For many New York City children, visiting the American Museum of Natural History and other museums like it is more than a field trip — it’s a formative experience that shapes their relationship with science and discovery. However, if we are not careful, the magic of museums may soon be a thing of the past.

Currently, museums, national parks and higher education institutions are under federal attack, yet another signifier of the rising “anti-intellectualism” movement in America.

The term “anti-intellectualism” was coined by historian Richard Hofstadter in his 1963 book “Anti-intellectualism in American Life.” Anti-intellectualism means exactly what it sounds like: the rejection of intellectuals, critical thinking and academic or scientific expertise, often involving the distrust of educational institutions like museums and universities.

The United States saw anti-intellectualism in practice as a symptom of the McCarthyism era of the 1940s and ’50s that resulted in the termination of professors across the country due to perceived communist affiliation. Famously, Chandler Davis, a professor of mathematics at the University of Michigan, served six months in federal prison after refusing to answer questions from the House Un-American Activities Committee about his political affiliation, despite his personal economic beliefs having no connection to the subject he taught.

Alarmingly, Red Scare-esque mindsets have begun to creep back into the American psyche, from COVID-19 conspiracy theories to book banning and, now, attacks on educational institutions.

As of Sept. 16, in the wake of March’s Executive Order 14253, titled “Restoring Truth and Sanity to American History,” the Trump administration has directed several national park services to eliminate materials that address slavery and the oppression of Native Americans. This directive demands that national parks and museums dismantle what it calls “revisionist” history that portrays America as “inherently racist, sexist, oppressive, or otherwise irredeemably flawed.”

At Fort Pulaski National Monument in Georgia, park staff were instructed to remove one of the most recognizable photos in American history, “The Scourged Back.” This photo depicts an escaped formerly enslaved man with lashing scars and has long been used in high school history classrooms across the country — an image burned into the dark subconscious that is American history.

While the identity of the man in the photo is debated, with some institutions identifying him as being named “Peter” and others referring to him as “Gordon,” we do know that the photo was taken in a Union encampment in Baton Rouge during a medical examination and became widely circulated, sparking public outrage. While we know some of his story through accounts from the time, the ambiguity surrounding his true name and identity — which may have been for his own safety — leaves much of his legacy to this singular picture.

Moreover, to erase this picture from American parks and museums is to erase this man from history almost entirely. Gordon/Peter was part of the Union army, and without men like him, many of us would not have the same liberties we have today. Therefore, erasing him is not just racist but also unpatriotic, antiveteran and anti-American. However, the issue of erasing U.S. history goes far beyond the suppression of this one photo.

The public-facing content, curatorial process, exhibition planning, collection use and narrative standards of eight Smithsonian museums, including the National Museum of American History, National Museum of Natural History and National Museum of African American History and Culture, are all set to be under review by the Trump administration, according to an August letter. The goal of these reviews is to create “a revitalized curatorial vision rooted in the strength, breadth, and achievements of the American story” — or in other words, “get rid of all the stuff that makes us look bad.”

The truth is, no country has a spotless, unproblematic history, and pretending one can be curated with malicious intent is the real act of revisionism and is objectively anti-intellectual.

Let’s be clear, politicians do not push this rhetoric because they are looking out for Americans. They push it because the uneducated and gullible masses are easier to manipulate, propagandize and radicalize. It is our duty, as individuals who value freedom and critical thought, to actively reject the creeping tide of anti-intellectualism that threatens to reduce us to docile bodies and an even more easily manipulated mass.

To fight the rise in anti-intellectualism, we must read banned books, question narratives and support museums.

Jordan Ori is a senior majoring in English and is Pipe Dream’s assistant opinions editor.

Views expressed in the opinions pages represent the opinions of the columnists. The only piece that represents the view of the Pipe Dream Editorial Board is the Staff Editorial. 

However, for me, the entire premise of the show — the love — was put on the back burner. Of course, it was interesting to see who ended up together and whose connections fizzled out, but, to be transparent, I was mostly interested in seeing how dramatic things could get.

This past season was record-breaking, with the Peacock original racking up 18.4 billion streaming minutes, making it the platform’s most-watched original season of television. But its success can be measured in more than just raw data — it also became a cultural phenomenon. During the show’s airing, bars across the country hosted watch parties, where videos surfaced of complete strangers reacting to the show together, cheering and booing as if it was a sports game.

Looking back on the show, it felt more like a game of survival, strategy and deception rather than a genuine search for love. As the islanders sat around the show’s famous firepit, deciding who to eliminate and why, I felt like I was watching the “Survivor” Tribal Council.

This season, contestants distorted the purpose of the show into one where the goal is to date as many people as possible, rather than find one genuine connection. If you weren’t “exploring connections,” meaning dating everyone, or were too “locked in,” meaning you found one person you wanted to pursue, you got dumped from the island.

Don’t get me wrong, I lapped up every minute of it, but it definitely seemed as if the islanders were more focused on airtime and good television than love, despite a lasting relationship being the sole goal of the original seasons. And there is one blaring reason for this — the promise of being a successful influencer. As long as you stay on the show long enough to gain relevance and don’t do anything problematic enough to get you canceled, you will attract followers and secure brand deals.

The islanders, post-show, are already racking up followers and brand deals with notable companies like Agua de Kefir, Victoria’s Secret, Rare Beauty and Chipotle. Their faces are everywhere, but what is real and what is a PR stunt?

Some contestants, such as Ace Greene and Huda Mustafa, already had over 100k Instagram followers before the show’s start, and most of the other contestants had at least 10k — all far more than the average person. By scouting and casting people who already have followings, even if they’re a micro-influencer, the show intentionally casts aspiring social media stars to draw more attention to it. Even an influencer with a relatively small but loyal following is guaranteed to bring somewhat of a fanbase into the streaming pool.

The lure of fame — even if it lasts only 15 minutes — has always been a powerful motivator for reality television contestants. Yet, there is an essential distinction between aspiring television stars and social media influencers. The contestant chasing television fame tends to live in the moment, performing with the immediate audience in mind, hoping to spark viral drama or memorable scenes.

By contrast, the influencer plays a longer game — every choice is calculated to maximize not just screen time, but future profit in the form of followers, sponsorships and brand deals that last long after the cameras shut off. This shift in motivation transforms dating shows from being about authentic connections to being more about strategic self-branding, effectively turning them into social experiments of performance, manipulation and personal marketing rather than genuine searches for love.

When “The Bachelor” aired in 2002, the first-ever Bachelor was a management consultant, and the first-ever Bachelorette in 2003 was a pediatric physical therapist and former Miami Heat dancer. Despite being average people previously unknown to the public, the show was still wildly successful and remains a fixture of reality television today.

Many couples from the first 10 years of “The Bachelor” and “The Bachelorette” are also still together today or at least stayed together for some time, probably because they came in genuinely hoping to get married, which is rare in dating shows today.

One of the most significant problems with building a cast entirely out of influencers is that it strips the “reality” from reality television. I’m not saying that no influencer should ever be cast, just that a cast of exclusively influencers is bound to result in a warped view of reality. Viewers often tune in to see heightened reflections of themselves — not people whose lives already exist in a curated bubble of wealth, plastic surgery and social media clout.

When contestants are detached from the everyday struggles and rhythms of ordinary life, the audience loses that crucial sense of relatability. There’s an undeniable satisfaction in watching a blue-collar man and a woman with an office job find love, because their story feels authentic, grounded and attainable. By contrast, when two influencers pursue each other on a dating show, the connection often appears manufactured, even if the emotions are genuine — what should be a love story ends up feeling more like a collaboration.

Dating shows such as the most recent season of “Love Island USA” absolutely have a place in the cultural zeitgeist — they thrive on drama, spectacle and social experimentation, and I’ll admit, I always tune in to watch. But if networks truly want to produce content that reflects the realities of modern dating, they need to rethink their casting strategies.

Continuously recruiting influencers ensures a performance-driven dynamic, where contestants are more focused on building their brands than forming relationships. Genuine stories of connection can only emerge when everyday people — those who aren’t entering with sponsorships in mind — are given the chance to participate.

Jordan Ori is a senior majoring in English and is Pipe Dream’s assistant opinions editor. 

Views expressed in the opinions pages represent the opinions of the columnists. The only piece that represents the view of the Pipe Dream Editorial Board is the Staff Editorial. 

She was, for lack of better words, abrasive or hard to digest. She often caused controversy, like when she told an interviewer, “I wish I was dead already,” or wrote the lyrics “He hit me and it felt like a kiss.”

Regardless of criticism, fans quickly fell in love with not only her music but also her identity and look. She was glamorous, embodying a vintage Americana aesthetic with big Priscilla Presley-esque hair, ebbing and flowing between an old Hollywood starlet, a ’50s rebel and a ’60s beat poet.

At the same time, she was the very antithesis of glamour — crooning about toxic affairs with sketchy older men, spiraling into hard drugs and running with biker gangs. She was dubbed a “gangsta Nancy Sinatra” and a “Lolita lost in the hood.” She was a beautiful wreck, a glorious disaster, a terrible role model — and yet magnetic, effortlessly cool and utterly mesmerizing.

But that was over a decade ago. Today, Del Rey is 39, and the “bad girl” anthems of her youth have given way to songs about settling down, marriage and dreams of a quiet life in the countryside. She has traded in cinematic pop songs for stripped-down country ballads. It’s a stark departure from the music that made her iconic, and while her new music, such as her two latest singles “Bluebird” and “Henry, come on,” are beautiful, they don’t quite feel like her — or at least the version of her I romanticized in my head.

Her sixth studio album, “Norman Fucking Rockwell!,” felt like the grand finale of the Del Rey we knew — a matured, but still unmistakably authentic, evolution of her iconic persona. But somewhere between this album and her next, “Chemtrails Over The Country Club,” I believe the character of Del Rey died and Elizabeth Grant — her real name — stepped into the spotlight.

Del Rey, or Grant, recently sang at Stagecoach, a festival dedicated to country music. She took to the stage with her hair done up like a 1950s housewife, amid a set that resembled a little house on the prairie. She sang about her new marriage and life in the Louisiana Bayou and seemed far more comfortable than she had performing live at festivals in the past.

It’s clear that she has calmed down and seems far happier than the brooding, sad starlet she used to be. Still, for fans like me, there’s a bittersweetness in accepting that she’ll likely never create another “Born To Die” or “Ultraviolence” and, of course, she is not obligated to. After all, she’s nearing 40, and it would be a little strange if she were still singing about being a sugar baby.

But even though I can respect the artist she’s become, I find myself nostalgically clinging to the haunting beauty of who she once was.

The problem with having a stage persona is that an artist becomes forever tied to something that isn’t really them — Lady Gaga is a character made by Stefani Germanotta, Chappell Roan by Kayleigh Amstutz and Del Rey by Elizabeth Grant. When an artist drops or alters a stage persona, fans are likely to be disappointed — they fell in love with the music of Charli XCX, not Charlotte Aitchison.

Del Rey would probably dispute my assertion that she’s a character, even tweeting in 2019, “Never had a persona. Never needed one. Never will.” I think she rejects this because she sees it as yet another way to call her fake.

But Del Rey isn’t Del Rey without being a bit contradictory. Just two years before that tweet, she told Paper magazine, “I know that if I had more of a persona [before], I have less of one now. And I think it comes down to getting a little older. Maybe I needed a stronger look or something to lean on then.”

While I believe Del Rey is, for the most part, a stage identity regardless of what she says, there’s no denying that her real-life experiences inform her music. Having a persona doesn’t make an artist inauthentic — it’s still a creation, something intentionally built, shaped and shared with the world. There may be no “real” Del Rey — as far as birth certificates go — but the impact she’s had, the world she built and the devoted fanbase she inspired are undeniably real.

To me, Elizabeth Grant is the person, and Lana Del Rey is the product. Some fans insist that true supporters should embrace every evolution without question, but I see it differently. It’s perfectly natural to use a product, love it, outgrow it, even dislike it at times or to feel a sense of loss when its formula changes. Missing the spark and dark glamour of her earlier music doesn’t make me any less of a fan.

I’m genuinely happy that Elizabeth Grant has found peace, but I also think it’s okay to miss the melancholy magic that Lana Del Rey once embodied. I’m excited to see where her artistry goes next, but I’m also allowing myself to mourn the passing of her old persona.

Jordan Ori is a junior majoring in English and is a Pipe Dream Opinions intern. 

Views expressed in the opinions pages represent the opinions of the columnists. The only piece that represents the view of the Pipe Dream Editorial Board is the staff editorial. 

