Yours truly, the Sheriff, was interviewed for an article in the Mount Holyoke College student newspaper. It is wonderfully written, and fuckin awesome! Many thanks to the lovely Isabel, for my first ever interview.
Please read it here folks!
Much love,
The Albright Sheriff
PS-While I may be sleeping with a sexy jock, I was never even close to being a cheerleader :)
Thursday, September 16, 2010
Tuesday, September 14, 2010
letters to the editor
Smith's Dining Services has recently decided to put nutritional information, including calories, fat, protein, carbs, sodium, and allergy information, on their menu website.
Bluntly, I think this is stupid, and reflects that Dining Services is deeply out of touch with the unfortunately high portion of Smithies that struggle with eating disorders or disordered eating.
So I wrote a mostly polite (while I'd love to have ranted and been more angry, I've learned from past experiences with this sort of thing that it usually doesn't get much done) letter to the editor of the Sophian, Smith's student-run newspaper. We'll see if it runs this week, but here it is below:
As a senior at Smith, I've seen many unfortunate changes take place within our campus and community, many as a result recent budget cuts. Despite this, I adore Smith College, and it pains me when the administration or offices on campus make choices that are out of touch with the needs and desires of the students. Dining Services recent decision to provide nutritional information alongside the online menus strikes me as a choice that, while surely well-intentioned, reflects an ignorance of the type of student body we have.
I've struggled with an eating disorder for nine years, and though recovered now, know many other Smithies who also deal with eating disorders and disordered eating. Although I have no hard facts, my personal estimate is that at least 20% of our campus has had some struggles with this, if not more. It is nearly epidemic. While attempting to fight a mental illness and maintain a real concept of what healthy eating looks like, easy access to calorie counts can be devastating and a real setback. I have no doubt that many of the students dealing with ED on campus can estimate the calories in their food with startling accuracy, but I see no legitimate reason to provide us with the cold hard facts to further enable eating disorders. Even for students who may be trying to lose weight for legitimate health reasons, given Smith's style of dining services, it's hard to make healthy choices if you realize the mac'n'cheese has a bazillion calories, but there's no other real option presented except the salad bar, which does not a dinner make.
I fully support Dining Services in publishing allergy information, ingredient lists, sodium, and the like, and even macronutrients of carbohydrates and protein. Providing this information gives individuals with health conditions the ability to eat with confidence that they won't be adversely affected by their food, and that's great. But to put the fat grams and calorie counts for foods I've eaten, blissfully ignorant of their caloric values, over the past three years seems to be a decision out of touch with the needs of Smith's unique student body. Women already fight an uphill battle in trying to treat their bodies with love and respect, and Smith shouldn't make this any harder than it has to be.
Sincerely,
J.
What're your thoughts about this decision? I for one am currently just not looking on the menus at all, because I know it's dangerous for me the see this kind of information on a regular basis.
Much love,
The Sheriff
ps---I almost signed the letter to the editor as the Sheriff. Over-identification much?
Bluntly, I think this is stupid, and reflects that Dining Services is deeply out of touch with the unfortunately high portion of Smithies that struggle with eating disorders or disordered eating.
So I wrote a mostly polite (while I'd love to have ranted and been more angry, I've learned from past experiences with this sort of thing that it usually doesn't get much done) letter to the editor of the Sophian, Smith's student-run newspaper. We'll see if it runs this week, but here it is below:
As a senior at Smith, I've seen many unfortunate changes take place within our campus and community, many as a result recent budget cuts. Despite this, I adore Smith College, and it pains me when the administration or offices on campus make choices that are out of touch with the needs and desires of the students. Dining Services recent decision to provide nutritional information alongside the online menus strikes me as a choice that, while surely well-intentioned, reflects an ignorance of the type of student body we have.
I've struggled with an eating disorder for nine years, and though recovered now, know many other Smithies who also deal with eating disorders and disordered eating. Although I have no hard facts, my personal estimate is that at least 20% of our campus has had some struggles with this, if not more. It is nearly epidemic. While attempting to fight a mental illness and maintain a real concept of what healthy eating looks like, easy access to calorie counts can be devastating and a real setback. I have no doubt that many of the students dealing with ED on campus can estimate the calories in their food with startling accuracy, but I see no legitimate reason to provide us with the cold hard facts to further enable eating disorders. Even for students who may be trying to lose weight for legitimate health reasons, given Smith's style of dining services, it's hard to make healthy choices if you realize the mac'n'cheese has a bazillion calories, but there's no other real option presented except the salad bar, which does not a dinner make.
