekend. I was confused; I couldn’t fathom an event with the theme of white privilege, something highly discussed by certain groups on campus. Upon further inquiry, I learned that last Saturday night there was a “Country Club” theme party at an off-campus house being referenced by others as a gathering of the white and privileged.
Themed parties are usually a blast, but some themes disgust me not just as a member of a society but also as a woman. Parties like “CEOs and Office Hoes,” “Tennis Pros and Yoga Hoes” and “Naughty Professor and Slutty Schoolgirl” show men as accomplished and women as nothing but sexual beings, but for the sake of this article I’ll put my feminist rant aside and say that these themes are all right because they are inclusive. The majority of people on this campus identify as male or female and can be included in these types of themes. There is no specification on race or class.
These themes celebrate sex, and maybe that’s okay. Hookups are rampant on our campus, and we are young and looking to have a good time. It is fun to dress up and be someone else for a night, and if you’re happy to be a yoga hoe, go for it! But while you can fake being a Slutty Schoolgirl for a night, can you fake being rich?
Parties like “country club” aren’t celebrating something that everyone has — they celebrate wealth. Urban Dictionary definitions of “country club” include a “group of an elite few,” “referring to, in a derogatory manner, ease and privilege” and “pertaining to wealthy people and things that characterize them.” A common theme here: wealth. Still don’t buy it? Even the Merriam-Webster dictionary gives a definition of “country club” as “having qualities (as affluence) associated with the members of a country club.” This “country club” party created and ensured access to only the elite, because who else goes to country clubs? It also seemed to be based on the underlying assumption that everyone who would be attending this party had a level of extreme wealth.
The theme of this party further perpetuated the stereotype of “biddies and bros” on this campus. It is not hard to tell who the elite are in our respective years and having themes like “country club” only increases the existing classism at Middlebury. To the people who held this party: did you think about it? If the theme was one of unintentional exclusion, then I mean no offense to you, but I encourage you to think. Are all your friends in the same socioeconomic class? Do you want to help bridge the divides on campus? And if this theme was intentional and you did mean to keep out those who cannot attend country clubs, I am outraged.
As a student body, we need to contemplate what we want out of our time here. People often complain and discuss the high school-esque experience of being at Midd and the harsh lack of racial and socioeconomic diversity. Our social scene is definitely filled with cliques, but the only way to move towards ending this is by stepping out of your clique. We need to be inclusive in order to create a more accepting environment on campus, and learn from each other’s experiences. The wealth we need to focus on here isn’t the one in peoples’ pockets, but the wealth of having an increasingly diverse student body. So let’s not be stuck in our own bubble, inside the bubble.
Artwork by TAMIR WILLIAMS
(01/22/14 4:25pm)
The Vagina Monologues is an episodic play written by Eve Ensler ’75 in 1996. The play consists of a series of monologues about the “female experience,” such as sex, menstruation, sexual assault, orgasm, female empowerment and solidarity based on both Ensler’s personal experiences and interviews she conducted with other female-identifying persons.
Two Fridays ago, Rebecca Coates-Finke ’17 held auditions for two showings of the play, which will occur on Feb. 14, Valentine’s Day, a “V-Day” tradition, in the Hepburn Zoo. According to the Director of Chellis House Women’s Resource Center Karin Hanta, the last time the play was staged at Middlebury College was 2009. In the past, all performances of the popular play sold out.
The Vagina Monologues marks Coates-Finke’s directing debut at the College, although she has already stage-managed multiple productions during her two semesters here. Coates-Finke, who also works as a student monitor for the Chellis House, had never read The Vagina Monologues before she decided to try her hand at directing them.
“I like theater and I like social activism, and I wanted to see what would happen when I brought the two of them together,” she said.
In order to secure the rights to the play, Coates-Finke registered with Ensler’s organization, VDay.org, which is dedicated to ending violence against women. Each year, a new and revised version of The Vagina Monologues is released with special instructions. One of the caveats of performing The Vagina Monologues is that all proceeds from the show must benefit a local organization working to end violence against women and girls. All proceeds from the two showings on Feb. 14 will benefit WomenSafe, an Addison County based organization committed to ending domestic and sexual violence against women and children.
Coates-Finke reflected on the fact that Ensler is a Middlebury graduate but that her history here is one that often goes unmentioned.
“I find it interesting that this particular piece of Middlebury history is not really recognized,” Coates-Finke said. “There’s no reason we shouldn’t be proud that Eve Ensler went here.”
Coates-Finke further expressed that she was not sure what to expect at auditions, and therefore was pleased to see so many female-identified people of different backgrounds trying out for a role in the play. The final cast includes eleven monologue performers and three narrators. About half of them are international students, and many of them are not involved in the theater department at Middlebury.
Sandra Markowitz ’15.5 will be performing one of the original monologues, entitled “The Little Coochie Snorter That Could,” in which a woman describes a series of memories involving her vagina, culminating in the final memory of a sexual experience with an older woman where she learned that her vagina could be a place of pleasure and happiness, rather than a stigmatized object that no one talks about.
Markowitz noted, “People can talk about penises all the time. The intention [of The Vagina Monologues] is less to convince people to become feminist and more about creating less of a social stigma around vaginas.”
Markowitz further discussed the fact that several men have questioned her as to why there isn’t a “penis monologues.”
“It’s kind of like society is ‘the penis monologues.’ You don’t need stories of people saying things like ‘my cock is awesome’ because people are saying stuff like that every day,” Markowitz said.
Another performer, Jiya Pandya ’17, is writing her own original monologue for the performance. It is based on interviews she conducted with the Middlebury cast about their first period experiences and will serve as an introduction to the play. And while Pandya admitted that the play is certainly “questionable” for its failure to integrate more narratives pertaining to the “female” or “vagina” experience, she maintained that it is a fun play that definitely makes sexuality more personal.
Both Markowitz and Pandya affirmed the fact that the cast has already come to feel more like a community, even after a mere three full-cast rehearsals. At the second full-cast rehearsal, Coates-Finke turned out all the lights and asked the women to practice moaning sensually in the dark, as part of one of the monologues.
“It could be really awkward, getting a group of girls in a room and practicing moaning together,” Markowitz said. “But it’s actually really fun.”