He explained this decision in a letter, writing of protagonist Holden Caulfield, “The weight of the book is in the narrator’s voice … He can’t legitimately be separated from his own first-person technique. True, if the separation is forcibly made, there is enough material left over for something called an Exciting (or maybe just Interesting) Evening in the Theater. But I find that idea if not odious, at least odious enough to keep me from selling the rights.”

When I first read “The Catcher in the Rye” in middle school, it ignited my passion for classic literature. I was immediately captivated by the novel’s reliance on Holden’s internal monologue and his complexities as an unreliable narrator. Experiencing Holden’s raw, unfiltered thoughts, moral ambiguity and deep loneliness left a lasting impression on me and made me feel seen as I, too, struggled with the notion that I was growing up.

I initially felt disappointed when I realized there wasn’t a movie adaptation of the novel that I resonated with so profoundly. I wanted to see Holden brought to life on screen, but now I’m grateful that Salinger’s wishes have been respected. Hollywood has a disappointing tendency to not only misinterpret classic novels’ storytelling but also strip the distinctive qualities found in literature.

For instance, the internet cringed in September 2024 when the casting was announced for the latest adaptation of Emily Brontë’s gothic novel “Wuthering Heights.”

“Wuthering Heights” largely centers around Heathcliff, Catherine and their toxic relationship, as well as Heathcliff’s attempted destruction of the prestigious Linton family that they marry into. Additionally, the novel explores themes such as social class and revenge in the West Yorkshire Moors circa the late 1700s to early 1800s.

The movie, set to premiere in 2026, will be directed by Emerald Fennel of “Promising Young Woman” and “Saltburn” and star Margot Robbie as Catherine Earnshaw and Jacob Elordi as Heathcliff — both of which are bizarre casting choices. While I may be judging the movie before even watching it, as a lover of the book, there is no world where I can see myself embracing a white Heathcliff who is younger than Catherine.

Although Heathcliff has frequently been portrayed by white male actors in film adaptations — barring a 2011 version — it’s surprising that, in 2025, a director would still overlook the novel’s clear emphasis on his racial ambiguity and outsider status. I typically do not mind “race-blind” casting, but in the case of “Wuthering Heights,” Heathcliff’s racial othering serves as a key motivator behind his rage and bitterness toward the “fair,” “light-haired” and “civilized” Englishness of the Lintons, and it defines significant parts of his character development.

Heathcliff’s racial and ethnic identity has long been a subject of scholarly debate. Some interpretations suggest that Brontë subtly implies he is of Black African descent, describing him as a “black villain,” but this may simply be a reference to the black hair and eyes he is frequently described as having. Others argue he may be of Indian or Southeast Asian origin since he is described as a “little Lascar,” and at one point, Ellen, a housekeeper, jokes that Heathcliff’s father was an “Emperor of China” and his mother was an “Indian queen.”

Heathcliff is most frequently referred to as a “gipsy,” which strongly implies that he is meant to be of Romani descent and, in my opinion, makes the most sense given the period, political climate and setting.

However, regardless of what Brontë specifically intended for Heathcliff’s race to be, the choice to cast Elordi, a conventionally attractive white actor, strips away the character’s identity as an “Other” in the English aristocracy. The Lintons contrast Heathcliff with their whiteness, privilege and embodiment of social hierarchy, and these visible differences fuel Heathcliff’s resentment and desires — these workings allow the novel to become not just a symbol but race itself.

Similarly, the casting of Robbie also feels like a mistake. Catherine is supposed to be around 18 or 19 when she dies, while Robbie is 34. Having Catherine portrayed by a grown woman takes away from her character in that her tragic arc relies on her being too young to fully understand the consequences of her actions; Catherine’s character is shaped by the impulsive and self-destructive choices she makes largely because she is juvenile and naive.

These constant remakes are not just inaccurate but are also beginning to feel tired and repetitive. Yet another adaptation of “Pride and Prejudice” is reportedly in the works, alongside a new version of “Frankenstein” also starring Elordi. The growing overlap in casting across these period pieces and reboots is simply boring.

It feels as if the movie industry is recycling the same stories and faces. There seems to be an element of comfort in returning to stories they know people already like and actors that are already well-established rather than discovering new talent that may be better suited for the role. This constant return to familiarity reflects a larger issue: a reluctance to take creative risks for that odious “Evening in the Theater.”

When it comes to novels, let me be clear — I’m not someone who believes the book is always better than the movie. In fact, I think some stories lend themselves more to the big screen. However, when it comes to classic literature, Hollywood tends to oversimplify or misrepresent what makes these stories powerful in the first place.

These days, some books are written with the goal of going viral and landing a movie deal. In contrast, much of classic literature was created long before film existed, and sometimes the techniques, themes and narration do not make sense adapted to the technological medium.

Even when it comes to literature made in a post-film-breakthrough world, not every story needs to become a movie. As stated, a novel like “The Catcher in the Rye” depends heavily on the protagonist’s internal monologue and, therefore, does not easily translate to the screen. On the other hand, stories that rely on rich world-building and vivid imagery may be better suited for adaptation.

If a filmmaker is going to adapt a novel for the big screen, especially one that has been adapted before, they should do their best to truly honor the story and the author’s intent while also giving us something new to chew on, such as the breakout of an undiscovered actor. If they are not willing to do so, they should just write something original — we do not need a new “Wuthering Heights” every 20 years.

Jordan Ori is a junior majoring in English and is a Pipe Dream Opinions intern.

Views expressed in the opinions pages represent the opinions of the columnists. The only piece that represents the view of the Pipe Dream Editorial Board is the staff editorial. 

As a short, heavyset woman with bushy eyebrows and a mustache, the “joke,” of course, is that she is considered unattractive by our modern Eurocentric beauty standards. Peruse a typical comment section under these posts, and you will find people ridiculing her appearance and masculinizing her, something misogynists often do with Black and brown women.

Scholarly literature, like Harvard Professor Afsaneh Najmabadi’s book, “Women with Mustaches and Men without Beards: Gender and Sexual Anxieties of Iranian Modernity,” suggests that mustaches on women were considered beautiful in Qajar-era Persia. But even if facial hair was considered attractive on women, why do we expect princesses or women in other positions of power to look a certain way? Why do we only grant women respect when we find them sexually attractive?

The entire story is a chauvinist fabrication that unjustly overshadows the true history of a remarkable woman and activist. First of all, the meme typically gets the purported history wrong, confusing two different women: sisters Princess Fatemeh Khanum “Ismat al-Doulah” and Princess Zahra Khanum “Tadj al-Saltaneh.” Their father, Naser al-Din Shah Qajar, was the fourth shah of Iran’s Qajar dynasty and had 22 children.

While there is no documentation that suitors committed suicide over either woman’s hand, conveniently, making men the focus of a fictionalized story about real women diminishes their agency and shifts the narrative away from their supposed rejection and onto fabricated deaths.

There is little easily accessible information online about Ismat al-Doulah, but Tadj al-Saltaneh was a pioneering feminist and writer who used her privilege to amplify the silenced voices of women in her country. Her groundbreaking memoir, “Crowning Anguish: Memoirs of a Persian Princess from the Harem to Modernity 1884-1914,” not only centers on female liberation and the fight for women to be educated but also her socialist, naturalist and anti-slavery beliefs.

Time and time again, history suppresses the accomplishments of brilliant women and reduces them to their relationships with men and physical appearance, intrinsically tying them to the narrative that historical women were insignificant. Today, Tadj al-Saltaneh’s story has been purposefully misappropriated and narrativized to promote cultural misogyny and a racist beauty standard while neglecting her true story. It’s time to change that.

Tadj al-Saltaneh was born into the royal harem of 500 to 600 people and raised there by servants until she was married off at 13. Her marriage was by all accounts unhappy given the nature of the arrangement, with both her and her husband ultimately having extramarital affairs. She would eventually seek out a divorce, which is extremely notable given that the action was considered “radical” at the time, especially since the reason was not her husband’s infidelity but rather her desire to see Europe.

Another radical decision she made regarding her marriage was her choice to get an abortion. Although she already had children, during one of her pregnancies, Tadj al-Saltaneh had her doctor administer medicine to induce an abortion out of fear for her life after witnessing her niece die in childbirth. It is not lost on me that her decision to assert bodily autonomy in a society intent on controlling her mirrors the challenges women around the world — and even in our own country — still face today.

In her later life, she learned French and studied the philosophy of European naturalists, which furthered her belief that both men and women had a right to freedom and independence. Her fascination with these European thinkers also inspired her to push the boundaries of how she dressed, frequently stepping out in Western clothing without her hair covered.

Most notably, she wanted women to become educated and join the workforce, believing it would not only benefit women but society as a whole. In her memoir, she writes, “I am sad and depressed that members of my sex, the women of Iran, are not aware of their rights and are not fulfilling their duties as human beings,” and that “If women in this country were free as in other countries, having attained their rights, they could enter the country’s political arena and advance.” Her advocacy for women’s rights and education significantly impacted the women’s rights movement in Iran, paving the way for future generations of women.

However, she didn’t just put pen to paper. Tadj al-Saltaneh helped facilitate the Women’s Freedom Association, where male and female intellectuals gathered in secret forums. In these meetings, only women could speak, allowing them to build their confidence in front of men and the public without domineering retribution.

It’s safe to say that Tadj al-Saltaneh accomplished a lot in just about 52 years of life, and yet we have reduced her to a thin layer of hair on her upper lip for a couple of fleeting laughs. As an Iranian woman, her story is particularly important to highlight given Iran’s current oppression of its female population and the American media’s normalization of white supremacist ideologies and beauty standards. Her story is one of personal power and radicalism, a testament to the ways race and gender intersect in shaping whose voices are heard and whose are distorted. Her “memeification” on Western social media platforms is not just an erasure of her achievements but a reflection of how women, especially those outside the West, are trivialized through a colonial and racialized lens.

This Women’s History Month, we owe it not only to Tadj al-Saltaneh but to every woman whose story has been erased, altered or neglected to restore their voices and honor them as they would have wished to be remembered.

Jordan Ori is a junior majoring in English and is a Pipe Dream Opinions intern. 

Views expressed in the opinions pages represent the opinions of the columnists. The only piece that represents the view of the Pipe Dream Editorial Board is the staff editorial.

When I reached high school, I started to see porn as something more malicious. I couldn’t understand how people found pleasure in something that I perceived to be so blatantly exploitative and degrading. I hated how the men who watched it saw the women on their screens as objects and how those same women willingly chose to participate in an industry that profits off of their subjugation. To me, porn seemed like a way to legitimize violent fantasies against women and romanticize sexual abuse while simultaneously giving men unrealistic standards about what the female body should look like.

Yet, I never truly stopped to consider what, if anything, should be done about porn’s cultural significance. You could say I, as a feminist, had a problem but lacked a solution. One thing, however, was certain — the world would be better without porn.

I turned to answers from feminist scholars of the past and was quick to learn that feminist views around porn fell into two flawed categories: the radical belief that all porn must be banned and the liberal belief that porn is emancipatory and a celebration of female sexuality. Regarding the former, anti-porn feminism arose in the 1970s, particularly out of lesbian feminist spaces. These anti-porn feminists believed that all porn fostered the systemic abuse of women and, therefore, it must be legislated.

One of the loudest voices of this anti-porn movement was Andrea Dworkin. In her book “Pornography: Men Possessing Women,” she writes: “Pornography is the essential sexuality of male power: of hate, of ownership, of hierarchy, of sadism, of dominance. The premises of pornography are controlling in every rape and every rape case, whenever a woman is battered or prostituted, in incest, including in incest that occurs before a child can even speak, and in murder…”

In other words, porn doesn’t only inspire violence, violence also inspires porn.

Then, in the 1980s and ’90s, many feminists began to shift their beliefs to “pro-sex” feminism. For these feminists, to police porn was to police a woman’s body, and to ban porn would be to infringe on a women’s right to make decisions about her own sexuality. Many pro-sex feminists advocated for the rights of sex workers, arguing that it is a legitimate form of labor and can, under some circumstances, be empowering. I like to think of this school of thought as “girl-boss” feminism emboldened by market representation.

