6
opinion Panther Prowler • May 31, 2019 Sarah Lu/Prowler
Do not diminish our intelligence Maya Chari Photographer I would like to preface this article with the fact that I (student) wrote every word, independent of the thought police. As this is the last piece I will be writing for the Prowler, I figure I might as well verbalize my feelings. At the board meeting, on May 7, a speaker in the public comments said the following: “An article published in the Newbury Park Panther Prowler, April 25th edition, shows the depths to which some teachers will go to manipulate their students.” To this, I have a few things to say. It is ironic that the Prowler staff is being diminished to some weak entity that simply regurgitates the words of some orchestrating powerhand, when in fact our paper is a student-run, student oriented and student empowering outlet. And I get it-- some of you I can’t convince; it’s like trying to convince an old white male to reflect on why he cares so much about a blastocyst. I joined the newspaper staff because I wanted to be able to express myself and to be there reporting on the frontlines of local issues that directly affect my peers. It was bittersweet; I expected to receive backlash but I never expected the community to respond by telling me my opinions are not even mine at all, or to twist my words beyond recognition. Spending hours in the cramped Tuesday evening boardroom, taking
notes on public speakers, interviewing students, teachers and board members, and meticulously writing article after article for three years has given me some insight on the nature of the optout policy. The following is my own personal stance, which I have reaffirmed repeatedly but which I will put in simpler language in order to appease any lacking intellect: Opting out is fine. If a student feels they need to opt out, power to them. My grievance is with the way opting out is advertised as a necessary means to protect students from “child pornography” and (most recently, as a white woman pointed out) “racism”. I am angered by the way the opt-out policy came to be without adequate student and teacher representation. I am mad that I have seen students who point out injustices get scoffed off the stage at board meetings, while those who cherrypick and ridicule are elevated. I am upset about the way that intricate and powerful literature is dissected, publicly defamed and slandered. I do not mean, in any way, to marginalize victims of assault, nor have I ever stipulated so. Rather, I argue that these novels contain instrumental messages about gender roles, social dynamics, human nature and political oppression, and should not be taken out of context. I do not argue, as the
speaker specified, that it is “good for abuse victims to be forced to read graphic depictions of child rape.” The speaker on May 7 continued to say that, “We seem to have a real problem in this district with a handful of political activist teachers.” To correct this obvious lack of understanding, the “problem” is a handful of political activist STUDENTS who were long silenced and are now speaking out and speaking loud. I understand that there is a generational divide; that young activists and kids involved in ethics and justice were uncommon prior to millennials. I suppose it is just something that just needs to be adapted to, like cell phones and the microwave. I would like to conclude with a final quote from the speaker: “I’m not sure what planet this advisor lives on.” As I hope I have established, all opinions I have published are mine not my advisor’s. Therefore, I would like to address this ponderance: I live (as a matter of fact), on the earth (which is not flat), in a lovely state called California where my rights as a student journalist are protected under United States federal law. To all you die hard patriots out there, I’m sure you understand what that means. #MayaOut.