“All of the women in the cast bring themselves to their roles in a really special way,” Coates-Finke said. “If you come and see it you are going to see something really true to this campus.”
(12/05/13 1:54am)
Upon entering the room where Professor Amy Wax was scheduled to speak, the first thing many people noticed were brightly colored signs with a single word written on it: racist. Some students brought these signs in anticipation of a heated lecture, in part due to hype created both by middbeat and by other students on campus.
Amy Wax’s work is undoubtedly controversial. Her conservative approach to issues of race and sex conflicts with the opinions of the majority of the student body and some of her findings were insulting to many students who come from the discussed communities. By dodging questions and interrupting students, she exacerbated existing tensions. Nevertheless, we failed as a student body to combat this controversy with grace.
By preparing to attack rather than to engage, we failed to truly listen to what she was saying. And even if what she was saying was as offensive as we expected, without careful consideration of her evidence, we were unable to deconstruct her argument to our full capacity. It is hard to remain collected when presented with some of her findings and to check emotions when someone hits so personally, but the ability to rationally respond to people with whom we disagree is a life skill that we are often not challenged to develop at a politically homogenous school. There will always be people who present opinions you find offensive. Rejecting such voices on our campus does not mean they go away; it just means they are not exposed to thoughtful opposition. Over the course of the semester, we’ve engaged in dialogue about what voices are and are not welcome here. In this instance, unlike with Chance the Rapper’s controversial lyrics, we were able to engage directly, creating a dialogue that allowed us to pressure our guest on what we found offensive, rather than merely listening to what we objected to, as at the concert.
Though Wax was often condescending and dismissive of even the most thoughtful comments, we should have taken the higher ground. As a community of curious and engaged people, we missed an opportunity to intelligently critique a heavily researched academic presentation. By resorting to name calling, we trivialized our collective knowledge. As frustrating as her refrain that we did not have the data to support our findings was, it is true that data cannot be combated simply with trying to humiliate her. A room of impassioned Middlebury students from a variety of academic background has tremendous potential to deconstruct a presentation that was clearly missing pieces, including a complete analysis of all variables like the socio-political factors that could also inform her findings.
It is difficult to refute a speaker like Wax, who has decades of research under her belt, and this creates a volatile environment in which some of the well-reasoned voices may remain unheard. In a situation that is as obviously charged as Amy Wax’s lecture, someone must step in and ensure certain voices are heard and some questions are actually answered. We saw this from Professor Dry, who called on a colleague he knew would have a thoughtful response, but we could have used more guidance in this discussion. Faculty sponsors should be more accountable for the direction of these lectures and, if it is heading in a direction of animosity, help guide the conversation. It still, however, falls on audience members to respond appropriately.
The solidarity felt in a room where some community members felt directly disrespected was powerful. Imagine how much stronger it would feel if we came out having taken the high road, emphasizing the contrast between her dismissive attitude and a civil, respectful, yet firm tone from our end.
(12/05/13 1:42am)
“Privilege” is a word we love to use at Middlebury. It works well with our classroom discussions on the global south, how we perceive our relationships with the town, and even how we treat waste at our dining halls. It is not a term that often enters our bedrooms.
I had a shocking reminder of exactly what privilege meant when I brought a guy home from a party for the first time this semester and since being abroad. This was someone who I considered a friend and a nice guy, someone who I had known since freshman year and who had always been kind to me. Frankly, I had always had a crush on him, but we hung out with very different groups and it was never something I would have pursued.
So I was cautiously excited as I was bringing him home. When we got to my room, the conversation we had been having was immediately cut off as things started getting physical. At a certain point I admitted that I had my period and didn’t want to do much, which put a quick damper on things. When I said I didn’t want to have oral sex with him because it wouldn’t be reciprocal, he seemed even more put off. When I asked if we could do something when I didn’t have my period, he was quick to tell me that he didn’t want to be “boxed in.” Finally after about two minutes of awkward silence, he made a half-hearted excuse about needing to get up early and left.
So what, right? It was a bad night. The kind of night you attribute to Midd just being Midd and complain about with your friends the morning after. You can’t expect anyone to want more than casual sex at Middlebury right? That would be absurd.
What is actually absurd is how far we as a student body have lowered our expectations both in the bedroom and in romantic relationships. We expect all relationships to be primarily physical and initiated at a party when both partners are intoxicated. We expect them to last one night. We have even come to expect that we may not acknowledge each other the next day. This is not limited to gender or sexual orientation. It is pervasive. It is more than the complaint that “no one dates anymore” at this school. It is a complete and utter lack of respect for each other summed up in, and yes I’ll say it, privilege. We’ve all had a rough week and now we deserve to get drunk, go out and, if we’re lucky, get some. At its best, it ends the way my night did. At its worst, it is manifested in acts of sexual violence, which we all know do in fact happen here.
I think most of us know that this is not acceptable behavior outside of this college in the “real world.” Ever. It should not be acceptable here either, and we need to take a hard look at why it has become our normal. I’m not saying that all romantic interactions must end in committed relationships. Frankly, I don’t see anything wrong with casual sex if both partners communicate their expectations, use protection, and respect their partner’s integrity. Oh, and maybe say hi the next day.
As a student body, we’re always eager mobilize to find the next hot issue we can pick over with friends, read about in The Campus or host a panel discussion about. The state of our romantic relationships at this school hardly ever makes the cut. Or how it is now taboo to be in any way romantic or sexual (unless you’re already in a relationship) outside of a sloppy party. Changing our hook-up culture does not need its own organization; it does not need high profile meetings or official endorsement. It requires us to shift our own behavior and attitudes and not accept inconsiderate treatment from others.
And it needs to be our next big topic. Because at the end of the day, none of us (no matter how beautiful, athletic or privileged) deserve sex. Or a relationship. We have to earn that by treating others with, if nothing else, respect.
LIZZIE GOODING '14 is from Jamestown, RI
(12/05/13 12:16am)
Church, early on Thanksgiving morning. I close my eyes to pray but the picture that flashes before my eyes is Him on top of me, kissing me. I’m not talking about Jesus, of course, and it’s not my imagination. “If love is a sin, I’m a sinner,” I comfort myself (with the lines of a song I had never heard) proudly as I whisper, “Amen.” I am thankful to remember last night precisely: our voices, the silence, the tension between our bodies, reading a book in bed together. No hangover, no doubt that it happened, no regret whatso- ever.