Nevertheless, both of these beliefs are oversimplified and lack nuance. Feminists who are vehemently anti-porn struggle with the feasibility of their beliefs. After all, porn between consenting adults is technically an expression of free speech, and attempts to legislate it have historically been used as a cover to attack sexual minorities while leaving the mainstream industry of porn unscathed. For example, the 1992 Canadian Supreme Court case “R v. Butler” upheld the criminalization of certain “obscene” materials, particularly violent or degrading pornography. However, the implementation of this law specifically targeted the LGBTQ+ community. The first obscenity charge after this decision was against a Toronto bookshop for selling a lesbian magazine called “Bad Attitude,” and further charges were brought against sexually explicit queer magazines, comics and books for being obscene — which, for one, meant it contained “appreciation of the physical activity” and, for another, sexual activity did “not arise from any ongoing human relationship.”

Where anti-porn feminism fails to take into account that the livelihoods of some women depend on sex work, pro-porn feminists often overlook the industry’s relation to sex trafficking and the abuse of sex workers physically and culturally. This past January, porn star Bonnie Blue claimed to have sex with 1,057 men in just a day, something no woman’s body is built to withstand. We have to take a step back and ask ourselves a series of disturbing questions: Why would she agree to do something so violating? Who are the men participating in this? Why was she expecting consumers to watch it? What effect will treating sex as an inconsequential act have on our future generations of young people?

Now, as a junior in college, I believe I finally have a nuanced take on the ethics of porn, and it all has to do with a class I took sophomore year, “The Right to Sex in the 18th Century.” In this class, taught by Professor John Havard, I was introduced to the intellectually stimulating work of contemporary feminist philosopher Amia Srinivasan and her provocative essay, “Talking to My Students About Porn.” In this piece, she writes about how to engage her students to think critically about how porn influences desire, power and gender dynamics.

What is so unique about porn, according to Srinivasan, is that it allows for easy access to another person’s body, which causes her to ponder whether porn teaches impressionable minds that they have a right to someone else’s body, and therefore, a right to sex. In the end, she concludes that students should be taught that they have authority over what sex is and what it can be rather than rely on porn to shape their sex lives. Porn can be pleasure or representation, but it cannot be the only source of education, even for diverse sexualities, as sex is mental as well as physical. It is up to each individual to craft their own sex lives, and they can choose to make it something pleasurable, but if they have not emancipated their minds from the showmanship of porn, they may be led to disappointment.

I think a good place to start productive critical analysis around porn is with the philosophy of Srinivasan. As a pedagogical figure, she believes that if her students choose to consume it, they should be taught to critically evaluate the type of content they engage with and how it influences their desires. Instead of calling for a complete dismantling of the porn industry like anti-porn feminists, Srinivasan advocates for self-awareness and critical reflection, which I think are essential for building a society in which porn has less impact on people’s sex lives and is less tied to violence.

If we accept that porn has too great an influence on our perceptions of sex and that these perceptions are shaped by social and cultural biases, then it stands to reason that we could also shift those attitudes toward a healthier, more positive understanding of sex. I don’t believe that full-on legal censorship of violent or hardcore porn is the solution — if anything, I think this will make people want to watch it more. However, I do believe that if we shift the way we educate young people about sex and show them that it can be something more than what’s often portrayed in these materials, then the demand for problematic content could gradually decrease.

While I do not claim to have all the answers on how to make this shift happen, I believe starting an open, honest dialogue about the issue is a crucial first step. This conversation could be key to lessening the harmful and polarizing influence that porn has on people’s perceptions of sex and relationships.

Jordan Ori is a junior majoring in English and is a Pipe Dream Opinions intern. 

Views expressed in the opinions pages represent the opinions of the columnists. The only piece that represents the view of the Pipe Dream Editorial Board is the staff editorial. 

The word originates from ancient Greek and roughly translates to “rule by few” — it refers to a political system in which a small and exclusive group of people often defined by a specific shared attribute such as wealth, religion or race govern everyone else. An oligarchy is not to be confused with an aristocracy, another political system in which a select few individuals have power. The critical distinction between the two, according to Aristotle, is that the small group of powerful rulers in an aristocratic society are just and fit to lead while, in an oligarchical society, they are corrupt and oppressive. This structure is incredibly harmful because it gives dangerous figures sole power over the masses, which in turn leads to submission, oppression, poverty and inevitably dictatorship — think Napoleon’s France, apartheid-ridden South Africa, as well as modern-day Iran and Russia.

The discourse on America heading in the direction of an oligarchy came to a head when former President Joe Biden said in his farewell address, “Today, an oligarchy is taking shape in America of extreme wealth, power and influence that really threatens our entire democracy, our basic rights and freedom.” Biden continued to use the term “tech-industrial complex” when discussing the threat of oligarchy, not so discreetly hinting that he was talking about the alliance between President Donald Trump, Elon Musk, Mark Zuckerberg and potentially other billionaire tech giants. At Trump’s inauguration, the billionaires stood behind the president proudly, signaling to us normal folk that they are about to have more power than ever before.

It is no secret that Musk played an alarmingly active role in Trump’s presidential campaign, causing some to wonder whether it was really Trump or Musk running for executive office. Last year, Musk gave an estimated $277 million to super PACs, ensuring he would have a place in the Trump administration, and he was granted just that as he was placed in charge of a new advisory working group called the Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE, a reference to a popular 2013 meme. As Americans, we must collectively work toward developing a strong class consciousness regardless of party affiliation if we want to protect our democracy.

When news of the assassination of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson broke in December, it seemed as if, for a brief moment, we were all united in the fight against our deeply flawed capitalist system and thinking critically about the ethics of billionaires. Many Americans were quick to condemn the violence while also starting a dialogue regarding our for-profit health care system. The response to the shooting and the subsequent martyr-esque public support of alleged gunman Luigi Mangione was shocking to politicians and the news media, revealing to both powerful Democrats and Republicans alike that they are deeply out of touch with the concerns of the average American. The rise in public class consciousness threatens right-wing extremists as it undermines their ability to distract the public with manufactured outrage over trivial issues, like the “woke mind virus” and pronouns, while also calling “progressive” politicians to action.

The ultra-wealthy were stunned to realize that the public could condemn both outright murder and a system that denies lifesaving care for profit as equally wrong. People realized it was hypocritical of the government to charge someone who allegedly killed one person as a terrorist, a threat to the country’s coherency, while allowing companies to make billions off of refusing treatment, allowing masses of civilians to die.

While tech billionaires like to flaunt their influence in government, health care CEOs and leaders are more secretive to the public eye as they may understand that their job is essentially to harm and swindle money out of the average American. The shooting of Thompson sent health care companies into a panic. For instance, in the wake of the shooting, UnitedHealthcare and other companies removed the photos and information of top executives from their websites. Likewise, Anthem Blue Cross Blue Shield immediately reversed their wildly unethical decision to place limits on anesthesia coverage, meaning if a patient was under anesthesia for longer than Anthem’s time limit, they would refuse to cover the procedure. It seemed change was finally on the way, but the public’s interest is constantly changing, and with Trump’s election, the fight for free health care is once again on the back burner.

I personally am concerned, to say the least, and scared, to say the most, when it comes to the topic of billionaires. While those who made their money in health care are more outwardly — and proximally — dangerous, the gaggle of wannabe oligarchs Trump has assembled is also making me uneasy. It seems as if I can not go a day without hearing something concerning a tech billionaire, from the debate over if Musk did a Nazi salute to rumors that Zuckerberg is looking to make TikTok a part of Meta after Trump prevented its ban that he once advocated for. These tech giants have been a part of our society for a decent amount of time but never before have they been the center of it, and their power will only grow. We have allowed these people who couldn’t care less about us to influence our everyday lives — the politicians we elect, the apps we can use and what we can say on those apps. But most importantly, their constant desire to use innovation as a power grab rather than a way to better the world is threatening our well-being.

For example, although Elon Musk uses his electric vehicles to create the image that he is sustainable, his company SpaceX is currently “legally” threatening the environment. Musk is asking federal authorities for permission to test a new rocket prototype that will rain down debris in Hawaii, most notably in and around the World Heritage site Papahanaumokuakea, a place both important to Native Hawaiians and home to a variety of flora and fauna such as marine life and sea birds. If you look up Papahanaumokuakea you will see gorgeous blue-green water, sandy atolls, as well as families of albatrosses, seals and sea turtles, but this scene may soon become a billionaire’s debris dumping ground.

The response to billionaires buying their way into government is often met with indifference or even blind support from those who do not understand the dangers of oligarchy. At the end of the day, we have a democratic system in which we vote to elect our leaders, not one in which anyone with enough money can essentially purchase a ticket into government, and we must keep it this way regardless of political party. Whereas the left often struggles to connect with what truly matters to the average citizen, the right’s fatal flaw lies in their unwillingness — and outright refusal — to hold figures like Trump accountable when they do something not in the best interest of the people. No one Democrat, Republican, Independent or Apolitical should want out-of-touch billionaires to weasel their way into our government, and now we must come together across party lines to tell our president that this is not what we want.

Jordan Ori is a junior majoring in English and is a Pipe Dream Opinions intern. 

Views expressed in the opinions pages represent the opinions of the columnists. The only piece that represents the view of the Pipe Dream Editorial Board is the staff editorial. 

I rushed to Google to find out I was wrong. It was not just an allegation but rather a 1992 rape conviction. Tyson is a registered sex offender who served three years of a 10-year sentence in prison for his crimes. Although he maintains his innocence, Tyson stated in a 2003 interview, “I just hate her guts. She put me in that state, where I don’t know … I really wish I did now. But now I really do want to rape her.” Additionally, Paul was accused of sexual assault by influencer Justine Paradise in 2021, but he immediately shut down the rumors, stating, “Not only have I never had any sexual relationship with this individual, but this claim is solely a manufactured accusation and a blatant attempt for attention during a highly visible fight week.”

It is possible, then, that Netflix knowingly platformed two sex offenders for nothing but a quick cash grab — despite Tyson’s conviction, meaning a jury decided beyond a reasonable doubt that he was guilty, he was granted a massive platform, reportedly made around $20 million from the Netflix fight and garnered support across the internet. Paul is rumored to have made around $40 million. It is exhausting to see these men slip through the bars time and time again and even become beloved once more, especially for their careers.

When a victim comes forward with allegations of sexual assault, they are often met with hesitation or straight-up disbelief. This has caused many, particularly men on the internet, to label victims as liars when they come forward. I have constantly seen on social media people lamenting about how false rape allegations ruin lives, and I can not help but find this laughable. Don’t get me wrong, false rape allegations are awful, but they are not prevalent, with the National Sexual Violence Resource Center estimating that 2 to 8 percent of sexual assault allegations are false. This is minuscule in the grand scheme of sex crimes, and yet, the idea that they are destroying lives is a constant subject of discourse.

However, it should be noted that the power balance in allegations can and has historically been skewed when it is a Black man being accused. Due to racist dogma ingrained in Western society, even deeply misogynistic white men will sometimes suspend their disbelief of sexual assault allegations to push a racist agenda. Take, for example, the case of Alice Sebold and Anthony Broadwater. In 1982, Sebold, a white woman, was brutally assaulted by a Black man, alleged to be Broadwater. Sebold would go on to write a harrowing memoir called “Lucky,” and Broadwater would spend 16 years in prison and life after as a registered sex offender before being exonerated in 2021 with new evidence. While investigators took advantage of Sebold’s trauma and pressured her into incorrectly identifying Broadwater in a lineup, they did not care about finding the culprit who assaulted Sebold but rather just wanted to put a Black man behind bars as quickly as possible, doing an injustice to both Sebold and Broadwater, allowing the real rapist to roam free and casting doubt on rape allegations moving forward.

Regardless, there is an ongoing trend of male public figures being able to overcome sexual abuse allegations and confirmed instances of sexual abuse with either time or general cognitive dissonance. The lack of accountability for famous men spills over from the courts. In 2023, actor Kevin Spacey, who was on trial for nine counts of sexual misconduct against four different men, was acquitted of all charges and this May, Spacey’s lawyers challenged a “London court ruling which effectively found him liable for an alleged sexual assault on a British man, after his lawyers mistakenly failed to serve a defence to a civil lawsuit.” Similarly, in April, a New York appeals court overturned and ordered a new trial for former film producer Harvey Weinstein’s sex crimes convictions, which previously had him serving a 23-year sentence for first-degree criminal sexual act and third-degree rape.

Some media outlets, particularly right-wing ones, would have you believe that we have an epidemic of cancel culture. But if not all rapists lose their careers, how can this possibly be true? I think there are two main reasons why abusive men often do not lose their careers — influence and cognitive dissonance. Regarding the former, it is completely plausible that if a public figure has enough money or influence, they can simply make things go away. The latter, which I find more compelling, revolves around cognitive dissonance — essentially, a conscious or subconscious willingness to overlook a celebrity’s criminal history due to personal admiration or attachment to them or their art.

