Hack Attack

Angry boys can cause unexpected harm

It's amazing how the rules of life change. Take anger. As a boy, I was able to express my anger in any way I saw fit--screaming, crying, yelling--the usual childish responses.

Kimberly Andrews made me real angry. Little Miss Fourth Grade Perfect. Perfect blue eyes, perfect blond hair, perfect white dress. Perfect, perfect, perfect.

After a math test or an essay was handed back, Kimberly and her ponytail would skip down the hall to her mother's awaiting arms. "Look mom, another A!"

One day Kimberly made me so angry that my 9-year-old blood reached the boiling point. It was creative writing time. The topic was "purple," and Kimberly wrote some schmaltzy story about a little Purple Iris blowing in the wind.

You'll have to understand that at the time Prince and his movie Purple Rain were the hippest things a fourth-grader could imagine. It made perfect sense to me that I should write a spin-off entitled "Purple Pain." The star of the story was the lauded rock star Priss who wore purple lace and rubbed it all over himself. I was quite proud of my creation. I mean, hey, this was creative writing and all.

When the papers were handed back, Mrs. Lumley's comments on my story were rather brief: "D-" and "Inappropriate."

Kimberly laughed at me with victory, at which time I grabbed her paper, tore it in two and slugged her right in the stomach.

It felt great. I was able to lash-out in the most immature manner I could conceive.

But at some point in our lives we learn that anger and immaturity are not the most productive means of expression. So what happens when a boy reaches the age of maturity and finds himself ignorant of the destructive potential of his vehemence?

This question is pathetically answered in the January 19th edition of the Oregon Commentator.

In addition to the usual boyish bragging about drinking and sex, the Commentator included a list entitled, "Top 75 Reasons Why Women (Bitches) Should Not Have Freedom of Speech."

The list was written by four first-year students at Cornell University and has circulated around the Internet for months.

Included in the list are No. 20: "This is my dick. I'm gonna fuck you. No more stupid questions."; No. 39: "Of course, if she can't speak, she can't say no."; and No. 47 "Nothing should come out a woman's mouth, SWALLOW BITCH!"

Those of the Commentator claim that they oppose the list but were forced to include it for the purpose of providing context to the Cornell Internet debacle.

However, the manner in which the accompanying article makes light of the list suggests that the Commentator writers thoroughly enjoyed the list and simply cited a convenient excuse to revel in a boy's angry fantasy.

Let it be noted that the Cornell story ran in several national publications, including The New York Times; none of them printed the list. Tantamount to saying, "To write a story about manure we must include a picture of manure so that you know what it looks like," the claim that the list had to be included with the story is insulting.

The Commentator calls the list merely "a bad joke" and argues that only "the easily offended" will be bothered.

No. 38: "If she can't speak, she can't cry rape."

Please tell me who is offended by this? Is it those overly sensitive men who, when hearing such "humor," think about their sisters, their mothers or their wives? Is it those paranoid women who are imprisoned at night because they feel unsafe walking outside?

On these boys' playground, fearful women are merely intruders who simply don't know how to have fun. So how does one explain to a child that a joke about invading a woman should not be described as a "form of humor"?

The Commentator argues that "there is a clear line between thought and action." This incomplete observation ignores the effects of symbolic discourse.

No, I do not believe that a man might read this list and proceed to rape a woman. However, I do believe that symbols lead to thoughts, and thoughts lead to action.

Not long ago members of Israel's opposition party plastered posters of Yitzhak Rabin dressed in a Nazi uniform throughout the streets of Jerusalem. Party leaders organized rallies where Rabin was labeled the next Hitler. Two weeks later Rabin was assassinated. The study of propaganda is rich with examples that demonstrate the interconnection between words and action.

Statements such as No. 10: "They should just shut up and obey anyway." do more than express humor. They create a fantasy world where women can be objectified, violated and discarded without remorse.

Like prepubescent children circling around a girlie magazine in the bathroom, the writers of the Commentator laugh without remorse.

They cannot even fathom the destruction of their banter.

It sure is hard when you're dealing with boys.

Keith Cunningham, a senior majoring in English, is a columnist for the Emerald

The story concerning the infamous "List of 75 Reasons," written by one of the female staff writers, Jessica Shebley, took the position that the boys who wrote the list were terribly stupid and decried their ignorance, but also stated that they had every right to be stupid. The article also stated that the list did have its moments but that it was largely unhumorous and, in places, offensive. This article also precipitated a later Emerald piece, also by Cunningham, that referred to Farrah Bostic as "the epitome of Clarence Thomas tokenism." Farrah, who was Managing Editor at the time, also held a seat on the OC Board of Directors and Editorial Board--both of which held a 2-1 female majority.

The only thing that ever came of this controversy was the general knowledge that Keith Cunningham was a complete freak who used to punch little girls because they were smarter than him and who somehow equated an article that clearly came out against the ignorant, misogynistic Cornell Four with Nazi-ism and the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin. --Ed.