I fully support Dining Services in publishing allergy information, ingredient lists, sodium, and the like, and even macronutrients of carbohydrates and protein. Providing this information gives individuals with health conditions the ability to eat with confidence that they won't be adversely affected by their food, and that's great. But to put the fat grams and calorie counts for foods I've eaten, blissfully ignorant of their caloric values, over the past three years seems to be a decision out of touch with the needs of Smith's unique student body. Women already fight an uphill battle in trying to treat their bodies with love and respect, and Smith shouldn't make this any harder than it has to be.
Sincerely,
J.
What're your thoughts about this decision? I for one am currently just not looking on the menus at all, because I know it's dangerous for me the see this kind of information on a regular basis.
Much love,
The Sheriff
ps---I almost signed the letter to the editor as the Sheriff. Over-identification much?
Friday, September 10, 2010
Thursday, September 9, 2010
Dear Smithies, please check your assumptions at the door
I gotta admit it: sometimes I, just like everyone else, get my judgment face on. I make unfair assumptions and say unkind things, usually not too often, but it does happen. But Smithies, as a group, seriously need to put this in check.
I have a friend who has a beautiful car that she brought to school with her this year. She left it parked behind another house on campus, and when she came back to it, found a note on it where someone said she was wasteful and called her a perversion (Perversion? Perhaps this person leaving the note does not really belong at Smith, because as far as I understand it, a fancy car has nothing to do with being morally questionable or sexually lecherous). The cowardice of this act, combined with the fact that this individual in question must have a pretty pathetic life if they get so riled up by a car that they need to scrawl their crude feelings out on a little note, pisses me off.
I know I spend a lot of time, ranting (hopefully with eloquence!) on here about things in society and at Smith that strike me as sexist, classist, or otherwise wrong. And while this note-leaver may have been trying to make a statement of a similar nature, they did it in the wrong way. My friend is a lovely person, is not wasteful, and while she may come from a background of privilege, the person leaving the note didn't know that: they assumed based on certain social markers that can be very misleading.
Similarly, during res life training, an international student chewed me out for saying I thought some Smith's students attitudes towards being hell-bent on getting straight As were unhealthy. She said, "You don't know their circumstances. What if my father sold all his cows so I could attend here and I must get As to make him proud? Not all of us are so lucky as to not worry about grades."
But she also made an assumption right back at me, that I was privileged enough to have parents writing checks left and right to support my education as I make mediocre grades. Which is bullshit. I've paid for my own education, through loans, hard work, multiple part time jobs, and I get great grades. I have been that angry person, cutting coupons to buy cheap mascara at CVS while housemates went to department stores and dropped more on their cosmetics than I could for the entire month. I've gritted my teeth when students I presumed had pampered lives because they didn't have to work at college complained about being stressed while I was working 40 hours a week and carrying a full course load. I've seethed quietly when they complained about their lack of sleep when I was scraping by on four hours and had to go care for someone else's children. But you know what? All that anger never got me anywhere. I had to begin talking to people about it and accepting that no matter how pissed off I was, it wasn't going to give me anymore money or free time or take away theirs.
Point being? Quit making assumptions. Talk to people. Get to know them for who they really are. Subordinate identities, gender identity, mental illnesses, economic class, disabilities, sexual orientation--these things aren't immediately apparent. Your connections with people will be richer, your friendships better, and (honestly, though it sounds cheesy) your life more peaceful if you just take off your judgment face, and hear people out for who they are.
Much love,
The Sheriff
I have a friend who has a beautiful car that she brought to school with her this year. She left it parked behind another house on campus, and when she came back to it, found a note on it where someone said she was wasteful and called her a perversion (Perversion? Perhaps this person leaving the note does not really belong at Smith, because as far as I understand it, a fancy car has nothing to do with being morally questionable or sexually lecherous). The cowardice of this act, combined with the fact that this individual in question must have a pretty pathetic life if they get so riled up by a car that they need to scrawl their crude feelings out on a little note, pisses me off.
I know I spend a lot of time, ranting (hopefully with eloquence!) on here about things in society and at Smith that strike me as sexist, classist, or otherwise wrong. And while this note-leaver may have been trying to make a statement of a similar nature, they did it in the wrong way. My friend is a lovely person, is not wasteful, and while she may come from a background of privilege, the person leaving the note didn't know that: they assumed based on certain social markers that can be very misleading.