Let’s take, for example, Chris Brown. Brown remains a beloved figure in the music industry by many, and his 2023 Under the Influence Tour sold out all 19 dates in minutes. However, it is well-known that in 2009, Brown brutally assaulted his then-girlfriend and pop superstar Rihanna. Leaked photos showed the graphic damage he did to her face, and in a police report, she stated that Brown punched and choked her until she was almost unconscious while threatening to kill her. Brown then pleaded guilty to felony assault and received five years probation with community service. Yet Brown still makes hits, maintains a loyal fanbase and attends public events — he is just one example of many abusive male celebrities who maintain their careers after allegations or convictions.

I am all for separating the art from the artist, but only in certain circumstances — specifically, when the controversial figure is no longer alive. For example, I still enjoy music from The Beatles, even though John Lennon was known to be a domestic abuser because he is no longer alive to benefit from my support. In contrast, this perspective does not apply to someone like Brown, who is still alive and actively profiting from his work. Supporting his art indirectly enables and perpetuates his success, which, knowing what we know about him, is undeniably unethical.

So I ask then, has cancel culture gone far enough, and why does it not apply to these men? In the rare instances when women are accused of abuse, such as with Amber Heard, the public is ready and willing to destroy their careers, so why not with men? I believe that people can grow and change, but rape is a morally indefensible crime and should automatically end one’s career, such as, for example, Tyson being blacklisted from boxing competitions. Rape and other forms of abuse are not minor lapses in judgment or mistakes that can be chalked up to immaturity or ignorance — they are violent crimes that leave lasting trauma on survivors. Moving forward, we as consumers of entertainment must sever ties with these men despite how much we may have liked them at a time to send a clear message to Hollywood that abusers have no place in the media. This is not a suggestion but a moral obligation we all hold.

Jordan Ori is a junior majoring in English and is a Pipe Dream Opinions intern.

Views expressed in the opinions pages represent the opinions of the columnists. The only piece that represents the view of the Pipe Dream Editorial Board is the staff editorial. 

Stein, a Harvard-educated doctor, ran her recent campaign on three main platforms — people, planet and peace — yet her actions, character and words suggest these are not actually her core values. Stein’s recent campaign centered around a critical issue largely overlooked by both Kamala Harris and Donald Trump — the concern youths have with the plight of the people in Gaza. According to polls from the Pew Research Center and as of April, “Younger Americans are more likely to sympathize with the Palestinian people than the Israeli people” and “Democrats and Democratic leaners sympathize far more with the Palestinians than the Israelis (47% vs. 7%).” Stein understood this and used her “Pledge to Stop Genocide” campaign to sway young progressives who had been largely displeased by the Biden-Harris administration’s support of Israel to abandon the Democratic vote in favor of either supporting her or abstaining from voting altogether. However, while Stein may claim to be for Palestinian liberation, she is certainly not antiwar like her campaign suggests.

Stein has sympathized with Vladimir Putin several times throughout her political career. For instance, in 2015, along with retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, who would eventually become Trump’s national security adviser, she attended a dinner celebrating the 10th birthday of the Russian TV network RT, a network riddled with anti-Ukraine propaganda, where she shared a table with none other than President Putin. Stein’s 2016 campaign was heavily promoted by RT in general, and Stein continues to deflect when questioned about her appearance at the dinner. Although this was before the invasion of Ukraine, Putin had still established himself as a war criminal who committed countless atrocities, such as the war in Chechnya and the annexation of Crimea. Therefore, someone who prides themself on their morality should have declined this invitation without a second thought.

Additionally, in a Zeteo video released in September, while being interviewed by Mehdi Hasan, Stein continuously called Benjamin Netanyahu a war criminal but refused to directly ascribe that label to Putin. Hasan repeatedly asked Stein if she considered Putin a war criminal and after dodging the question many times, she finally said, “’In so many words, yes he is. […] If you want to pull him back, if you are a world leader, you don’t begin your conversation by calling someone a war criminal.’” Stein should not have needed to be pressured into this answer. If she was a true pacifist she would have immediately responded “yes” the first time the question was asked.

This is something Stein frequently does. She will make a vaguely conservative statement, walk back on it and then pretend like her leftist supporters are out of line for questioning her. For instance, in an interview with The Washington Post, she stated that people had “real questions” about vaccines — their corporate and government regulation and potential side effects. Stein’s willingness to question government agencies, like the Food and Drug Administration, while refusing a call to action as a public figure can prompt average citizens to become conspiracy theorists — rather than advocate for people to get vaccinated and help solve a public health crisis, Stein chose to give only a vague statement. After receiving backlash, she was quick to make a statement that she had always been pro-vaccination and that “criticism of her on the issue is akin to the ‘’birther’ controversy that hounded President (Barack) Obama,’” which can be considered out of touch, to say the least, and white tears to say the most.

She is also not as progressive or anti-two-party system as she claims, given that she works alongside the GOP. In 2016, many suspected Stein of acting as an election “spoiler,” a third-party or independent candidate propped up by a party whose participation in an election potentially affects the outcome by drawing votes away from a major candidate with whom they share some ideological overlap. Stein received roughly 1 percent of the popular vote in 2016, and while this number seems low, CNN analysts have suggested that if “Democrats managed to capture the bulk of third-party voters in some of the closest contests — Wisconsin (10), Pennsylvania (20), Michigan (16) and Florida (29) — [Hilary] Clinton would have defeated Trump by earning 307 Electoral College votes, enough to secure the presidency.”

While Harris lost by a large enough margin that Stein’s votes would not have made a difference, Stein still accepted funds from the GOP-backed “Badger Values” super PAC to try and swing Wisconsin votes away from Harris. Additionally, Trump has repeatedly praised Stein, stating in two recent rallies, “’ Jill Stein, I like her very much. You know why? She takes 100% from them’” and “’I love the Green Party. Jill Stein … she may be one of my favorite politicians.’” If Stein was truly against the two-party system, she would do her best to separate herself from both parties and refrain from accepting funds backed by them. As she uses the GOP to her advantage, she is further legitimizing their place in a system she claims to seek to abolish.

Personally, I understand the deep frustration many Americans have with the two-party system, as it can feel like two candidates simply are not enough to capture the wide scope of the country’s political views. However, we are simply not in a stable enough political climate to abolish this system, and this past election was certainly not the time to try. Although some cite their reason for voting for a third-party candidate as a way to help the party gain visibility, build momentum and sometimes secure federal funding for future elections, this simply can not apply to Stein, given that she vanishes between election seasons and capitalizes on the most significant moral dilemmas when the time comes. I do not mean that she halts her activism, but rather, she does not try to garner momentum for a presidential campaign for all four years. It seems to me then, that the only reason to vote for her would be virtue signaling, to prove you are somehow, like her, morally superior.

I am also not trying to say that Stein is uniquely corrupt but rather that she is just as corrupt as any Republican or Democratic politician and not some ethically sound outlier. I’ve seen peers and people on social media claim moral superiority for voting “against genocide” and challenging the system by supporting Stein, but I fail to see how supporting her is any different than not voting at all. If Stein truly wants radical change, she needs to do more than rely on her critique of mainstream parties because her questionable past makes her appear as a conservative in disguise. To actually prop the Green Party up, she must actively earn the trust of the American public by proving she can be both effective and accountable in driving real change, even outside of election season. Otherwise, she does not deserve a place on the 2028 ballot.

Jordan Ori is a junior majoring in English and is a Pipe Dream Opinions intern.

Views expressed in the opinions pages represent the opinions of the columnists. The only piece that represents the view of the Pipe Dream Editorial Board is the staff editorial. 

While some founding fathers held Christian beliefs and principles, religion was never meant to be the center of our legislative existence. Many of the Founding Fathers were Protestant while others, such as James Monroe, John Adams, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin, were more closely aligned with deistic beliefs, meaning they believed there was a creator, who after creating the universe played no part in governing humans. Franklin was even rumored to have visited the caves of Buckinghamshire’s notorious “Hellfire Club,” which was said to be “a satirical ‘gentleman’s club’ … intended to shock and ridicule religious beliefs through the act of mock religious ceremonies with the supposed president of the club being the devil.” However, whether the Founding Fathers were spending their Sundays at church or worshipping Satan in tunnels beneath England, one thing remains unyielding — they believed in a separation of church and state.

It is well known that the U.S. Constitution, particularly the First Amendment, as well as the Federalist Papers, advocate for this separation. If that was not damning enough to the myth of a Christian nation, the 1797 Treaty of Tripoli, which was created by Washington, signed by Adams and ratified unanimously by the Senate, states, “The Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion.”

This election season, we, as citizens, must remember that our country was founded on freedom — in theory, our nation thrives not because it is governed by Christian beliefs but because we have the freedom to choose what religion, if any, to follow. Similarly, we must recall when religion became too entangled with legislation and how that subsequently hindered the pursuit of liberty. This core founding principle of choice seems to have been lost among some politicians, specifically far-right Republican lawmakers.

Take, for instance, the overturning of Roe v. Wade. Many hardcore Christian politicians argue that abortion is immoral because it ends a unique human life. However, scientifically, there is no universally accepted definition of life or what life is viable — it is more of a philosophical question. Why is an amoeba classified as life but not a virus? Since life cannot be definitively quantified, the debate should instead focus on whether the government should have the authority to regulate individuals’ access to medical procedures. If we were to unequivocally follow our country’s own doctrine and the explicit beliefs of our founders, the answer would be easy — no, because there is a separation of church and state. It could even be argued that abortion bans without exceptions go directly against religious freedoms since abortion is allowed and encouraged when the life of the mother is at risk under some religions, such as the Jewish law of “rodef” and the Islamic doctrine “maqāṣid.”

When writing policy, lawmakers should be allowed to consider their own religious values, but to try and force those values on others is a bastardization of “freedom,” which is supposed to be the bedrock of our country.

I would like to reiterate that Christianity itself is not the problem, but rather, the problem is the rise in Christian nationalism. It is absolutely imperative that we prevent Christian extremist politicians from being elected. One of these politicians we must condemn is vice presidential candidate and self-described Christian nationalist JD Vance. Vance claims to be for the people, yet he attended a Christian nationalist town hall led by extremist Lance Wallnau, who advocated for erasing the separation of church and state completely.

Politicians like Vance disguise their bigotry in a veil of piousness, which can have drastic repercussions. The most prominent example of the government using “Christian” nationalist beliefs to oppress was the application of Jim Crow laws that defined American life from the 1890s to the 1960s. These laws sought to disenfranchise African Americans, promote segregation and platform white evangelical lawmakers who subsequently aided in “righteous” missions, such as the prohibition of alcohol.

The most abhorrent result of Jim Crow laws was, of course, the brutal lynching of African Americans, which drew on the evangelical idea of blood sacrifice. As journalist Wilbur Cash observed in 1941 through his study of southern racial violence titled “The Mind of The South,” “Blood sacrifice is the connection between the purpose of white supremacists, the purity signified in segregation, the magnificence of God’s wrath, and the permission granted the culture through the wrath of ‘justified’ Christians to sacrifice black men on the cross of white solidarity.”

I do not wish to fearmonger and I do not believe that electing politicians like Vance will take our country back to the Jim Crow era. However, it is essential to consider the extremes to ensure we hold ourselves accountable and strive for continuous improvement. We must consider the country we were, both its flaws and strengths, to become the country we want to be. We also must remember that one of America’s fundamental rights is choice. We were never intended to be a theocracy but rather a diverse nation of people with varying beliefs. As you vote this election season, I encourage you to think beyond your own beliefs and consider your neighbors’ right to practice their own. I encourage all to exercise their fundamental right to vote and encourage those who do to leave religion off the ticket when considering policy regarding things such as reproductive freedom, LGBTQ+ rights and other forms of bodily autonomy.

Jordan Ori is a junior majoring in English and is a Pipe Dream Opinions intern. 

Views expressed in the opinions pages represent the opinions of the columnists. The only piece that represents the view of the Pipe Dream Editorial Board is the staff editorial. 

The 1989 killings of the wealthy and prominent Jose and Kitty Menendez and the subsequent arrests of their two sons, Lyle and Erik, took the media by storm. The public was quick and attempted to label Lyle and Erik as cold-hearted killers and spoiled brats who murdered their parents for monetary gain. In 1994, when the trial began, no one expected the brothers to testify that they indeed killed their parents out of self-defense, claiming they had suffered a lifetime of sexual abuse. The brothers were widely not believed, and this was made clear as their emotional testimonies were mocked in a now infamous Saturday Night Live sketch.