Excerpted below are some naughty bits from an Emerald opinion piece authored last year by OC-editor-turned-bitter-Emerald-hack Thomas Schoenborn. The staff, especially Publisher Farrah Bostic, was so hurt by this unexpected attack that we all laughed a little and then went for a drink, deciding that this warranted no response (until now, apparently). --Ed.

Commentator Fails in its Task

By turning to petty shots at 'fascist cops' and rambling commentaries on nothing, the magazine is ignoring its conservative roots.

My freshman year, I wrote a column for the Oregon Commentator that bashed the Student Insurgent for how poorly it looked and read. The Insurgent was using about 50 fonts, pictures of staff members on the front page and hand-written captions.

To write today's column, I was sorely tempted to replace the words "Student Insurgent" with "Oregon Commentator" and just reprint the damn thing. My former magazine has resorted to whining instead of reporting and being sarcastic instead of funny.

The Commentator also looks terrible. The pictures are too dark, too pixelated and quite often don't have a damn thing to do with the stories. The one graphic highlight is the striking young man next to former publisher Justin Good in the now-permanent editorial photo.

These graphical shortcomings can be overlooked. There was an exodus of graphics-oriented veteran staffers over the summer. Coupled with a new design, problems can be expected. The staff told me they're more aware than anybody about the design problems.

What should not be overlooked is the increasing liberalization of the magazine I used to call home. There is a difference between cynicism and conservatism, between sarcasm and humor. The Commentator is blurring these lines more with every issue.

For me, the Commentator was about the idea that America is a pretty darn good place to live and that we should appreciate the lives a free country allows us to lead. It was about the promise of free booze, too, but mostly of freedom.

In the Nov. 5 issue's "Nobody Asked Us, But..." section, the staff whines about the police blocking off the street during the Halloween night bust of a party gone bad.

Apparently, a police officer was a little less than cordial with the offending staffers. A story about the officer and his lack of manners would have been great. A story about the police verbally abusing people would have been better. Instead, the Commentator resorted to Insurgent-style journalism, calling the police officer "a fascist bastard" and describing the possible sexual inadequacies of the officer.

Besides becoming inane, the Commentator has also become watered down. Ed Madrid's piece on ASUO Executive big burritos Matthew Scotten and Glen Banfield was completely toothless, if not downright pandering. If either of them sticks around to run for an office next year, I wouldn't be surprised to see excerpts of Madrid's article in their campaign literature.

The idea of offering space to more liberal writers is fine. As I understand it, that is the history of "Another Perspective." Offering a platform to image-concious feminist Alex Tasaday and Student Senate President Kalpana Krishnamurthy for the "One-Shot" column pushes the entire content of the paper further to the left.

The Commentator compounds the problem by allowing the conservative writers to pontificate on just about nothing. Their "stream of consciousness" style of writing, as former editor Ed Carson described it, leaves readers, who desire and expect more from the Commentator, disappointed.

The Commentator is the only conservative magazine on campus. The Emerald editorials lean to the right, to be sure. But nearly all the news stories in the Emerald are about a symposium, discussion group, meeting, protest or some other liberal news-manipulating event.

On a more personal note, I was quite worried about how the Commentator would function this year. I felt during my tenure as editor for the Commentator that I did not always put out a quality product, especially near finals. But I was convinced current Editor-in-Chief Farrah Bostic could crank out a quality product with the fantastic staff she had.

Instead, everyone quit over the summer and all hell broke loose. My worst nightmares became more vivid with each issue published.

A new issue came out earlier this week. The graphics were smoother and the content was much more conservative than before. It was even funny. As I tried to read the parody of the Emerald retraction to the newsroom, I laughed so hard I cried.

But former Publisher Owen Brennan Rounds was in the Commentator office on layout night writing and editing. How much did he lend to the process that improved everything? I suspect quite a bit. Owen has a tendency to not take a backseat, especially with his pet project.

However, I'm convinced that the ever-increasing liberal editorial content, the whiny humor and the sloppy editing will all continue once Owen returns to Portland. It looks different and it reads different. The Commentator is not the magazine it once was.

Thom Schoenborn is a copy chief for the Emerald. His views do not necessarily represent those of the newspaper.

Boy, what a toolbox. If the kid had known what he was talking about (e.g. that the incident with the police officer, who was definitely out of line, happened mere hours before press making impossible any news story or that all Owen Brennan Rounds contributed was beer breath, a little flatulence and some moral support) then he wouldn't have made us so sad that we had to drink before noon. The rest of the story is that the venerable Mr. Schoenborn came to the office to apologize after the issue subsequent to the one he mentioned in the final excerpts went to the stands. The issue he mentions in the opening excerpts as lacking was only the second of the year and the first with both our completely redesigned layout and almost totally new staff. --Ed.