Hooking up is so big in college that peo- ple have come so far as to call it a “culture.” Students are so busy, stressed and dedicated to succeed in the real world that hook-ups come in handy, within the strict time-frame of Saturday nights and with the helpful as- sistance of lots and lots of alcohol. Yet, what does it do for us? What are the needs we try to satisfy as we dress up, go partying, get drunk and take someone to bed? Is it about inti- macy, or being with someone, or even simply receiving pleasure? And do we ever get what we want?
“Waking up on a Sunday morning is heavy-duty,” my friend tells me as we sit to have brunch together later that day. Coming to terms with last night’s outcomes must be, indeed, hard to swallow — no matter how nu- anced our degree of mastery. With the ecstasy of being young, drunk and alive after yet an- other week of Middlebury academics comes the natural need to perform in yet another discipline — sex. Yet, how do we prove we are the high-achievers we know ourselves to be?
We drink. We drink to relax ourselves, to be excited and to be excused. Drunkenness is the socially accepted apology for the lack of erection, for the abandonment of restrictions and the temporary display of amnesia when you meet your late-night companion in the dining hall the following morning. Drinking is the confidence booster we need to silence our fear that we aren’t good enough, or in- teresting enough, or sexy enough, so that we go on stealing sex from each other uninter- rupted by reality. We steal what we can steal, afraid we won’t be given anything otherwise. And it’s all good until you realize you can do better than that.
But the sober seduction is the ultimate one. There is power in vulnerability and beauty in the creation of proximity, be it even for a night. The more present I am, the more aroused. Only presence in the given moment provides passion with existence, because it exists solely here and now, and only then forever. Reduced to its mechanics, sex offers no pleasure. Eroticism is conceived by the consent and fullest participation of everyone involved in the sexual act. In the exchange of value we call “sex,” why do we rob each other of any meaning?
As I looked at the glowing stars stuck on the ceiling of my college dorm, lying sleepless in his arms, I asked myself why the need to forget. “Life is short” — everyone claims as a justification of everything we do in attempt to bring ourselves what we want, which most often results in the exact opposite of it. Yet if life is short, why not live it to remember it? Should the affairs we remember be only the academic ones? Do we have anything to feel good about once we put our clothes back on?
We all know that sex is no more a mere instrument to reproduction. But while we are among the luckiest people ever lived on the Earth to be able to create togetherness through sex without too much fear of un- wanted pregnancy or sexually transmitted diseases (if we are smart about it, of course!), we run away from truly being with each other if we are afraid of its implications. As we con- front our guilty consciousness after another naughty Saturday has passed, we have to ac- cept that the most obvious consequences of our wasted hook-ups are the missed oppor- tunities. If not for “true love,” then at least for human connection and warmth. And as we dare to open up and be with each other un- masked, naked and sober, we might find that someone would want to stay around not only for the night, but even after.
(11/20/13 10:15pm)
On Wednesday, Nov. 14, the Educational Affairs Committee (EAC) organized a panel on project-based and experiential learning at the College. Faculty members from an array of academic departments presented on hands-on teaching and learning techniques they have employed in their own classrooms.
Albert D. Mead Professor of Biology Jeremy Ward, Professor of Mathematics Frank Swenton and Associate Professor of Physics Noah Graham described their experience overseeing the Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics (STEM) Innovation Project course during J-term, focusing on applied sciences. STEM is a nationwide educational movement that seeks to improve education and experimentation in the sciences across the country. The J-term course project extended into the spring and summer, allowing students to further hone their ideas and designs and produce a thorough, engaging and hands-on final project.
Professor of Geology Peter Ryan and Coordinator for Community-Based Environmental Studies Diane Munroe described the Environmental Studies Senior Seminar as an opportunity for students to participate in “community-connected experiential learning,” citing the Fall 2010 seminar as an example.
Students in the seminar worked in collaboration with the Vermont Geological Survey and the Vermont Department of Health to map and study arsenic contamination in private wells in Vermont and worked with State Senator Virginia Lyons to design legislation addressing the problem. The legislation that students worked on passed in the Vermont legislature, but was ultimately vetoed by Vermont Governor Peter Shumlin.
College Professor David Colander argued that the College could implement an interdisciplinary “Liberal Arts Plus” plan to apply the principles of a liberal arts education to practical problems. Colander’s idea would involve the College awarding a certificate to students who completed a number of related Liberal Arts Plus classes and that participation by “Professors of the Practice” would be a crucial component of his plan. These professionals would serve as guest mentors in classes from and would “teach an applied portion of the course relating their experience to the students.”
Assistant Professor of History of Art and Architecture Sarah Laursen and Director of the College Museum Richard Saunders described their experience teaching “Gold, Sex and Death at the Museum,” a 200-level course in the History of Art and Architecture Department, explaining that the course is meant to introduce students to a museum’s many working parts by incorporating lectures by visiting museum curators, conservators, and critics.
Hannah Ostrow ’14, a HARC major and a student in “Gold, Sex and Death at the Museum” has found the structure and material of the course to be incredibly valuable.
“I think we’d all be better off if Middlebury incorporated more pre-professional coursework into the liberal arts model,” Ostrow wrote in an email. “I’m taking Gold, Sex, and Death in the Museum this semester alongside an art history theory course, which is as ‘pure’ liberal arts as it gets and I don’t feel that either is diminished because of the other.”
Discussions from the panel have the potential to influence EAC discussions surrounding internships for credit and an increase in experiential learning opportunities. Student appetite, too, is likely to drive the College to facilitate professional development through course offerings such as the ones discussed at the panel and the expansion of MiddCORE.
(11/13/13 9:43pm)
Instead of the typical pictures of physical distortion and emaciated children one would expect to encounter in any other talk about social issues, E. Benjamin Skinner began his lecture on modern-day slavery with light-hearted banter with the full audience in Dana Auditorium on Thursday, Nov. 7. Skinner was the keynote speaker of the student organization Stop Traffick’s fall Symposium, “Humans: Not for Sale.”