In a second 1996 trial, the brothers were sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole. However, the Los Angeles County District Attorney, George Gascón, recently announced that he feels a “moral and ethical obligation” to review new evidence that has been brought forward suggesting a history of sexual abuse from Jose Menendez, not only to his sons but to another boy he worked with at his record label as well.

Celebrities, such as Kim Kardashian and Rosie O’Donnell, have come forward calling for the release of the brothers, making it clear that attitudes toward male victims of sexual assault are changing. Still, a change in public opinion does not mean there will be a fundamental change in the way cases of male abuse, specifically male child abuse, are tried in court.

It has long been said that “the only perfect victim is a dead one,” and when victims don’t fit this mold and fight back or are outspoken, wealthy, too attractive or unattractive, male and even cocky at times, like the Menendez brothers, they become subject to scrutiny and people are less inclined to believe them. This mindset needs to be abolished as it is not only counterproductive but also dangerous — it makes victims less likely to come forward with their stories and allows abusers to walk free.

During the 90s, there seemed to be a widespread mindset that men could not be victims of sexual abuse, but this could not be further from the truth. In the case of the Menendez brothers, the jury in the 1996 trial was split by sex, with the female jurors believing the brother’s stories of sexual abuse and advocating for manslaughter chargers and the male jurors seeing the brothers as greedy monsters and advocating for first-degree murder. One of the jurors, Tracy Miller, stated, “There were insults, sexual comments. They tried to outshout us.”

Female jurors also recall a fascination the male jurors had with the Menendez brothers being secretly homosexual and, therefore, consenting to the abuse. This was an idea pushed by the prosecution and recalled by Erik in the brother’s infamous interview with Barbara Walters — he said, “The prosecutor brought that up because I was sexually molested, and he felt in his own thinking that if I was sodomized by my father that I must have enjoyed it and therefore I must be gay.” It is little comments like these that stop male victims from coming forward and making a mockery of their trauma. They cannot be men and victims but rather must be men and active participants — to think otherwise would threaten society’s all-powerful view of masculinity.

Male victims of sexual abuse notoriously stay silent. According to the U.K.’s Office for National Statistics, “49% of male abuse victims fail to tell anyone about their abuse and are 2 and half times less likely to tell someone than female victims.” This is largely due to fear of ridicule, not being believed, being labeled as homosexual or being seen as less of a man. However, Erik’s former defense attorney, Leslie Abramson, posed critical questions and analysis toward the jury in closing arguments that are still relevant today — “Would you feel any differently about what happened to my client if my client’s name was Erika Menendez? Would it make any difference to you if he was a girl who was sadistically sexually molested by her father? Because if it would, it shouldn’t, because men are human, and boys are human. And men and women suffer, and boys and girls suffer, and it is no different.”

According to the U.S. Sentencing Commission, the average sentence for offenders convicted of rape is 192 months, for abusive sexual contact, it is 60 months and for statutory rape, it is 43 months. It is morally unjust that some rapists and pedophiles spend less time in prison than victims, like the Menendez brothers, who kill their abusers. No victim, especially one who has experienced years of abuse at the hands of the same perpetrator, should receive the same sentence as a serial killer or a murderer of an innocent person.

Freeing the Menendez brothers would not only deliver justice in their case but also send a powerful message to male victims of abuse — their experiences are being acknowledged and believed. As a society, we must not only condemn violence but also understand that under some extreme circumstances, such as a lifetime of child abuse, victims may see no other way out. If the Menendez brothers allowed the abuse to continue or threatened to go public with it, they very well could have been the ones that ended up dead.

When someone’s quality and longevity of life are threatened, when they defend themselves against an oppressor, they should not receive a life sentence. Likewise, we must shift our mindset toward male victims, offering them the resources, support and legal assistance they need. By doing so, men and boys trapped in abusive cycles can find safer, healthier ways to seek help rather than feeling pushed toward desperate actions like those taken by the Menendez brothers.

Jordan Ori is a junior majoring in English and a Pipe Dream Opinions intern.

Views expressed in the opinions pages represent the opinions of the columnists. The only piece that represents the view of the Pipe Dream Editorial Board is the staff editorial.

Most of their rhetoric has centered around the rumors that Harris had an affair with former San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown in the 1990s and broke up his marriage. Harris began her relationship with Brown in 1994, and while he was legally married, he had been estranged from his wife since 1981. Additionally, some right-wing commentators, such as Megyn Kelly, have proposed that Harris’ relationship with Brown, which ended in 1995, is the reason she was elected San Francisco district attorney in 2003. This rhetoric is harmful and inaccurate. Harris did not just become San Francisco’s district attorney — she also became California’s attorney general, a senator and then eventually vice president. Being in a relationship with a former San Francisco mayor could not have realistically gotten her all of these positions.

But, hypothetically, let’s say this was true and that she was a promiscuous woman who slept her way to the top. If this was the case, right-wing media should also be outraged at Trump for his unsavory sexual escapades. Trump has been married three times and each marriage has been subject to rumors of affairs — most famously the allegations that he cheated on his current wife, Melania Trump, with adult film actress Stormy Daniels and paid her $130,000 in hush money. More alarmingly, Trump has been accused of sexual misconduct against 26 women since the 1970s. In 2023, Trump was found liable in a civil court for sexually abusing and defaming E. Jean Carroll and was ordered to pay her $5 million in restitution. Trump was born into wealth and did not need to sleep with powerful people to achieve greatness. However, it is possible he used sex to establish himself as an untouchable, domineering figure. Powerful men often seek sexual partners as a way to uphold their status and manliness and become immune to the word “no.” Therefore, when someone like Carroll or Daniels challenges their status quo, their masculinity is threatened.

Now let us say it was proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Harris slept her way to the top and that Trump was guilty of rape. Why would a sexual predator be more fit for president than someone who had consensual sex? The answer is simple — misogyny.

The patriarchal system we live under is designed to keep women down, and when a woman is able to defy the odds and succeed in a male-dominated industry, bigots will rush to find reasons as to why her achievements are either unwarranted or unfair. Most people do not actively try to uphold patriarchal values, but they have been ingrained into our subconscious minds, which is why things such as sexual prowess are celebrated in men and scorned in women.

In the case of a woman “sleeping her way to the top,” the media has created this fantasy that a woman’s sexuality is an all-powerful tool of manipulation and that men are victims of their Jezebel nature. This school of thought can be traced back to Sigmund Freud’s psychoanalytic theory of the Madonna-Whore complex, stating that men can not see a sexually active woman as morally virtuous.

However, this is an example of Deny, Attack and Reverse Victim and Offender rhetoric, a tactic commonly used by abusers to shift blame onto their victims. Take for instance a sexual relationship between a female assistant and a male boss. The media would see the female assistant as exploiting the boss’s resources and therefore classify her as a predatory figure. However, the boss holds institutional, financial and social power, inherently making the relationship unequal. He is in the position of authority and his power creates pressure or influence over the woman, whether or not it is explicitly acknowledged. The same could be said of a young attorney and the mayor of the city she works for. Instead of villainizing the women who fall victim to the system, we should focus on criticizing the men who not only set up but also enable the system.

Suppose we continue to normalize misogynistic rhetoric and the “sleeping her way to the top” myth. In that case, we risk it becoming even easier and more common to discredit women’s accomplishments than it already is. This is not to say that politicians like Harris are above criticism of character. When all is said and done, it is our job as citizens to scrutinize politicians and any other individuals in positions of power. One of right-wing media’s most significant failures is their refusal to criticize Trump. They often push the narrative that he is severely misunderstood and has done no wrong. There is a looming fear in Republicans about speaking out against Trump, so they deflect their disappointments with him, such as his questionable sexual history, onto the other party’s candidate rather than addressing the root of their concerns.

The belief that a presidential candidate is above criticism is not loyalty — it is a cultish mindset. When we hold our leaders accountable, we force them to make better decisions in the future. Harris is by no means a perfect person or candidate, as no politician is. She is not above criticism, but we should criticize our politician’s policies, not speculate over how many people they have slept with — because at the end of the day, it has no effect on their ability to do their job. Even things such as Trump’s affairs do not actually matter when it comes to running the country. The only sexual acts that should disqualify someone from holding office are nonconsensual ones, as this goes past the discussion of ethics and straight into criminal behavior.

Jordan Ori is a junior majoring in English and is a Pipe Dream Opinions intern. 

Views expressed in the opinions pages represent the opinions of the columnists. The only piece that represents the view of the Pipe Dream Editorial Board is the staff editorial.

There seem to be two main reactions to school shootings — one is dismissive and denies that America has a gun violence problem altogether, while the other acknowledges the problems but believes they are out of our hands. Both schools of thought share one thing in common — they both halt progress. These shootings will continue to happen if gun legislation gets passed, though it rarely does. Still, as everyday Americans, we have to start shifting our perspective on gun usage if we want to end the trend of mass shootings.

To do so, we need to look back to the Second Amendment. We are given the right to bear arms for protection, not to collect as many as we can and certainly not to cause destruction. The shooter of the recent Apalachee High School shooting, Colt Gray, was reported to have been given the AR-15 he used to murder four innocent people as a holiday gift from his father last December. This is the crux of the issue — we need to reform our culture to stop seeing guns as fun items to collect or Christmas presents, but rather as dangerous weapons that should only be used for protection with obvious exceptions. It is only when we become less reliant and sever guns from our core identities that lawmakers will listen to us about gun control.

In Jamelle Bouie’s 2023 New York Times article “America’s Rifle Fetish Is Destroying Its Sense of Freedom,” he writes that gun manufacturers have convinced us to view guns “not as a tool for hobbyists and sportsmen but as a lifestyle accessory that stands for freedom, individualism and masculine self-sufficiency.” Essentially, we are taught by the gun industry to see firearms as a means of self-expression and to covet the perceived power they give us rather than desire them for their actual uses.

America is the only country where you can travel down a major highway and see a new billboard advertising another gun superstore every 10 miles. In your average American gas station, you can find all kinds of products advertising the use of guns, such as t-shirts, hats and car stickers. Some of these products are marketed toward children, such as a onesies saying “son of a gun owner.” Guns have become so deeply ingrained in our daily lives and cultural experiences that we see them more as collectibles and commodities than weapons. They are not just valued, but also fetishized. In any other place in the world, it is not normal to dress your infant in a gun-themed onesie and, frankly, it should not be here either.

According to the Switzerland-based Small Arms Survey, there are 120 guns for every 100 Americans, making the United States the only country in the world to have more civilian guns than people. ​​According to a 2024 CNN article, “Half of the world’s developed countries had at least one public mass shooting between 1998 and 2019. But no other nation saw more than eight incidents over 22 years, while the United States had over 100 — with almost 2,000 people killed or injured.” Moreover, the amount of gun owners in the United States combined with the number of mass shootings makes it a global outlier for gun violence when compared to other “progressive” and “developed” countries.

It can feel utterly hopeless at times to acknowledge that America has a clear and unique issue with gun violence, and it feels out of our control. We can vote to try to get more progressive candidates into office, but for many who lean right, even the slightest bit of gun control is a step toward eradicating guns. I do not believe in doing away with guns entirely as this is not reasonable, realistic nor a passable law, nor do I think many, if any, politicians want this. However, I do believe America has a unique mass shooting issue and that we have sat back to send our good hopes and prayers for too long. If we want our federal government to eventually enact reasonable gun control, we first need to evaluate, fundamentally change and rebuild the way guns fit into our culture, and that starts with recognizing that they are inherently destructive.

Jordan Ori is a junior majoring in English and is a Pipe Dream opinions intern.

Views expressed in the opinions pages represent the opinions of the columnists. The only piece that represents the view of the Pipe Dream Editorial Board is the Staff Editorial.

The conversation regarding the participation of transgender athletes in sports has been going on for years, but in this case, the outrage was entirely misguided. This discourse began when Italian boxer Angela Carini forfeited her fight against Algerian boxer Imane Khelif after just 46 seconds. Carini fell to her knees in tears and refused to shake Khelif’s hand. Carini would go on to tell the press that she quit out of safety concerns and that she had “never felt a punch like this.”