Similarly, during res life training, an international student chewed me out for saying I thought some Smith's students attitudes towards being hell-bent on getting straight As were unhealthy. She said, "You don't know their circumstances. What if my father sold all his cows so I could attend here and I must get As to make him proud? Not all of us are so lucky as to not worry about grades."
But she also made an assumption right back at me, that I was privileged enough to have parents writing checks left and right to support my education as I make mediocre grades. Which is bullshit. I've paid for my own education, through loans, hard work, multiple part time jobs, and I get great grades. I have been that angry person, cutting coupons to buy cheap mascara at CVS while housemates went to department stores and dropped more on their cosmetics than I could for the entire month. I've gritted my teeth when students I presumed had pampered lives because they didn't have to work at college complained about being stressed while I was working 40 hours a week and carrying a full course load. I've seethed quietly when they complained about their lack of sleep when I was scraping by on four hours and had to go care for someone else's children. But you know what? All that anger never got me anywhere. I had to begin talking to people about it and accepting that no matter how pissed off I was, it wasn't going to give me anymore money or free time or take away theirs.
Point being? Quit making assumptions. Talk to people. Get to know them for who they really are. Subordinate identities, gender identity, mental illnesses, economic class, disabilities, sexual orientation--these things aren't immediately apparent. Your connections with people will be richer, your friendships better, and (honestly, though it sounds cheesy) your life more peaceful if you just take off your judgment face, and hear people out for who they are.
Much love,
The Sheriff
Tuesday, September 7, 2010
answering the call of the wild: in defense of convocation
I apologize again for the lack of consistent posting, but my beloved Albright's internet is still shaky. I write this in Neilson Library, perky but mildly hungover from the celebrations of my last convocation.
Convocation is a decidedly Smith tradition that involves, as professor Floyd Chung said last night, "so much energy and so little clothing." Originally, Smith's convocation was much like that of other prestigious New England liberal arts colleges: formal wear, boring speeches about academic success, and nothing terribly inspiring. Rumor has it that all that changed when a few daring Albrighters unbuttoned their shirts and convocation has gotten farther from that stuffy ritual ever since. Each house has a theme ("Albright's Next Top Model" being the best, obviously) and dresses appropriately with ridiculous costumes, and sometimes, very little clothing. We yell, scream, and generally behave poorly. We answer the call of the wild.
It. Is. Amazing.
My first year, convocation was decidedly more wild than it is now. I remember being slightly wide-eyed, for all my worldly experience as a young buck from Pennsyltucky, as women paraded around in pasties and little else, screaming like banshees. It was a somewhat crude introduction to a very polished college, but I loved it. Nowhere else had I ever felt such energy, such intensity, such a desire to claim one's space and be seen and heard (something women are all too often discouraged from doing).
But this little ritual came under serious fire from the administration. Many students felt pressured to go naked and culturally, for international students from conservative places, it was horrifying. And nudity and screaming may just not be everyone's scene. We got emails informing us that, should a person be so inclined, a Northampton resident could call the police on us if we were wearing anything less than what would legally hold up in court as "clothed." Last year, a professor from the English department gave us all a scathing talk about how we were here to learn, and should focus on our studies more. The celebratory nature of convocation was dampened a little.
But I think, so long as you embrace this tradition for the silliness and bonding experience it is and wear as much clothing as you need to feel comfortable, convocation is an incredible thing, truly, and a wonder to behold. As a women's college, there's no performative or exploitative aspect to this: when I wear body glitter all over and parade around in a leopard print fedora and bikini top, I'm not aiming to please anyone but myself, and I dress without a male gaze in mind in perhaps one of the few unmolested spaces of my life as a young woman. I rep my house, my love of Smith, and claim an opportunity to bond with my fellow Smithies in a huge hurrah before the pressures of academia bear down upon us. As a senior, I was especially thrilled to sing "Gaudemus Igitur" and to chant about Albright's superiority and dress silly for one last time in this very female space that has so empowered me to be able to speak articulately about my passions and issues I care about. It was one of my last chances to truly answer the call of the wild before the real world beckons, and I adored it.
Much love,
The Sheriff
Convocation is a decidedly Smith tradition that involves, as professor Floyd Chung said last night, "so much energy and so little clothing." Originally, Smith's convocation was much like that of other prestigious New England liberal arts colleges: formal wear, boring speeches about academic success, and nothing terribly inspiring. Rumor has it that all that changed when a few daring Albrighters unbuttoned their shirts and convocation has gotten farther from that stuffy ritual ever since. Each house has a theme ("Albright's Next Top Model" being the best, obviously) and dresses appropriately with ridiculous costumes, and sometimes, very little clothing. We yell, scream, and generally behave poorly. We answer the call of the wild.