Award-winning author and journalist, recently named National Geographic Adventurer of the Year, Skinner gave a ‘narrow’ definition of slavery — the state in which one is forced to work with no pay and beyond subsistence. He then pointed out some of the false assumptions associated with this definition.
Modern slavery is more than a form of poverty — it is a mental construct. Skinner recounted several experiences investigating modern slavery, showing that the root of the problem lies in the dependence of slaves on their masters.
Ganu, an enslaved quarry worker whom Skinner interviewed, was at a loss when Skinner asked him why he didn’t escape. “Where would I go, and how would I eat?” Ganu asked Skinner. “Wherever I go, Ramesh (the mafia head that enslaved him) would find me.”
Ramesh is both “a taker of life and a giver of sustenance,” said Skinner.
And yet, Skinner offers hope for the enslaved. He was the hero of the liquidation of a New Zealand fishery that enslaved Eustrol — another man he met on his investigation journey. Right now, Eustrol works with a California DNA tracking firm finding illicit timber, while the CEO of the fishery is structurally unemployed.
Although gaining moral leverage against a corporation would invariably lead to a positive response, a solution is yet to be found for slavery in less networked exchanges, such as in the sex trade.
But Skinner continues to believe in the power of the media. As long as someone “shines a torch” on these atrocities, there is still hope.
But when a student asked him whether journalism is a good way to go about eradicating slavery, he jokingly answered, “No, don’t do investigative journalism unless you want your parents to take out six mortgages to support you.”
“We need engineers, doctors, architects,” Skinner added. “Whatever your calling is, our line of work needs your skills.”
While Skinner’s talk was certainly a powerful one, students feel there is very little they can actually do to ameliorate such a global and complex issue, or even relate to it.
Rafael Manyari ’15, a supporter of Stop Traffick, thinks that the symposium, being the “tip of the iceberg” of the problem, seemed to exert a limited effect on the Middlebury community.
“I haven’t really heard people talking about the talk since it happened,” he said.
Interim president of Stop Trafficking, Denise Chan ’16, agreed with Manyari’s assessment.
“As a Middlebury student I can’t actually go stop trafficking,” she said. “However, awareness is the first step to attacking the heart of the problem. It is important for people to be aware of this problem in order for them to really understand it and really care about it.”
While Middlebury students cannot actually rescue beleaguered women from their brothels, their “focused energy” and “commitment to raising awareness of these issues here on campus” has indeed “led to important events,” as Associate Professor of Education & Wonnacott Commons Head Jonathan Miller Lane concluded.
Indeed, according to Chan, the overwhelming attendance of the symposium was the “breakout moment” for their committee.
“I’m just so happy that it turned out so successfully,” she said.
However, while Professor Miller-Lane recognized the importance of awareness, he believes it insufficient.
“Outrage is necessary, but insufficient,” he said. “The levers of power mattered. Who has it and who does not? How is power exercised? Where are the pressure points that could be leveraged to change conditions for those who are most victimized?”
Adrian Leong ’16 — a social activist known for his work on Divestment — didn’t agree with Skinner’s means of leveraging of power in journalism.
“[Skinner] told us if we knew more about their supply chain [of trafficking] than they do, then they will listen to you,” he said. “Well, then maybe you shouldn’t help them at all, because now they will start thinking about the supply chain! Isn’t that in itself deeply troubling and problematic?”
“I also didn’t quite like the bit where he was celebrating his case study example’s new life,” Leong added. “I think it is too early to claim victory. Sounded too much like hubris to me.”
Perhaps it’s not about the leverage of power, but about breaking out of the mentality of slavery. Manyari recognizes an irony in the situation.
“Even though many slaves are serving the firms from the western world, most solutions to human trafficking come from them too,” he said. “It’s the locals who actually enslave from the local area … so it is important to consider the perspective of the locals.”
Not only is it important to be aware, but it is also important to disseminate awareness to those affected by understanding their particular circumstances.
As Chan said, “Joining an organization that deals with particular aspects of human trafficking, such as rehabilitation of victims, is definitely a way of providing tangible help.”
(11/13/13 9:30pm)
Man is 70% water. The rest is passion.
It was a hot December night in Bali. Loud music heated up the atmosphere even more. We were in Sky Garden— the most popular club in Kuta, where the delegates of the UN youth conference I participated in decided to spend the night. The day was long and tiring, but I kept dancing.
There were quite a few guys I liked. The other night as we swam in the ocean, I was teasing on purpose the hot Turkish guy, knowing the only thing sexier than having sex is not having sex. He invited me to sleep in his hotel room, but I refused wanting more…
And then he came. The French guy. Felipe. He came to me and held my hand for a while, smiling. I don’t know what we talked about, but I know I felt weird. This, indeed, is the curse of people who adore illuminating conversations, yet succumb to casual chatting. As we danced together, my body was searching for the touch of his skin. He was so beautiful, so educated, so European, radiating confidence in the perfect proportions.
My favorite dress had never looked better on me than on that day. As I posed for photos, I felt someone looking at me. It was Felipe following my moves while talking others. I smiled. We walked towards one of the discussion rooms, sat together and whispered. We talked about books and ideas, and polyamory, and each new topic led to new exciting discoveries. My favorite thing in the world was happening — from strangers we were becoming something else. We were competing with the time, fighting to make the best out of every minute.
I went back to my hotel to take a nap, and he asked if he could come see me after his meeting. An hour after I had changed into a T-shirt and shorts, the knocking on the door woke me up. When I opened the door his presence filled the room. He said we could sleep a bit, lied next to me and hugged me. I closed my eyes, curious- could I sleep next to a stranger, and did he really want to sleep?
I felt his breath fondling the skin of my back and I shivered. Holding my breath, I lied still. Soon his fingers started rambling all over my neck and he kissed my shoulder… slowly, faintly. With tenderness only a few men possess, kiss with, touch with, love with... But the phone rang. The receptionist was calling… to wake me up. We had to go back. Taking off my clothes I sat on the bed to put my leggings on, stretching my legs opposite the wall, absorbing every passing minute, the movement, his being there and watching.