Let’s cancel “cancel culture” Daria Azizad Entertainment Editor Nidhi Satyagal Opinion Editor
ca nc el
cu ltu re
In the 522 days until the 2020 Presidential Election, same time. True consistency is not only about minor details democrats are quickly applying the same #CANCELLED in a politicians rhetoric, but also about practicing what is culture that ended James Charles to their weedy list of preached. If the party claims to be built on a platform candidates. If Democrats want to be successful in 2020 they of progress, there needs to be a constant push to center cannot rely on cancel culture to make their decision for them. responses and actions around it. The black and white mentality of this is good and this This is not to discount the evident absurdity of some of the is bad breeds immature evaluations of these Democratic candidates. However, let us not condemn candidates. As a party based on a platform of our last hopes for savior from Trumplandia just progression, democrats cannot substitute because we like the hit of adrenaline we get progress with a bandaid response. Cancel every time someone is trending on Twitter culture creates a cycle where people are because of a mistake. Cancel culture is a put on a pedestal, until they take one wannabe censure by the media. But we step out of line, at which point not cannot allow the media to function as a only do they fall from said pedestal, unilateral moral compass for the political but also supposed to fall off the face landscape. Politicians can be skeevy, of the planet. This kind of quick to unreliable and downright problematic-champion, quick to cancel mentality that much has always been known. But we linearizes human beings in a way that is cannot pretend that one ankle bone is enough not compatible with the idea of progress or of a skeleton to throw away the whole closet. Progressives need to remember that the ultimate Marli Davis/Prowler conducive to a healthy political process. Cancel culture draws clear lines where they are not meant goal is to, I don’t know, progress. Instead, democrats are ready to throw candidates under the bus for mild transgressions to exist, essentially simplifying and rewriting the stories of from vastly different parts of their career. There is simply no these politicians in the easiest possible way for people to room for someone to make small mistakes, learn and move digest. It gives people an easy way out to see exactly what on (otherwise known as progress). Democrats cannot preach they want to see and it diminishes the political process to the value of consistency and subscribe to cancel culture at the flimsy perceptions instead of policies and substance.
Even the best male feminist still sucks Daria Azizad Entertainment Editor Kavita Rai Feature Editor Nidhi Satyagal Opinion Editor We have a nice pal who prides himself on being a feminist. He respects women. He listens when we speak. He doesn’t interrupt us. He stops mansplaining when we call him out on it. However, that all changes when we disagree. Then, we become catty, bossy rude, aggressive and mean. Sometimes, even the best male feminist is first a male, then a feminist. A fair-weather supporter of the cause, if you will. The effort to upend gender inequity and personal bias comes to a halt at any inkling of a storm. In order to have a debate, you need to respect your opponent, which becomes difficult when a woman’s impassioned argumentation is aggressive, confidence is arrogance and emphasis is shouting. Mentry to withdraw and elevate themselves by labelling any fight pertaining to women as “girl drama.” By cheapening a woman’s argument to a “cat fight” or “girl drama,” it becomes impossible to be received with any validity (because, of course, girl drama is hormone fueled and jealousy driven!). Arguing against someone that thinks nonsense of every word that comes out of your mouth is belittling. Women have a double battle to fight: 1) the actual debate and 2) they have something valid to say in the first place. They carry the constant burden to prove that their opinion has worth. Take, for example, the 2020 Presidential Race. We constantly hear how women have no way to win because of the “likeability issue” or how people don’t find women “electable.” How many times do we have to hear how Elizabeth Warren is a crazy lady because she wants to tax the ultra-rich to pay for college. All while Joe Biden regurgitates some tired, substanceless line about bringing people together and automatically becomes the beacon for hope in America. Beto O’Rourke loses a Senate election, leaves his family for weeks to road trip around the country to “find himself ” in the wake of this devastating loss and then announces his presidential candidacy on Vanity Fair, declaring that he was born for the role. And still, people view him as a solid, legitimate candidate. If a woman candidate were to act that way, she’d become the biggest laugh of America. The message is abundantly clear: empty, ridiculous words from men hold far more value than substantive arguments from women. But male “feminists” don’t bat an eye. The notion that a woman can run for president is accepted, but actually winning? Ha! The idea behind this particular brand of feminism is far more about men validating themselves as decent, good quality dudes, not the actual support behind the movement to equality. At the end of the day, it is far easier for a man to make women feel small in order to make himself big. Where a woman can be exploited is where a man reaps his strength. Feminism is not just a buzz word to pin to your vintage Dickies. It also means absolutely nothing when you only apply it at your convenience. To be an actual feminist, you have to constantly monitor your behavior and ask yourself, are my actions the product of ingrained stereotypical modes of thought? Am I being a ninny? But that obviously takes a lot of effort and it is much easier to don those pair of Dickies and call it a day.