After this dramatic display, the internet was quick to discover that the International Boxing Association had previously banned Khelif from the 2023 IBA Women’s World Boxing Championship for failing a gender test. Once the information went viral, prominent right-wing voices, such as Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, Donald Trump, Elon Musk, J.K. Rowling and Logan Paul maliciously attacked Khelif’s character, labeling her as a violent man who gained pleasure from beating up women. It had been decided that Carini was a victim whose hard work and dreams had been shattered by an opponent who could have killed her.

However, a quick Google search would reveal that the IBA never specified what type of gender test was done on Khelif nor published proof of the results. Another search would reveal that the IBA is a highly scrutinized organization — according to ESPN, the International Olympic Committee actually banned the IBA from the Olympics because of “concerns about its governance, competitive fairness and financial transparency.” A final search would reveal that it is quite literally illegal to change one’s gender in Khelif’s home country, Algeria, and that gender-affirming care is entirely banned.

Despite this easily accessible information, the president of the IOC, Thomas Bach, was forced to publicly state that both Khelif and another boxer facing similar allegations were indeed born female and that there was no evidence to suggest that either athlete was transgender or intersex. Specifically, Bach confirmed that both athletes were born female, raised female and in possession of female passports. Khelif would still go on to win gold, but the irrevocable damage to her name and character had already been done.

Khelif is not a unique case but rather a victim of far-right news sources’ tendency to ignore or deny factual information while also bolstering the spread of misinformation. Despite the IOC confirming that she is biologically female, Carini apologizing to Khelif and Khelif’s own defense of her sex, right-wing media has not stopped labeling her a man. On Aug. 13, Khelif even filed a criminal complaint to French authorities, naming Musk and Rowling, among others, as perpetrating acts of “aggravated cyber harassment” against her.

Regardless of the outcome in Khelif’s case, one thing remains evidently clear — a culture war is brewing. Transphobic rhetoric has become so deeply ingrained into the right-wing dogma that, now, cisgender women are experiencing sexism in the form of transphobia, too. If you do not look feminine enough, you must have been assigned male at birth, and if you are too good at what you do, you must secretly be a man. This mindset both ostracizes trans women and degrades the accomplishments of cisgender women. Just because a woman can throw a strong punch, does not mean she is masculine. These instances of transphobia also have real consequences, putting women in danger. For example, on June 30, 2023, a woman named Michelle Dione Peacock was killed in a hate crime for being suspected of being transgender, even though she was born female.

It should be said that, regardless of one’s personal beliefs regarding trans women in sports, blindly labeling people as transgender is not only unproductive but harmful to both transgender and cisgender women.

However, Khelif’s story has become engulfed in conversations about gender identity in sports when it should be a conversation on the dangers of misinformation and bigotry. Those who participated in cyberbullying Khelif did not help “save women’s sports,” but rather maliciously harassed a female athlete, making what should have been one of the most joyful times of her career a living hell, setting a dangerous precedent for media consumption, suggesting that beliefs should always prevail over facts, especially from the words of trans people.

It is shameful that individuals chose to spread lies about Khelif to push an anti-trans agenda without considering the implications of their words. Political tensions will be heightened as we barrel toward election season, but we must make sure to fact-check and consider the biases of the information being thrown at us. Mindlessly reposting unverified information does more harm than good.

Jordan Ori is a junior majoring in English. 

Views expressed in the opinions pages represent the opinions of the columnists. The only piece that represents the view of the Pipe Dream Editorial Board is the Staff Editorial.

I have witnessed people share posts declaring that “silence is violence” and “we will remember your silence,” essentially stating that if you are not political on social media, you are complacent and ignorant. Posts guilt people into mindlessly resharing content, much like the chainmail content that flourished in the 2000s and 2010s. This pressure to post results in a hostile environment online where the blame for social injustice is deflected onto your peers.

I am not one of those people who thinks politics have no place in social media. My qualms are instead with the pressure to post political content out of fear that people will think you are ignorant. Social media posts and campaigns have done a notable job of getting young people into politics and helping grassroots organizations get their feet off the ground. For instance, back in September 2023, pop superstar Taylor Swift shared a short message on Instagram encouraging her fans to register to vote, which resulted in 35,000 new registrations with just one post. Additionally, many social justice movements have relied on social media to spread awareness and reach the masses like never before. One example of this is the Black Lives Matter Movement, which has existed since 2013 but saw an influx of supporters like never before in 2020, largely due to the sharing of Black Lives Matter hashtags on social media following the death of George Floyd. According to the Pew Research Center, “44 million #BlackLivesMatter tweets from nearly 10 million distinct users currently exist on Twitter today,” and half of all those existing tweets were posted between May and September of 2020. However, with so many people sharing and reposting, social media can spread false information and, therefore, become a tool of division. Politics can, therefore, use social media as an outlet, but they are not meant to be its entire existence.

Instead of posting just to show your followers that you are “woke,” I believe that you absolutely should not post about a political issue unless you are fully educated about it or know you are sharing a post from somebody who is. It is better to refrain from posting at all than to be accidentally posting propaganda or false information. The same people who have been complaining about people not speaking up about social justice online are often the same ones posting incredibly tone-deaf takes.

I think that because social media is such a huge part of Gen Z’s lives, we often forget that not everyone relies on it. While spreading awareness is crucial, and social media is an easy way to do so, someone refraining from posting political content does not mean that they do not care or that they are not taking action. They could be attending rallies or protests, lobbying, writing letters to political officials, donating and more. So even if you think someone does not care, they might actually be doing something far more effective than just clicking “add to story.”

Ultimately, you do not know what others are doing behind their screens, and reposting an infographic does not make you morally superior. Of course, there’s reason to be frustrated by those who fail to grasp the significance of staying informed and view engaging in political discourse as tedious. Still, at the same time, it is important not to assume that every individual who chooses not to post about social issues is of this school of thought. Instead of attacking each other for being “silent,” we should redirect that anger onto politicians, lawmakers and other people in power who can do more than just spread awareness.

Jordan Ori is an undeclared sophomore. 

Views expressed in the opinions pages represent the opinions of the columnists. The only piece that represents the views of the Pipe Dream Editorial Board is the Staff Editorial.

On March 17 at 2:20 a.m., twin sisters were stabbed in Brooklyn, New York for rejecting an unwanted advance. Nineteen-year-old Samyia and Sanyia Spain were in Slope Natural Plus Deli in Park Slope with family and friends when 20-year-old Veo Kelly, who has since surrendered to the police, began to aggressively make advances toward the young women. According to what a witness told NBC4, “One of them guys complimented two girls, walked in with their friends and they said, ‘no, we’re not attracted,’ so he called them names. They called him names back. He walked out. He walked down the block angry.” After the twins left the store, Kelly followed them, stabbing Samyia in the neck and chest and killing her and stabbing and injuring Sanyia in the arm. Since then, Sanyia has clarified that the argument escalated when Kelly expressed the desire to connect over social media — “She said she wasn’t going to follow him back. That’s it. She said no.”

While tragic, the attacks on Samyia and Sanyia are not an anomaly. Unfortunately, there is no comprehensive tracking mechanism for rejection-based killings, but it is evident that they contribute to the overarching epidemic of femicide in the United States. The United Nations (UN) defines femicide as “intentional killing with a gender-related motivation. [It] may be driven by stereotyped gender roles, discrimination toward women and girls, unequal power relations between women and men or harmful social norms.” Under this definition, the attacks against the Spain sisters would be considered femicide.

There seems to be a misguided perception that femicide is only a problem in developing countries. However, the United States ranks at 34th for deliberate female homicides with 2.6 killings per 100,000 women. While the Spain sisters were attacked by a stranger, according to the UN, “current and former intimate partners are by far the most likely perpetrators of femicide, accounting for an average of 55 percent of all intimate partner and family-related killings.” This statistic reveals an alarming truth that we, as women, are never completely safe. It can sometimes feel as if we have to earn our rights to be treated as human beings while men are coddled for being monsters. Too often, when a woman commits a crime, she is heartless, but when a man does it, he is said to be suffering from mental illness. Even regardless of someone’s mental health history, women should not have to feel like their lives are at risk after unintentionally bruising a man’s ego.

While rejection killings and other forms of femicide are not something that can be stopped overnight, there are steps women can take to help protect themselves, whether while at a frat party or while grabbing a late-night snack at a deli. For instance, when going to a party, go with a group of friends and make sure not to separate from them. Having eyes on each other and making sure everyone gets home safely reduces the possibilities of harm, such as alcohol or drug intoxication, petty crimes and violent crimes. Offenders are less likely to go after a group, so it is important not to put yourself in a vulnerable place of isolation.

Additionally, using the classic “sorry, I have a boyfriend” is less damning than telling someone you’re flat-out not interested in them. For starters, it is more effective. Once a man finds out a woman is taken, whether she is telling the truth or not, they will feel a sense of respect they did not have before, not wanting to cross a boundary into another man’s “territory.” While this logic is deeply rooted in misogyny, I can speak from experience that it is, unfortunately, the mindset of many men.

To be clear, it is never the fault of a woman for a man’s violence against her. In the case of the Spain sisters, telling Kelly they were not attracted to him was not what killed Samiya and injured Saniya. The blame lies on no one but Kelly. However, it is essential to take every measure you can to ensure your safety when rejecting a man. Until the world takes gender-based crimes seriously, it is up to us to look out for each other.

Jordan Ori is an undeclared sophomore.

Views expressed in the opinions pages represent the opinions of the columnists. The only piece which represents the views of the Pipe Dream Editorial Board is the Staff Editorial.

Designer dogs are sought-after, but many people do not understand the risks of purchasing one. A designer dog is a cross between two purebred dogs, such as a labradoodle, a mix between a labrador retriever and standard poodle. These dogs are popular because they are marketed as having certain qualities, like shedding less, being more suitable for those with allergies and appearing unique aesthetically. However, mixing the genetics of two separate breeds is unpredictable. For instance, when a golden retriever and a poodle are mixed, the puppy can inherit the poodle’s low shedding coat, but other times, they will inherit the hairy golden retriever coat, leading those seeking a hypoallergenic dog to possibly reject their dog. Additionally, many health and genetic issues can arise when cross-breeding these dogs, such as heart conditions, joint issues, hip dysplasia and brachycephalic airway syndrome, which causes respiratory abnormalities.

Another reason why people advocate for adoption over buying bred dogs is the neglect of shelter dogs that occurs when designer dog and purebred puppies are sought out. There is undeniably a crisis of shelter overpopulation. According to the same ASPCA study, 3.1 million dogs live in animal shelters across the United States while about only two million are adopted each year, and 390,000 are euthanized annually for space issues. Unfortunately, if a change is not made, these numbers will likely increase. Since 2021, there has been a surge in shelter overpopulation, primarily due to COVID-19. Also, since the cost of having a pet rose during the pandemic, owners opted to skip an estimated three million spay and neuter surgeries from 2020 to 2021, resulting in an influx of puppies, only further increasing the costs of veterinary and pet food services according to the Federal Reserve.

The nonprofit Best Friends Animal Society, which operates the nation’s largest no-kill sanctuary for companion animals, has implemented a mission called “No-Kill 2025.” Their goal is for every shelter to reach a 90 percent no-kill benchmark, with the other 10 percent only being animals that have to be euthanized due to extreme medical and behavioral issues, by 2025. They plan to accomplish this through foster programs, spay and neuter services, community outreach programs, animal-friendly legislation, funding for shelter medicinal costs and, of course, adoption. While they recognize that there are systemic issues that can not be fixed by individuals, it is evident that the demand for designer breeds neglects shelter dogs.

I’m a member of Binghamton University’s club, Paws and Effect, which offers weekend volunteer excursions at Project Paw, Willow’s Wings Animal Sanctuary and the Broome County Humane Society. I volunteer at the Broome County Humane Society, which is a no-kill shelter that houses dogs, cats and occasionally smaller furry animals while also providing vaccines, boarding, grooming, euthanasia and cremation services. On a typical weekend, a Paws and Effect member will be tasked with cleaning cat enclosures, walking dogs and doing laundry. It is impossible to leave without your heartstrings being tugged at.

The kennel section is extremely loud, as dogs often whine, bark and stomp in their kennels all day long. It is like a chain reaction — once one dog feels anxious, the rest will follow, creating a cacophony of chaos. Upon entering, it may seem like the dogs are unhinged or aggressive, but once the dogs are brought outside for their walks, most of them calm down immensely. As much as the Humane Society tries to make their dogs feel at home in the shelter, no dog is meant to spend their life in a kennel.