After the closing ceremony we walked down to the shore, sat on a bench and talked for hours. I asked him why he had approached me and he told me that while posing for photos on the first day I had touched his arm in a very special way. These words had a powerful effect on me. He could read the language of my body better than anyone I had met.
“When we were in your room and I was kissing you, I didn’t know if I should stop,” he said. “But your skin was speaking to me, and I carried on. Your skin wanted me and shivered when I kissed it. We have been making love since we met and shook our hands and yet if I want to be with you, it is because I can see you are a woman who knows how to receive pleasure, to fully enjoy. Every time I kiss your neck, you move your hair aside so that I can kiss you more and more.”
I love with my whole being. With my eyes which need to see radiance; body wanting to be caressed, loved, respected; mind longing for mutuality (mutuality not only in the feelings, but also in perceptions, in the way we view reality, in the attempt to achieve both the possible and impossible).
It didn’t matter that it was just one night we were given to have each other. The sexual expression of our equilibrium of energies was to be the natural progression of the act of sharing. It was yet another way to converse and learn about each other and from each other. And there was nothing I wanted more in that moment.
“Let’s go!” I said.
(11/06/13 9:48pm)
It is Saturday night, roughly 11:50 p.m., and the crowd facing the Chicago-born Chance the Rapper in Nelson Stadium is getting antsy. The show thus far has been nothing if not a tad bizarre, and Chance is running out of concert staples to fill the venue’s echoey crevices. “Smoke Again” and “Juice” have somewhat revived the audience from the lull of slow jams dominating the last twenty minutes, but a sense of restlessness is lingering. Naturally, after a week of intense scrutiny and campus-wide discourse, the question remains: will he play it? The insidious lyric in “Favorite Song” resting neatly within the lush garden that is Chance’s acclaimed LP Acid Rap? Will he defy pleas of the administration and many students on campus?
And then it happened. Chance ran through “Favorite Song” without the hint of censoring.
Chance the Rapper begins singing “Favorite Song”. (middbeat)
“I’mma give you all one last test, I’mma play one last song … I want everybody, when I drop this next song, to start jumping; I’m not even gonna say the name of the next song, I’mma just countdown.”
Five notes — a revitalized sample of the famous opening of Betty Wright’s “Clean Up Woman” — pulsed through the haze and erased all doubt, igniting an uproar of cheers, invigorating the crowd and saving the concert.
Well, sort of.
Chance the Rapper is no stranger to controversy. Indeed, his first mix-tape #10Day is the direct product of a 10 day suspension period inspired in part by conflicts with teachers and life’s daily occurrences. In between cheap laughs and grim landscapes, Chance spits clever quips about love, drugs, sex and everything else 20-year-olds think about. Amongst modern rappers he is highly respected yet considerably mild; in context of the broader world, however, as well as the community of the College, Chance’s lyrics are reason for concern. The exact brand of anticipation held by students was therefore mixed: some were ecstatic, others frustrated; many were indifferent, the majority at least vaguely curious.
At around 10:45 p.m., the admittedly modest crowd began to thicken as ticket holders who had gotten wind of the late projected start time began to trickle in. Whispers of excitement flowed between expressions of uncertainty. Personally I was thrilled to see Chance; having read numerous reports commending his stage presence over the past year before finally seeing him perform a shortened set this past summer, I had high hopes for an energetic concert bolstered by a lively student body. The growing swarm of students was promising. “This is gonna kick ass,” I heard someone slur in passing.
The time crept past 11:00 p.m. and the anticipation was morphing into impatience. Some tried to accelerate the process with cheers and a brief chant to little avail. The collective buzz showed signs of waning.
And then the lights went out. “Good Ass Intro” began to pour out of the speakers. Chance ran across stage, stopping with his trademark stagger, strutted up to the microphone, started the song’s opening chant, and … something immediately felt off.
A breathy rasp coated Chance’s high pitched, nasally delivery. The speakers fuzzed and instead of the rich, orchestral track listeners expected, out came a tinny, flat replica. He danced across the stage but with a slowed step — some eight months of touring, it appeared, were finally catching up to him.
Moving into the first verse, Chance picked up the tempo and got into a little groove, but then began an unfortunate trend of cutting lines short that would come to permeate the remainder of the show. Granted his rhymes are jam packed and some breathlessness is expected when one flies around with as much gusto as Chance, but it seemed to break up the rhythm of his songs.
To fix this issue, Chance resolved to stick out his microphone at the ends of bars, expecting the students to fill in the blanks. Not many knew the right answers; and with each repeated effort came another gap marring his tracks. The effect was disheartening, but not entirely damaging.
Four songs in, the concert abruptly shifted in direction. Chance took a brief break backstage as the screen lit up with a dizzying mash-up of sex scenes, puppies fighting and an African village. A few minutes passed and Chance stormed the stage with his backing band, recharged and reinvigorated, and belted a silky smooth rendition of “Everybody’s Something.” The effect in combination with the video was above all bemusing; students were not sure whether to feel offended or inspired, instead left merely confused.
Yet as it came to a close and Chance drifted into “Paranoia,” a slowed-down standout from Acid Rap, a certain disconnect wedged itself between the stage and the audience and absolutely deadened the latter. A wholly out-of-place, out-of-nowhere rendition of Coldplay’s “Fix
You” further alienated the crowd. Regardless of the energy Chance unleashed on stage, they indulged him only in sporadic waves.
It was not until Chance kicked off “Favorite Song,” the closer of the main set list — the unstable, volatile crux of contentious student debate — that any sense of enthusiasm or passion grew out of the crowd. The implications of this are plentiful and divisive, and reactions were just as varied.
“Though I’m not sure how I feel about the lyrics, I think [the lack of censorship] may have been a good thing,” said Audrey Goettl ’16. “I believe musicians need artistic liberty to an extent to express their message without the fear of offending others when interpreted without context.”
Others, like Nathan Weil ’15, were less forgiving.
“Before the show I thought the [free speech] argument in favor of Chance carried at least some weight,” Weil said. “[But] from the bizarre misogyny of the pornographic projections above the stage to playing only enough of ‘Favorite Song’ to shout the word ‘f*****’ to a cheering crowd, Chance was a shock artist and nothing more.”
