Women who makeup the economy

18 Oct 2011, Posted by Andrew Karim in Backpages, 0 Comments

Women who wear makeup appear more likeable, competent and trustworthy in the eyes of their employers, according to a recent study out of Boston University.

Sophia Palenberg/The Chronicle

The results may have been somewhat skewed (to say the least) as they were conducted with funds from Procter & Gamble, the corporation that sells CoverGirl and Dolce & Gabbana makeup. Despite this questionable act of arguable corporate tampering of the educational research sphere, this article may hold some truth.

In our neo-liberal capitalist economy, it is not uncommon for professional evaluations to be based on everything but actual competence. Be it gender, race or physical appearance, these factors always tend to weave their way into the lens through which we are assessed. This problem, however, is not one that must be anchored to common identity politics that often guise the real issue, for this is not a women’s matter as much as it is a human one.

“I think [the study] misses the point,” said Erin Stephens, program coordinator at the Duke Women’s Center. “We all know that that when you walk into the room, others assess you and that their conclusions about your competency and trustworthiness are strongly informed by societally defined notions of social hierarchy (think appearing white, male, straight and wealthy at the top).”

Stephens further noted the gender divide attributed to the study.

“What does it mean that makeup is only powerful (in America) when women wear it?” she said. “A man goes out in visible makeup and he is ridiculed and stared at. So what kind of power is this? Is it really power or just performance?”

The makeup in this study could very well be replaced with another commodity that traditionally boosts self-esteem, and this argument could just as easily be applied to the little black dress, the layered haircut or the Cartier watch. The point is not specific to makeup on women, but rather the fact that products have the ability to promote a placebo effect of sorts—one that creates the illusion of desirable traits and allows for professional competence has gradually become rooted commodities.

It seems as though the the defining criteria for hiring are rather cemented in the job market. Take note that next time when you check in for an interview, leave your check your coat intellect at the door—you won’t be needing any of that.

Inside the Solo cup

17 Oct 2011, Posted by Hong Zhu in Backpages, 1 Comments

Sophia Palenberg/The Chronicle

Few objects are as quintessentially “college” as the iconic red Solo cup.

For decades, they have been essential guests at college parties, where they often double as liquid containers as well as drinking game instruments. Despite the cup’s regular presence in Facebook albums of collegiate debauchery, it is rarely the subject of deeper consideration.

A recent article  from Slate does just that, however, by pondering the fascinating question of how the cup became a hallmark of the American party scene. As author Seth Stevenson concluded, the cup’s success as a cultural icon can probably be chalked up to a combination of different factors. For one, the company created their product early on, introducing the signature red cups in the 1970s. Solo cups are also sturdier than competitor cups, and the red color psychologically triggers intense emotions that suit the party atmosphere, he added.

Beyond the signature red cups, the Solo Cup Company produces a variety of other products, complete with a long and interesting history. Founded in 1936 as the Paper Container Manufacturing Company, the company’s focus on inexpensive, disposal goods coincided nicely with the needs of cash-strapped Depression-era consumers.

According to its website, Solo sees itself as “a $1.6 billion international company that simplifies life with single-use products, enriching everyday meals and special occasions.”

In other words, more than just flip cup and beer pong.

Solo goes to great lengths to ensure the structural integrity of their cups, said sophomore Kelsey Goon, who worked at the Solo Cup Company over the summer.

The classic round cups featured horizontal ridges that went around the cup, she added. A common myth said that the lines were made for measuring drinks. Goon, however, said that the lines were actually designed for structural integrity: the angle of the cup changes slightly at the ridges, which decreases flimsiness.

As observant drinkers may have noticed, the classic cup was recently redesigned. In 2009, the cup’s base changed from circular to square, and four indented grips were added to the bottom. Goon explained that the change was largely to differentiate the company’s cups from imitation ones, although it also had practical benefits.

“When other companies started making similar party cups, they wanted to set their products apart with the square bottom,” said Goon. “Also, you can use less material and still have it be structurally sound.”

At Duke, plastic cups have served not only as a partying icon, but also as a safety regulation. According to an August 2009 article in The Chronicle, Tailgate rules were revised in 2009 so that beer could only be dispensed in plastic cups, since the aluminum cans were prone to cut people’s feet.

Ironically, Solo’s prominence in the partying scene does not seem to be the result of any intentional marketing by the company. As Goon explained, the cups are not intended just for use at parties.

“If you look at any of their commercials, they don’t advertise for college parties,” she said. “Instead, they advertise for events like picnics.”

Within the Duke bubble, though, it’s safe to say that Solo cups are rarely associated with checkered blankets and packed lunches.