There have been several occasions in which I have had to carry dogs out of their kennels because they have been too scared to walk through the noisy section into the outdoors. But once outside, their faces light up and they become entirely different dogs. I always feel a sense of guilt when I have to bring them back inside because I know I am taking away their freedom. I have been volunteering since my freshman year and I have had the pleasure of getting to know individual dogs and their personalities. While the Humane Society moves around dogs pretty quickly, long-term residents, senior dogs and bully breed typically have behavioral issues and medical needs. While not every home should have a dog, every dog deserves a home.

No one who currently has a dog from a breeder should feel ashamed or guilty because they, of course, also deserve loving homes. Going forward, though, prospective owners have an ethical obligation to adopt from shelters due to the epidemic of overcrowding, senseless slaughter of dogs and the genetic issues that arise from breeding. If you only want a pet on the condition that it’s expensive and designer, then you should not own a pet. There is a foreseeable future where there is a balance between breeders and shelters, but until the crisis of shelter overcrowding is over and dogs are no longer being killed for not getting picked, it is imperative that prospective owners choose the adoption route.

Jordan Ori is an undeclared sophomore.

Views expressed in the opinions pages represent the opinions of the columnists. The only piece which represents the views of the Pipe Dream Editorial Board is the Staff Editorial.

One has to wonder if these justices even know what the IVF process is or what embryos even are. Embryos themselves are objectively not children. While one could argue that they are living, to assign them the same rights as a three-year-old, for instance, is outrageous to the point where it is comical. Instead, they are clusters of cells that may eventually form into a fetus. They have no consciousness, no heartbeat nor any defining human characteristics. The process of IVF is a complicated one in which mature eggs are extracted and fertilized by sperm in a lab, and then that embryo is inserted into the uterus. While costly, this is an amazing procedure for women struggling with fertility issues. For instance, according to Forbes Health, a 2022 study concluded that the pregnancy rate for women under the age of 30 who had completed an embryo transfer was approximately 69 percent. For many women struggling with infertility, especially those over the age of 35, IVF is their last hope and resort.

However, one by one, Alabama reproductive clinics have been suspending IVF treatments in fear of lawsuits. IVF is not a perfect science, and lab-created embryos are not guaranteed to turn into a viable pregnancy and may even take multiple rounds of treatment for success. According to statistics from the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology, for women who are aged between 35 and 37, the success rate for IVF is approximately 38 percent. For those women aged 38 to 40, the percentage drops to approximately 25 percent and for women aged 41 to 42, it is then even lower at approximately 13 percent. Since IVF does not always work successfully in the first round, not all embryos will be viable and may need to be discarded.

This ruling has left IVF technicians scrambling for jobs and women who are currently going through the IVF process dumbfounded. In an interview with ABC News, 34-year-old Alabama native and IVF patient Jasmine York said, “We’re frustrated. Now, especially that a decision has been made to put everything on pause, I’m sad. I’ve had my moments of crying throughout the whole day and I’m angry. I’m angry that other people get to make a decision about whether or not I get to grow my family.” Here, York touches on the very crux of this issue, that the government should not have a say over an individual’s bodily autonomy.

In a concurring opinion to the decision made by the court, Chief Justice Tom Parker wrote, “The principle itself — that human life is fundamentally distinct from other forms of life and cannot be taken intentionally without justification — has deep roots that reach back to the creation of man ‘in the image of God.’ Parker and those who agree with him state that this ruling is protecting “babies” by holding people liable for the destruction of embryos. However, it has only stopped the creation of future babies via IVF. Since IVF clinics have been suspending their practices, this new ruling has been preventing women from becoming pregnant.

Additionally, it is incredibly inappropriate that Parker chose to cite the Christian Bible in his opinion. Parker and the justices who agree with him have not cited science to justify their ruling and instead have relied entirely on religious scripture that has been translated and mistranslated over centuries. This is problematic because it is common knowledge that the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution famously calls for the separation of church and state by emphasizing that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” Moreover, citing the Bible as the sole reason for creating or interpreting a law is not constitutional, and forcing your religion upon others is oppressive. Parker and those who voted in favor of this law have no respect for the document that created this country, which happens to be the document that it is their job to uphold. They work under the guise of being faith-based conservatives but, in reality, are anti-American tyrants who want to dismantle the progress this country has made.

To me, it is evident that this law is not truly about IVF, but instead about controlling women’s bodies. Ever since the overturning of Roe v. Wade in June of 2022, reproductive rights in red states have been decreasing rapidly. If the Alabama Supreme Court can get even frozen embryos to be considered life, it becomes easier for them to argue that fetuses are living as well. Regardless of your personal opinions surrounding abortion procedures, reproductive rights are not something that can be sacrificed. If you take away one right, such as abortion, the rest of reproductive rights will follow, as demonstrated by this new ruling. So now, more than ever, as the 2024 election quickly approaches, it is important to consider which candidates support women’s rights and which see women as second-class citizens.

Jordan Ori is an undeclared sophomore.

Views expressed in the opinions pages represent the opinions of the columnists. The only piece which represents the views of the Pipe Dream Editorial Board is the Staff Editorial.

One of the main ways they spew their rhetoric is through podcasting. Their podcasts are often just one or two people with microphones spilling their bigoted beliefs. However, other podcast setups involve a large group. Popular podcasts that follow this structure, such as “Whatever” and “Fresh and Fit,” consist of one or two moderators, a couple of red-pilled male guests, maybe one “angry feminist” or “traditional woman” and a slew of women who participate in OnlyFans or other forms of sex work. These podcasts also feature live chats where viewers can comment and pay to have questions answered. A quick Google search of both of the aforementioned podcasts will reveal that they claim to be podcasts about modern dating. However, it is clear that their sole purpose is to humiliate women and make them appear crazy to an audience that cannot deduce their bias.

These podcasts predominantly make money off of insecure young men who have had little to no luck in the dating field. Instead of reflecting and trying to figure out why wooing women is difficult for them, young men’s insecurities often blind them into thinking that all women are the problem. As a result, they take their anger out by watching these podcasts and degrading the female guests in the chat. By seeing women who are not scholars and have no debate training get flustered by loaded questions, they receive validation that women are the problem and not men.

Two questions that these podcasts ask the women often go viral. The first one is “rate your looks on a scale of one to 10.” This functions as a humbleness test, in that when a woman claims to be a 10, the moderator(s) will humble her and tell her that she is not perfect or even bring out makeup wipes to see if she will change her answer. If the woman says she is confident in herself, they will refute that true confidence is to admit you are not a 10. The chat will accordingly respond, calling the woman egotistical and delusional. The sole purpose of this question is for men to laugh at these women. However, there is no objective beauty, so these women are not wrong for thinking they are perfect 10s. So-called beauty measurements are largely regarded as pseudoscience and hold no validity since beauty standards are constantly changing.

Another common question is women’s “body count,” meaning how many sexual partners they have had. Many women choose not to answer, to which the chat responds that it must be absurdly high, and the ones that do answer often have a relatively high number of sexual partners compared to the average woman who has 4.3, according to the CDC. This is, of course, due to the fact that their typical female guest is a sex worker who is not representative of the average woman in the dating field. While data on the number of female sex workers in the United States is notoriously hard to obtain, it is safe to say that the vast majority of women are not sex workers, and the ones that are may not have entered the industry by choice. However, the young impressionable audience is too distracted by their hatred of women to think critically about why these women have high body counts and what systemic structures have allowed them to obtain this number of sexual partners.

These podcasts are rage bait, designed to spark controversy for views and appeal to men who hold misdirected anger toward women. Their structure of highlighting sex workers convinces deeply troubled men that the average woman in the dating field is an OnlyFans girl who capitalizes off of men, resulting in a skewed perception of the women around them.

The implication of these podcasts may prove to be detrimental for both men and women. The incel community that these podcasts foster is one that often leads to violence against women and the self-harm of men. As of 2020, American law enforcement attributed 50 murders in the previous six years to violent incels and a 2019 incels.co survey indicated that 67.5 percent had considered suicide at some point in their lives due to the loneliness they felt regarding sex and relationships. Podcasts like “Whatever” and “Fresh and Fit” allow for these harmful thoughts to fester while simultaneously milking money out of their suffering viewers. Moreover, it is imperative that we, as media consumers ignore these types of podcasts and encourage the men in our lives to do so as well so that they do not end up on a path of violence and bigotry.

Jordan Ori is an undeclared sophomore.

When she released what has been dubbed her magnum opus, “Norman f***ing Rockwell,” in 2019, many thought she would take home her first Grammy, but she left empty-handed. Following the 2020 Grammys, Del Rey released two more albums, “Chemtrails Over The Country Club” and “Blue Banisters,” which received critical acclaim, but not enough mainstream success to fall on the Grammy radar.

Then, in March of 2023, she released “Did you know that there’s a tunnel under Ocean Blvd,” which has helped launch Del Rey’s career back into the public eye. This soul-bearing album goes deeper than any Lana album before, exploring themes such as loss, mental health struggles, sexual assault, familial dysfunction, retrospection and the desire to leave a legacy. Opposed to some of her well-known pop songs, the songs on this album follow less of a rigid structure and rely more on lyricism than the music itself. The departure from her Americana bad-girl persona to a tragic starlet worried about being lost to time is something out of a Tennessee Williams play. In her song “Fingertips,” Del Rey recounts the lowest moments of her life through a stream of consciousness, and on the album’s two interludes, Del Rey giggles and screams over prayers and piano notes. This uniqueness from such a popular artist is part of what makes this album so captivating — both to the general public and to critics. This album has been highly acclaimed, with Variety calling it an “Emotional Tour De Force” and The Guardian describing it as “bold and enthralling.” Del Rey’s songwriting in this album paints a story for the listener and takes them on a journey through her inner psyche. It’s heartbreaking, beautiful and deeply authentic.

Going into 2024, Del Rey will be headlining the first day of Coachella as well as competing for five Grammy awards, including Album Of The Year, Song Of The Year, Best Alternative Music Album, Best Alternative Music Performance and Best Pop Duo/Group Performance. Now more than ever, it is time for the Grammys to recognize her achievements.

Other nominated artists, who have already won Grammys, such as Billie Eilish and Olivia Rodrigo, cite Del Rey as an inspiration. During an episode of the podcast “At Your Service,” Eilish told fellow artist Dua Lipa that Del Rey’s debut album “Born To Die” “changed music … And especially changed music for girls and the potential of what is possible.” Meanwhile, Rodrigo has said, “Lana’s work taught me how effective sentimentality can be in songwriting … She defies any stereotypes of what a woman writing pop songs should or shouldn’t be. She’s constantly pushing boundaries and making work that is fresh, adventurous and unabashedly feminine.” Even Taylor Swift has called Del Rey “the most influential artist in pop.”

While all these women are worthy of recognition and acclaim, it feels like a cultural loss for the Grammys to recognize them and not the artist they look up to in common. It is one thing to be an incredible singer, gifted songwriter or skilled performer, but it is another to be a trailblazer. Del Rey struggled and faced the cruelty of the music industry so that future artists like her would have a better experience. Throughout her career, Del Rey has used her music to pave the way for other female pop artists to write about difficult topics and embrace melancholy. Del Rey is not the perfect ingenue in that she is too opinionated, too dreary and too defiant. She does not cater to the mainstream pop audience in a way that is palatable. Yet, this is precisely why she has garnered such a large audience. She is a pioneer who has defied convention and pushed the boundaries of what is acceptable in the mainstream music industry. Both Del Rey’s sound and aesthetic are deeply recognizable and will remain an influence on generations of younger artists. For the Grammys not to recognize Del Rey’s talent this year would be a loss akin to the neglect of the actual tunnel that sits abandoned under Ocean Blvd.

Jordan Ori is an undeclared sophomore.

The politicization of Christmas can occasionally make it uncomfortable to spread holiday cheer with others. One talking point that is often brought up when discussing the possibility of an organized attempt to destroy Christmas is the fact that many people and institutions are opting to say “happy holidays” or “season’s greetings” rather than “Merry Christmas.” Many see “happy holidays” as a form of secularization and a replacement for a more Christian-centered greeting. However, in reality, the term “happy holidays” can be dated all the way back to 1863. The reason for the current rising popularity of the term stems from the intention to provide affirmation and inclusion for individuals of non-Christian faiths throughout the holiday season.