Nevertheless, the act of defiance heightened the spirits of the room for the remainder of the night. Chance unexpectedly played an extra fifteen minutes with as much zeal as he had throughout the show. Closing out the night, he graciously thanked the crowd, despite its lukewarm support.
Exiting the arena, I couldn’t reconcile my unmet expectations. Chance no doubt put up a dynamic performance, but the concert in its entirety felt a bit cheap and gimmicky. The inflamed controversy did nothing to assuage the disappointment. One cannot really fault the Middlebury College Activities Board (MCAB) Concerts Committee — they had no control over the odd features of the show or the blundered venue change — but nevertheless I still feel wary over the upcoming spring show. I doubt an act as nationally revered as Chance will be easy to come by. At the very least, we can be certain that the student body will have far more vested interest in both the content and the execution of future concerts. Hopefully that will be worth something.
(11/06/13 9:42pm)
The Department of Theatre and Dance celebrated Halloween with a presentation of Caryl Churchill’s Vinegar Tom, a subversive tale of witchcraft and female power running from Thursday, Oct. 31 through Saturday, Nov. 2.
Audience members entered the Seeler Studio Theatre in the Kevin P. Mahaney Center for the Arts to find they would be sitting “in the round,” a wooden circle in the center of the stage with seating on all sides. Quotations projected onto two walls of the theatre exemplified harsh opinions from throughout history about the weaknesses of the female sex, thought to be naturally wicked simply because of differences in biology. Though the play follows behaviors that lead to accusations of witchcraft in one rural town, show director and Professor of Theatre and Gender, Sexuality and Feminine Studies Cheryl Faraone noted that the play grapples with a much larger issue.
“It’s a play about the control of an assault on women,” Faraone said. “I think that unfortunately this is an issue that has come to the forefront today.”
“History has not moved on; the removal of the gibbet is merely cosmetic,” she added in the show’s program.
Churchill’s play follows the loose young woman Alice, played by Christina Fox ’13.5, and her mother Joan, acted by Erica Furgiuele ’15, two unfortunate victims of the times, falsely accused of witchcraft by a middle class couple after things start to go wrong on the couple’s farm. Though there are only four minor male characters, they hold the power over the women they encounter. Margery, portrayed by Meghan Leathers ’13.5, thinks she is driven mad by the women she knows, not acknowledging that her abusive husband may be the one pushing her over the emotional ledge. Susan, a friend of Alice played by Chelsea Melone ’15, is wracked with guilt and eventually also accused of witchcraft after she aborts her baby with a potion, impregnated by a man and forced to explore the extent of her control over her body. Betty, acted by Shannon Fiedler ’14, runs from the possibility of marrying a wealthy man she does not love, only to be convinced and brainwashed that she will only be safe from accusations if she submits to the life she so despises.
Faraone was also enthused about her dedicated ensemble.
“This is a very strong group. Some are seniors, some are brand new to me,” Faraone said. “I’ve been incredibly fortunate with these students. Their commitment to the play and its ideas has been absolute, and they take what Churchill has to say seriously. There is a lot of talent and a lot of smarts on that stage.”
Interspersed throughout the show were six songs composed by musical director and Affiliate Artist Carol Christensen, performed in three part harmony by singers Caitlin Rose Duffy ’15.5, Joelle Mendoza-Etchart ’15 and Dana Tripp ’14. The singers offered a stark visual and audial juxtaposition to the 17th century dress and speech of the play’s primary story, confidently strutting around the stage in modern day black cocktail dresses and colored tights and presenting intricately arranged, upbeat jazzy tunes. Despite this contrast, the lyrics of the songs soon proved to correlate with the themes of the main plot, discussing everything from the struggles of being a wife supporting a family to aging to a woman’s medical control over her body. Faraone, who has previously collaborated with Christensen, was extremely pleased with the musical director’s vision.
“She absolutely gets the juxtaposition of music and lyrics that shows the narrow lenses through which women are viewed,” Faraone said. “The songs are entertaining and a big contrast to the rest of the show.
Fielder worked as an actor, choreographer and dramaturge for Vinegar Tom for her senior work, drawing on previous dance experience to bring the harmonies alive.
“I think my favorite aspect of Vinegar Tom might actually be the singers,” Fiedler said. “The music is absolutely beautiful, and the stark contrast between the upbeat melody and the dark lyrics forces the audience to really confront the issues at hand. Because the singers are contemporary, it also makes the audience acknowledge that the issues raised in the show are not just problems they had back then, but, unfortunately, issues that we are still dealing with today.”
Near the end of the play, in a particularly uncomfortable scene, Matt Ball ’14 entered the stage as Packer, an accomplished witch hunter known for his ruthless treatment of witches. As Packer laid each suspected witch on an elevated platform and viciously prodded them for a sign of the devil, the intensity of the piece heightened to an extremely uncomfortable level, many in the audience forced to look away as the women’s legs were opened. Indeed, the scene should be unsettling, showing the subordination of Packer’s female accomplice as she justifies his actions and raises him to the level of a saint.
Faraone’s decision to stage the production in the round was brilliant, allowing for a range and depth of motion impossible to achieve with a typical 180-degree view. Characters emerged from all four corners of the stage, cleverly moving around the circle to give each audience member a unique view of the action. Actors and singers communicated directly to the psyche of the audience, hugging the edge of the circle and making eye contact with spectators. A ladder leading to the balcony seating area of the theatre maximized the spatial possibilities of the show, allowing the actors to move horizontally and vertically to present the tale.
Fielder, besides acting as Betty and Kramer in the play, performed all necessary research about the time period, treatment of women and witchcraft, communicating to the cast how each of their characters may have actually behaved or felt at the time.
In the end, it is not the actual hanging of the witches or the emotional torment coursing through the women’s minds that is the most disturbing. In the final scene, two females appear as Kramer and Sprenger, two real men who wrote The Malleus Maleficarum, or “The Hammer of Witches,” in 1486. This text, one of the most famous treatises on witches, challenges arguments against witchcraft’s existence and instructs magistrates on how to identify, question and convict suspected witches. The statements in this text came to be widely recognized as truth at the time. Fielder read the text in preparation for the play.