Supervised injection: an intravenous triumph

15 Oct 2011, Posted by Trevor Thomas in Backpages, 0 Comments

This summer Trevor Thomas wrote a series about supervised injection and his experience at a facility in Canada called Insite.

A woman with terrible arthritis came in on May 13 and so she couldn’t prepare her morphine injection—she couldn’t even hold a rig. The track marks on her arm were dark and bumpy. When I lifted her sleeve, I touched them. They felt like the rough spots on a globe that stand for mountains, or the brail underneath men’s room signs. A nurse and I cooked the morphine and pulled it up into a syringe.

After she injected, she fell into a state of deep relaxation. Enlightenment, some might say. Insite was her Bodhi tree and she had been meditating for 49 days—The Dharma in a syringe. But just like Buddha, she eventually got up. She started crying and wanted to call her mom, so I led her to the phone in the chill room. That was the first time they had spoken in years. May 13 was Mother’s Day.

Special to The Chronicle: East Hastings, several blocks from Insite

This was the end of my first week in Vancouver. I was volunteering at North America’s only supervised injection facility, Insite, and this was just another day for me. A supervised injection facility is a type of clinic at which injection drug users can use under the direct supervision of healthcare professionals so that they do not overdose. Additionally, these clinics provide a supply of clean equipment so that users do not share with other users and thus promote the spread of HIV. Insite was opened in 2003 in response to the outrageous HIV/AIDS and overdose death statistics representing the Downtown Eastside. Since its opening, it has been the subject of numerous political debates in Canada, all of which involve the government’s will to shut it down.

There was a monumental Canadian Supreme Court case on the May 12 that was held to decide whether Insite could continue to aid ‘Canada’s Poorest Postal Code,’ or if Downtown Eastsiders would need to find a new method of addiction recovery. On Oct. 7 the decision was released that Insite would indeed continue to operate in Vancouver. The more than 700 people who use Insite daily, the hundreds of staff members who have worked at Insite and the thousands of people who support Insite around the world rejoiced that day.

It was a unanimous decision by the court for the reason that not allowing the facility to remain open would violate the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Many interpret the unanimity as an embarrassing indication of the how invalid the arguments against Insite really were. As I mentioned in my previous articles, there has been absolutely no scientific evidence presented that shows Insite to be harmful in any way. The fact that this May 12 case is the third case from which Insite has emerged victorious only further supports supervised injection’s success in Vancouver. Stephen Harper and the conservative government have been challenging Insite solely with partisan and ideological arguments, and this was clearly demonstrated with the decision on Friday.

Special to The Chronicle: The nurses’ station, at which there are sterile syringes, cookers, tourniquets, and other equipment for use by Insite participants.

One of the most relevant implications of this ruling is that it yields the opportunity for other supervised injection sites to open across Canada. Officials in both Victoria and Toronto are already considering the option. Obvious and appropriate digression, however, must be used. Injection sites aren’t necessary in areas that do not reflect the needs of the Downtown Eastside—you wouldn’t open a facility in Durham, for example, because there is not an HIV or drug overdose epidemic in the area.

The Supreme Court stated that the ruling “is not a license for injection drug users to possess drugs wherever and whenever they wish,” and “nor is it an invitation for anyone who so chooses to open a facility for drug use under the banner of a ‘safe injection facility.’”

Another item worth notice is the discord created within the Supreme Court because of this case. Because one of the major factors encouraging the Insite decision was the empirical proof behind supervised injection, Canadian legislation now must confront the importance of scientific evidence when it comes laws that may worsen the state of a group of individuals. Academics infer that laws governing prostitution, assisted suicide, and minimum prison sentences might now be subject to change. In fact, the Ontario Court of Appeal says that it wants to reopen a case that significantly changed the country’s prostitution laws in light of the Insite decision.

An anonymous Supreme Court judge reported, “it will force us to look at policies and make difficult qualitative judgments about their effects. That is something that leaves a lot of us uncomfortable.”

With more than 1,400 overdoses having occurred at Insite, there is still yet to be a single death, a sobering reminder of this facility’s necessity in the Downtown Eastside and the importance of this decision.

“The federal government will look back and regret the day they took Insite to the Supreme Court,” said Maxine Davis, executive director of the Dr. Peters AIDS Foundation in Vancouver.

Oct. 7 was that day.

I would like to thank David Noble and the Noble Foundation for providing me with the support I needed to travel to Vancouver and observe at Insite. Additionally, I would like to thank Darwin Fisher and Russell Maynard for welcoming me to the facility in May.