Moreover, it is a way of extending a sense of recognition to those who celebrate Hanukkah or Kwanzaa, among other holiday traditions. But still, some Christians feel offended by the acknowledgment that Christmas is not the only December holiday. The people who are angered by phrases like “happy holidays” fail to see that the addition of other holiday greetings into the American vernacular is not an attack on Christmas specifically, but rather an attempt to make people of all faiths feel welcome. Likewise, the desire to place Christmas above other holidays when it comes to greetings is problematic in its own right. People who fear inclusion fear it because they thrive in a system of exclusion. Instead of looking at “happy holidays” as an attack, it should be looked at as an effort to honor different cultures and religions, which should be exciting instead of scary.

Another war on Christmas allegation is that the meaning of Christmas is being demeaned because of the increase of non-Christians celebrating the holiday. While Christmas represents the birth of Christ, the way it is celebrated in a modern and cultural sense is not necessarily religious. The actual day when Jesus was born is not recorded, and Dec. 25 is thought to have been influenced by Saturnalia. Saturnalia was a pre-Christian Roman holiday from Dec. 17 to 23 on the Julian calendar, which was meant to prepare for the winter solstice on Dec. 25. It was created to honor the agricultural god Saturn and celebrate the promise of a successful spring harvest. Saturnalia was celebrated by decorating homes with wreaths and other greenery, feasting, giving gifts and lighting candles — all of which are standard practices in Christmas celebrations today. There was also a temporary overturning of social norms, such as enslaved people and enslavers dining together, similar to the effort many modern Christmas celebrators make to be more kind. As Rome became Christianized, the modern holiday of Christmas began to be celebrated in Rome on Dec. 25. Although Christmas is a different holiday with a completely different meaning, the way its festivities have been historically celebrated can be traced back to Saturnalia. Furthermore, Christians should not be angry at non-Christians for celebrating Christmas from a cultural perspective rather than a religious one, as the traditions associated with Christmas predate its religious origins.

It would be problematic for people to try and remove the religious meaning of Christmas from those who celebrate, but spreading jolliness, merriment and kindness can be observed by non-Christians during the holiday season. Getting a Christmas tree or hanging a wreath on your door is not directly connected to the Bible or Christianity, so these practices and practices like them are not an attempt to appropriate Christian tradition but rather foster a sense of community.

I am not Jewish, but as a child, I was often invited to spend Hanukkah with my friends who were. Despite not being a part of it, I enjoyed learning about their culture and sharing their holiday practices with them. I wish the people who believe Christmas should only be for hardcore Christians could see the beauty of sharing cultures. The holiday season should be a source of joy and inclusion, rather than one of religious and political turmoil.

Jordan Ori is an undeclared sophomore.

I was talking to my friend — with whom I often go to the gym — about my ideas for this article, and she summed up what I wanted to say perfectly — “Every time a man gets close to me in the gym, I flinch because I’m afraid he’s gonna berate me.” We had this conversation on a day she went to the gym, and, after debriefing about her experience that day, she texted me, “Anytime a man looked in my direction, I immediately just thought, ‘oh god, am I doing something wrong.’”

This trend and other forms of harassment at the gym are all too common. In 2021, OriGym, a United Kingdom-based athletic course provider, surveyed 1,000 gym-goers of “all genders” for their “Gym-timidation Report.” They found among the people surveyed that six out of 10 women had experienced harassment at the gym from a man, two out of five women had avoided the gym after being made uncomfortable by a man and nearly half of the women surveyed reported wanting to go to the gym with a friend or partner because men make them feel uncomfortable while alone.

I myself have been in this situation multiple times while working out in the East Gym and at my gym back home. The first time was last year when, while practicing my boxing for my all-female Pink Gloves Boxing class on the only punching bag in the gym, I noticed two men whispering about me, which made me feel uneasy. One of them approached me and told me that my punches lacked “power” and asked if he could show me something. I politely said no, but he would not leave. I felt I had no choice but to let him show me what he wanted to do and when he finished, I immediately left the gym. All I wanted to do was practice my form for my class later, which my female instructor had taught me, but I left feeling humiliated. The entire reason I joined an all-female boxing course was because I did not feel comfortable being around men who would never see me as skilled or athletic enough.

For me and many others, going to the gym is a very vulnerable experience. When working out, I don’t want to feel like I am on display for others to critique. The idea that someone is watching me and analyzing the way I exercise as I am sweaty and flustered is demeaning, to say the least. It is essential to be mindful of the fact that not everyone is comfortable with specific social interactions with strangers and that what you may think is friendly might trigger feelings of anxiety in others.

One could argue that this has nothing to do with gender, but in my two years of going to the gym, I have never seen a man approach another man to give him advice or tell him how his form is wrong. This is probably out of precaution for hurting another man’s ego, but somehow, when it comes to women, they feel as if they are obligated to give them advice.

The bottom line is that women do not want your unsolicited advice, regardless of what your intentions are. If you would not critique a man’s form while at the gym, what gives you the right to critique a woman’s? Unless someone is doing something extremely dangerous in their workout and is at serious risk of harming themselves, many people would prefer to exercise without interruption. There is a difference if you are a personal trainer employed by the gym walking around and giving tips, but if you are just some random man, who are you to tell me what I am doing is not good enough? Am I supposed to believe you are more knowledgeable about the gym than me just because you are male? Nobody wants to be told what they are doing is wrong by someone who is not even qualified to critique them. Of course, not all men do this, but there are enough men who do to make women weary of any man who approaches her at the gym. I urge every man who goes to the gym to be mindful of what they say to women, so that it does not become a place where we feel even more unwelcome.

Jordan Ori is an undeclared sophomore.

The term “satanic panic” refers to the 1980s and ‘90s phenomenon of widespread hysteria surrounding the alleged existence of Satanists hiding in plain sight, performing ritualistic acts of abuse and indoctrinating people through music and other entertainment forms. While these countless accusations were unsubstantiated, they became popular nationwide and had detrimental implications, such as the ostracization of people who did not fit into the Christian norm and the stigmatization of religious organizations who use values of “Satanism” rhetorically to call for political freedom and social justice.

For instance, in May of 1993, three young boys were found brutally murdered and mutilated, causing residents of West Memphis, Arkansas, to believe they were killed in a satanic ritual. Almost immediately, Damien Echols, an 18-year-old high school dropout, was accused of the crime. Echols was a self-proclaimed “wiccan” who wore all black, read gothic novels and listened to Metallica, which deeply disturbed his Bible Belt neighbors. He was arrested along with two other young men. During their trial, the prosecution argued that Echols was the leader of a satanic cult and murdered the boys for a ritual despite a complete lack of DNA evidence. Although the prosecution’s case was entirely circumstantial, the two other men were sentenced to life in prison while Echols was sentenced to death. However, viable DNA evidence was finally recovered in 2010 and suggested that the original West Memphis Three were innocent, and all three men were freed via an Alford Plea. An Alford Plea is a very complicated guilty plea where the defendant maintains their innocence but recognizes that there is enough evidence for a jury to find them guilty. Today, Echols is a writer, artist and activist for those wrongly convicted. He is also a symbol of the harmful effects of satanic panic.

Christian extremists definitely got it wrong with Echols, but even when vilifying modern satanism, they misunderstand the religion they’re so afraid of. The primary satanic religious organization in the world and the United States is The Satanic Temple (TST). TST is a non-theistic organization that sees Satan as a literary figure representing defiance of abusive authority and a tool for social justice rather than an actual being. According to their website, “The Mission Of The Satanic Temple Is To Encourage Benevolence And Empathy, Reject Tyrannical Authority, Advocate Practical Common Sense, Oppose Injustice And Undertake Noble Pursuits.” Their work is political rather than religious in the traditional sense, and they are far more inclusive than most denominations of Christianity.

TST was specifically founded to point out the United States government’s Christian bias despite the separation of church and state. For instance, one of their most well-known campaigns is their Satanic Representation Campaign. According to their website, this representation can include “erecting a religious statue on public property, delivering a prayer before a government meeting, displaying a religious decoration during holidays in a public space, distributing religious literature in public schools and participating in community improvement activities such as cleaning up public parks and highways.” This often sparks outrage and attempts to exclude TST from public spaces where other religious organizations frequent despite these same spaces claiming to support religious freedoms. Moreover, this selective outrage demonstrates the hypocrisy that the general American public and legislators have when it comes to religious expression. Time and time again, TST proves that religious freedom only exists in the United States if the government respects your religion.

At the moment, TST’s primary focus is reproductive rights. As well as suing various states for their restrictive abortion laws violating their religious practices, TST started a free telehealth abortion clinic in New Mexico that allows people to get abortions under the guise of religious freedom. Their so-called “religious abortion ritual” exempts TST members from abortion regulations when seeking to terminate a pregnancy, therefore providing safe access to abortions. They also advocate for schools, public spaces, government institutions and addiction recovery groups to not force Christianity on people. Is this advocacy something to be fearful of?

People cannot be forced into Christianity in the same way people cannot be forced into satanism. Just because you believe you have found the superior way to live does not give anyone the right to judge or oppress others for having a different opinion. Students across the United States are forced to stand for the pledge of allegiance every morning, say the lines “one nation under God” and attend religious studies classes even though they may not believe in God. Yet people become outraged when an organization like TST starts a “satanic” afterschool club. To complain about satanic indoctrination while youths are constantly forced to adhere to Christian beliefs and practices is hypocritical.

So, if you ever come across a satanic conspiracy video on social media, like TikTok or Instagram, ask yourself who is posting this, what their sources are, what political agenda they might have and how it could affect people.

Jordan Ori is an undeclared sophomore.

Immediately, tabloids pounced on the story with a clear agenda. Articles about Sophie Turner had headlines like “[Jonas] tried to ‘salvage’ marriage to [Turner] but her ‘partying’ took a toll and he filed for divorce as a ‘last resort’ to do what was ‘best’ for daughters” and “[Turner] spotted downing shots at a bar days before [Jonas] filed for divorce.” Meanwhile, articles about Jonas sported titles such as “[Jonas] Steps Out for Breakfast with His Two Daughters amid Divorce from [Turner]” as paparazzi photos of him out to breakfast with their two children began to go viral. It was clear the tabloids had chosen their side — Jonas was an attentive father, and Turner was an untamable party girl. But the internet did not buy it. Fans were quick to point out that the concocted narrative that Turner is a neglectful mother holds no merit and that attacking a woman’s motherhood is inherently misogynistic.

The Jonas Brothers are currently on the United States leg of their world tour, and Jonas and Turner’s daughters have been traveling on tour with the band. However, Turner has been filming the upcoming television series “Joan” in Europe. Logically, Jonas would be with the children because he is not the parent currently working abroad.

Jonas is not “father of the year” for doing the bare minimum and feeding his children in the same way that Turner is not a “bad mother” for working. Some internet users have suggested that Turner should be at home with her young children rather than shooting a new series in another country. But why would she be obligated to give up her career if Jonas is not? By the same school of thought, he should not be on tour currently. The idea that a woman’s life has to revolve solely around her children is harmful rhetoric used to subordinate women and confine them to domestic life.

Eagle-eyed fans also pointed out that the photos of Turner “downing shots” were from a wrap party celebrating finishing filming in the United Kingdom for “Joan” before moving on to Spain to film the rest. Wrap parties are a tradition when filming is complete. Why should she be the only actor facing backlash for attending such a common occurrence, especially when her male counterparts do it all the time? Just because she has young children does not mean she should not be able to have a drink and celebrate her hard work. Even if it is true that Turner likes to go out and drink, is that an issue? Just because she has children does not mean she should not be able to do the same things as other people in their 20s.

Another issue that irks me about this “party girl” narrative is that, in heterosexual relationships, if the man is the one who goes out and parties, they often do not receive criticism as harshly as the woman in the relationship. In fact, it can be expected for the man to enjoy partying and the woman to prefer staying at home. It is only when we see this reversal of roles that people adopt this holier-than-thou attitude where women are looked down upon for the same things men do. In a society that claims to treat men and women equally, we cannot continue to perpetuate this double standard.

Society places impossible expectations on mothers and women in general. If you have a life outside of your children, you are not an attentive mother, and if you stay at home, you’re lazy. While it is unfair for the public to speculate about the parenting of either party, the media’s rush to label Turner as a lousy mother while excusing Jonas’ actions stems from a societal trend to make women scapegoats.

It is impossible to escape sensationalized social media headlines, so it is essential to think critically about what you consume and what biases may be present. There does not need to be a villain in the Turner-Jonas divorce. We, the public, must accept that we do not know what caused their marriage to fall apart and that we are not entitled to that information.

Jordan Ori is an undeclared sophomore.