“It was a crazy experience to read it and find out what people really thought of women back then – their fear and the circular logic of finding out a woman as a witch,” Fielder said. “For example, if a woman has a spot on her she is a witch, but if she doesn’t have a spot she can still be a witch. They basically made up the rules so that anyone accused of witchcraft could be hung for a witch.”
The actors, wearing tails and top hats, boldly asserted the reasons why women were more likely to be witches, listing the flaws of the sex and blaming women for all the wrongs in the world. They insisted that “cunning women are worst of all,” capable of greater wrongs.
This scene, coupled with the projected quotes from the beginning of the play, drove home the notion that prejudice against women has been all too real throughout history.
In the trio’s final song, “Lament for the Witches,” the singers hauntingly ask “Where are the witches?” before tauntingly answering, “Here we are, here we are.” Many characteristics of witchcraft in the play, such as heightened sensitivities, independence from men or individual intelligence, are very much present in women today, forcing women in the audience to ask if they would have been considered a witch just a few centuries ago. Faraone points out that women accused of witchcraft were generally those on the edges of society, displaying some fatal sign of difference.
“These were mostly single women struggling with poverty and age who found a scapegoat through witchcraft,” Faraone said.
Many left the theater having enjoyed the production, but feeling deeply unsettled by the theme. The entire ensemble did an excellent job of grappling with the difficult ideas of Churchill’s work, each actor sporting a British accent and a clear determination to make the play all it could be. In the end, they presented a cleverly designed, well-acted spectacle that left the audience with as many questions as answers, and oftentimes, those are the best plays of all.
(11/06/13 9:32pm)
Like many other students on this campus, I went to the Chance the Rapper over the weekend. I danced and yelled and had a great time. I even listened to him perform the controversial lyric in his performance of “Favorite Song.” And so, now that Chance has come and gone, let us assess: what has changed? Are we now a distinctly more homophobic and misogynistic community because we listened to his performance? Is the world doomed to act in accordance with whatever hip-hop artists write in their songs?
While it is very true that we would not allow a professor that advocates violence against women to teach on our campus, why is it also true that there is a need to censor an artist that comes to our campus to perform? Unlike the classroom, a concert setting does not necessarily reflect the views of the Middlebury community, and in my opinion, the more conflicting the artist is with our community ideals, the more we can potentially learn from the experience. Being able to not only understand but also to make a judgment about other people’s opinions is a crucial skill that we do not see enough of in this world.
The opinion that rappers should be held more accountable for their lyrics is, conceptually, very fine and dandy. But, realistically, the blame for hip-hop’s socially irresponsible lyrics may not only rest on the shoulders of the artists. Hip-hop music is not the sole influence of our culture, and our culture is not the only thing that drives rap lyrics. It is a complicated stream of influences. When a song uses a homophobic or racial slur, we cannot always simply chalk it up to “oh, this rapper is ignorant.” The issue of rights for same-sex partnerships, however, is one that is quite prevalent in our society, so it makes sense that we are hypersensitive to any reference to it.
But why, for example, do we make such a fuss over a single word in one of Chance’s songs when in another one of his songs he raps “Killin in the hood like Trayvon?” To the average listener it may seem like Chance is trivializing the random murder of an innocent teenage boy. How come this lyric was not the angle of attack in the anti-Chance assault? This selective activism against social injustice does not comply with the good-hearted motives of Middlebury’s accepting community. Usually, music does not matter, until it does, and when it does, it somehow becomes the most important thing in the world. We should pay attention to what our music is saying because it may be what everyone else is thinking. The next time we have the privilege of having any artist come to our campus, we should hold our tongues and understand what he or she is saying before we condemn him or her. Learning to understand the cultural differences between our bubble in Addison County and any place outside this bubble is crucial in adjusting to “the real world” once we all leave here.
LUCAS AVIDAN ’15 is from Harrison, N.Y.
(11/06/13 8:18pm)
[EDITOR'S NOTE: The following text contains vulgarity.]
There are certain things we cannot discuss openly at Middlebury. Given that we are a small, close-knit community, there is a sweeping obligation to maintain an atmosphere of civility in order to allow the members of our community a sense of security. And, while we do pride ourselves on being an open and progressive campus, there still remain matters better left unsaid in public. However, while we cannot have student and faculty-led discussions with snacks and beverages about “Hottest people in Battell” or “I’m head over heels for my FYC … HELPPPP,” this does not mean students’ interest in having these discussions will evaporate because there is no school-proffered venue for them. These questions burn in the minds of many students. And when you have a group of kids with enough smarts and time on their hands like we have here, there will always be a way found for a will so strong.
Enter, Middlebury Confessional. Though the College does not own the website, to what degree are they separate? Certainly, it is a public domain that any Middlebury student can access. However, it is not like other higher-profile cesspools of the wild, wild web — like Barstool or Reddit — wherein the vast majority of participants are speaking to matters of national, if not global, import, and a personal connection between the persons of interest being discussed and the pseudonymous, faceless accounts discussing them is highly unlikely; Middlebury Confessional is a beast of our own creation. It could not exist without the College because the College is its sum and substance. In theory, MiddFesh is a forum designed by the members of our small community to (ideally) discuss important matters that we are otherwise incapable of discussing in public, whether due to social ineptitude or a general feeling that the parties interested in these conversations would be unable to conduct them safely in open discourse. This, unfortunately, is not the reality. Instead of the haven for tough issues and the soapbox for voices left otherwise unheard that I perhaps foolishly presume the website was intended to be, it has become a gossip forum in which students are largely either targeting specific individuals or groups for defamation or propositioning each other for sex — hardly the bastion of important dialogue it could be.
The claim that the website, which is entirely dependent upon the College community for its vitality and in which most students can find their name, is somehow disconnected from campus is dubious. It feels more in form and in purpose like an extension of the College, though in the website’s summary of its Privacy and Terms of Use agreement, it laughably asserts that the content posted does not reflect “the opinions of Middlebury College.” Of course, they meant the College as an institution but the irony does not go unnoticed.
But, if the website is indeed an appendage of campus discourse, why do we treat the content posted as though it were on the other side of the globe? These comments are being written by students here and are being directed at other students here. Furthermore, the significant dearth of “secrets” during the summer months indicates that most postings are occurring while students are on campus: in their dorm rooms, in the library, perhaps even on computers that the school owns.