DukeEthicist: operation intervention

14 Oct 2011, Posted by Duke Ethicist in Backpages, DukeEthicist, 0 Comments

What is your responsibility to intervene with a friend who has unhealthy habits, and at what point is intervention unhelpful or counter-productive?

If someone is your true friend, you do have the responsibility to look out for him, and he for you. However, you are both entitled to make your own decisions. The decision to intervene should be based on the severity of the unhealthy habit.  For example, if a close friend has recently taken up smoking despite knowing fully the negative health consequences, a single talk would be appropriate.  You could ask him why he started, if he plans to continue and how it makes him feel when he smokes. If after a single talk he insists on continuing, it’s probably best to respect his decision. As an adult, he is responsible for his own body and will have to face the consequences for his choices.

On the other hand, if he were underage and started smoking, a more serious intervention would be appropriate.  If he refused to stop, it may even be best to inform his parents of the situation.  Your friend would probably not thank you for it, but smoking is illegal if you’re under 18 for a founded reason—he could do himself serious, permanent harm.

Also beware of unhealthy habits that become progressively worse.  If your friend’s bad habit of skipping class on Friday occasionally because he was drinking Thursday night turns into him drinking on Wednesdays, Thursdays, Fridays and Saturdays—thereby skipping even more classes—a more serious intervention may be in order. If necessary, enlist CAPS, mutual friends or supportive adults for help. In the end, looking out for your friends just proves how much you care about them.

The Duke Ethicist is a project of the Honor Council which responds to ethical questions posed by the Duke community. Our purpose is to provide a medium through which students may anonymously seek advice or spark dialogue. Got a question? Send it to dukeethicist@gmail.com, and look out for a response on our blog.

It’s over

14 Oct 2011, Posted by Walker Schiff in Backpages, Politics Roundup, 0 Comments

Sophia Palenberg/The Chronicle

I have examined the race for the Republican Nomination for President over the past couple days I have come to the conclusion that the race is over. Sure, the primaries don’t actually start until January but it’s over already and I am officially declaring Mitt Romney the winner. You might be wondering, what about Mitt Romney is going to lead him to victory? What makes Mitt Romney so great? Well, absolutely nothing! You might have thought an article about how Mitt Romney is destined to win the primary race would be about how great Mitt Romney is. But it’s not because he is not that great. Rather I’m going to write about why all the other candidates are not going to win.

Let’s start with Gary Johnson, the former governor of New Mexico. He also climbed Mt. Everest and has competed iron man competitions. Sounds awesome, right? WRONG! However, he likes gay people and supports their right to marry. I’m not saying most Republicans are homophobes, but rather, that most homophobes are Republicans.

Let’s move on to everyone’s favorite candidate-who-never-had-a-chance, Rick Santorum. If you still think Santorum has a chance to win this race, then you haven’t googled his name.

Newt Gingrich is another candidate who is in this race for no apparent reason other than to hear himself talk in debates. Even if all the other candidates were covered in santorum, Gingrich would still lose by double-digits.

Ron Paul is the crazy, old libertarian of the field. Every time he makes a lot of sense in debates but, nobody will ever know because everyone phases him out like they phase out Grandpa when he starts talking about the “good, old days.”

And then, there is Jon Huntsman. The former Ambassador to China under Obama has all the GOP voters asking: Who is this Democrat in our debates?

Now let’s get to some of the real candidates—we’ll start with Michele Bachmann. If her cover photo on Newsweek didn’t convince you she is crazy, I don’t know what will. If this race was decided on who hated abortion and loved kids the most, then she would win. But it’s not. It’s about who hates Obama the most.

Herman Cain has been getting a lot of buzz lately. There are two reasons he won’t win this race: 1) his past work experience is suspect; and 2) he’s black.

“Energized by overcoming the many obstacles of his job at Burger King, Herman took on the biggest challenge of his career,” according to Herman Cain’s website.

THAT IS ACTUALLY ON HIS WEBSITE. Seriously, go look right now! I might have taken it out of context but still, that sentence is actually on his website. Also, he is black. I’m not saying most Republicans are racist, but rather that most racists are Republicans.

Finally there is Ricky Perry, also known as George W. Bush 2.0. Have you watched him in debates? He doesn’t make any sense. At least when Dubya displayed his inability to talk by making up a word or forgetting a figure of speech halfway through saying it, you would somewhat understand what he was trying to say. That is simply not the case with Perry. Also, unless the debates get shortened, his performance is unlikely to get better. I know debates are boring, but Perry could at least pretend to be excited that he in running for President.

And there you have it. Mitt Romney will be challenging Barack Obama in 2012.