There was a recent incident in which a number of students wrote a message on another student’s whiteboard that included the message, “you say you’re gay but we know you’ve never fucked a guy … so we’re gonna fuck you till you’re straight.” Clearly, these words are threatening and horrific. The school responded, later and with less gusto than some would have hoped. Nevertheless, the administration launched an investigation into the matter and sought out to find and to try the perpetrator(s). Yet, when somebody last year posted to MiddFesh on a forum on which a certain student’s sexuality was being speculated that if said student were gay, the commenter would “hatefuck him for being a conservative in liberal’s clothing,” nobody batted an eyelash. The student to whom the commented was referring did not take up any complaint. But, the question deserves to be asked: if he or she were offended by this content, could the student do anything about it? Or, on another note, if the same message posted online were written on another public space with high traffic from Middlebury students, like in the middle of College Street, would we still be quiet about it?
The crux of this rant is not to condemn the people who use Middlebury Confessional or even to discourage its usage — the website has important social value, whether used to discuss “Most precious takeaways from Middlebury” to “Where can I get LSD?” Rather, it is by acquiescing to the violent hate speech on MiddFesh while simultaneously making it a campus-wide news event on other occasions, that we create a double standard and thereby fail our fellow Middlebury men and women.
Privacy is unrealistic on the internet nowadays, just look at the front page of any newspaper for the past month. That which transpires on the web is inextricably linked to the welfare of our school, as evidenced by the outpouring of hate from the flag-pulling incident on a national scale and the dialogue on campus regarding to homophobic content of Chance the Rapper’s lyrics on a much more intimate scale (with a large portion of this dialogue taking place on MiddFesh). Though this is primarily the responsibility of the Middlebury Confessional’s administrators as comments like these violate their Terms of Use agreement, if the school is as interested in preserving the air of respect and civility as it claims to be, it would be in its best interest to be consistent with the precedent it has set regarding hate speech and at least investigate students who publically threaten to “hatefuck” other students. But, at the same time, we cannot and should not rely on the administration to identify and solve these community problems for us. So, therefore, the more important question becomes: why are we silent?
(10/17/13 3:52am)
This past July I was at a festival in Geneva, Switzerland waiting for Best Coast to come on stage when I realized that I was actually seeing Beach House and not the aforementioned surf-pop duo. When I told people which bands would be playing at the festival I would say, “Neil Young, Santana, Phoenix, Alt-J, and Beach House.” Strangely though, every time those last two words came out of my mouth, I would imagine the cat and ocean of Best Coast instead of the orange zebra pattern of Beach House. While it is possible that my mind simply could not wrap itself around the similarity of the two names, I saw the mix-up as indicative of something else.
Nearly seven years ago, The Shins’ “Wincing the Night Away” debuted at number two on the Billboard 200 sales chart. Four years later, The Decemberists hit the top spot with “The King is Dead.” The New York Times described Vampire Weekend’s set at the Barclay’s Center last month as the second most important show in the venue’s history, behind only that of hometown hero, Jay-Z, and, while Brooklyn’s coliseum-of-sorts has only been open since last fall, it has seen such acts as The Who, The Rolling Stones, Paul McCartney, and Beyoncé. Indie went mainstream.
LCD Soundsystem’s “Dance Yrself Clean” is a party anthem as reliable as any and Arcade Fire is about to release one of the most hyped and anticipated albums of year. From The Dirty Projectors to Grizzly Bear, the best bands indie has to offer have continued to surprise and excite. Those myriad other bands which make up the bulk and base of the “indieverse,” however, fall short — an indistinguishable heap of old sounds rehashed into predictably successful, but inevitably forgettable, four-to-six minute arrangements.
EBay is often cited as a real-world example of perfect competition. Though empirically impossible to prove, I believe the emergence of big-market indie can be similarly explained through the lens of this elusive economic model.
The 21st century has seen the Internet grow exponentially and, with it, the ability to share information. Bands that in another decade might not have seen the light of day are now able to reach millions of people with a simple share or blog mention. It is easier than ever before ,b for more people to listen to more music. Indie sounds are generating real success or, in other words, there is a market for indie music and it is lucrative. As theory would suggest, firms (read: bands) have flooded in. Unfortunately though, theory also stipulates that production in such a market is homogenous.
I don’t think it mattered that I was waiting to see Beach House and not Best Coast. I would have enjoyed either show, but neither would have been remembered among the dozens of other shows I have seen. These bands are part of an all-too-prevalent trend of stasis and repetition. Someone found the formula for indie success and deemed any further sonic exploration unnecessary. In this age of immediate access one is forced to wonder whether people want genuine art or just a quick and easy fix.
This trend holds in other mediums as well. From the end of the original Hollywood storyline to Buzzfeed’s infinitely inane lists posing as journalism, the driving force behind modern media is quite clearly quantity not quality. This is not to say good stuff is not out there because it is. When embraced creatively innovation is possible, but such efforts are rarified and, with so much out there, it is getting harder and harder to find.
Pausing to speak to the audience between songs, Beach House’s Victoria Legrand asked the crowd, “Est-ce quelqu’un va faire l’amour dans le bois? C’est dommage si non. [Is anyone going to make love in the forest? It would be a shame if not.]” This empty and thinly-veiled attempt at recreating the emotion of the ’60s fell flat. Did she think her statement would somehow have meaning because she said ‘make love’ and not simply ‘have sex’? I used to think that indie stood above the rest and, at that time, I did not think I was wrong. Now, however, the real strides in sound and content are coming from Frank Ocean, Kanye West, and Kendrick Lamar. Hip hop and R&B, though often goldmines of derivative misogyny and homophobia, have produced the real gems of recent years.
Far too much of today’s indie will see longevity only as the forgotten backing track to some college freshman’s otherwise enjoyable drug-fueled haze of night. It is fun live, it is fun at first listen and Pitchfork likes it, but will any of that matter 18 months after its release? Indie has become pop music: what the people want to hear without challenging their expectations. If it were not so goddamn pretentious this would not matter but it is and it does. It is time for indie music to escape this Groundhog Day and live up to what it can and should be: edgy and unexpected.