It. Is. Amazing.
My first year, convocation was decidedly more wild than it is now. I remember being slightly wide-eyed, for all my worldly experience as a young buck from Pennsyltucky, as women paraded around in pasties and little else, screaming like banshees. It was a somewhat crude introduction to a very polished college, but I loved it. Nowhere else had I ever felt such energy, such intensity, such a desire to claim one's space and be seen and heard (something women are all too often discouraged from doing).
But this little ritual came under serious fire from the administration. Many students felt pressured to go naked and culturally, for international students from conservative places, it was horrifying. And nudity and screaming may just not be everyone's scene. We got emails informing us that, should a person be so inclined, a Northampton resident could call the police on us if we were wearing anything less than what would legally hold up in court as "clothed." Last year, a professor from the English department gave us all a scathing talk about how we were here to learn, and should focus on our studies more. The celebratory nature of convocation was dampened a little.
But I think, so long as you embrace this tradition for the silliness and bonding experience it is and wear as much clothing as you need to feel comfortable, convocation is an incredible thing, truly, and a wonder to behold. As a women's college, there's no performative or exploitative aspect to this: when I wear body glitter all over and parade around in a leopard print fedora and bikini top, I'm not aiming to please anyone but myself, and I dress without a male gaze in mind in perhaps one of the few unmolested spaces of my life as a young woman. I rep my house, my love of Smith, and claim an opportunity to bond with my fellow Smithies in a huge hurrah before the pressures of academia bear down upon us. As a senior, I was especially thrilled to sing "Gaudemus Igitur" and to chant about Albright's superiority and dress silly for one last time in this very female space that has so empowered me to be able to speak articulately about my passions and issues I care about. It was one of my last chances to truly answer the call of the wild before the real world beckons, and I adored it.
Much love,
The Sheriff
Wednesday, September 1, 2010
Watch your mouth
I just found this article on washingtonpost.com called "Women's groups call out political sexism" : http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/01/AR2010090103673.html?hpid=topnews.
Personally, I think that it's really cool that somebody wants to change the way that the media talks about female candidates for political office and now, are taking steps to address it.
Just a quick thought,
Lady Lola
Personally, I think that it's really cool that somebody wants to change the way that the media talks about female candidates for political office and now, are taking steps to address it.
Just a quick thought,
Lady Lola
the privilege of pretty
I apologize for my absence once again, but unfortunately, the Sheriff's beloved home has been experiencing Internet issues for the past four days that darling Jason at ITS finally cleared up. I HATE having any more than two days go between posts, but it just wasn't happening.
Anyway.
I've heard from a few friends who know me well that they've got friends reading this blog who think I'm some sort of radical butch with armpit hair. And I'm not hatin' on that identity or persona at all (because that's who I used to be in late middle school), but that ain't me. I'm blonde, short, green eyed, and hourglassy. I look almost identical to Kristen Bell but with hips, tits, and ass. But why is how I look important?
Because being what our culture deems as "pretty" is a very real form of privilege. There's no real dialogue about this, aside from angry jealous snippets among friends ("You're so skinny!" "But you have a double eyelid!" etc), because to admit one's privilege in this instance is something we've been conditioned and taught to be uncomfortable with. It's impolite to admit your own beauty, and with the preponderance of plastic surgery and cosmetics to "fix" your "flaws," we certainly haven't built much of a culture to sustain that admission anyway.
With an appearance that conforms to expectations of my gender, I never have to worry about people questioning my right to use a restroom because of short hair, or be concerned that I'll face discrimination or threats to my personal safety for transgressing the gender binary. Over the summer, when I worked with teens, I think most parents felt comfortable leaving their daughter with me not just because of my stunning intellect or confident manner, but because I present myself in a way that leaves their vision of the world and gender unmolested. My appearance doesn't raise questions (except if my breasts are real, which I get asked by complete strangers with unfortunate frequency).
But there are drawbacks to adhering to a beauty standard. Women applying for "masculine" jobs, like mechanical engineering, finance, and construction, face considerable discrimination when they're seen as attractive. And personally, while I think my looks make people feel comfortable around me, the combination of chesty and blonde usually results in people initially judging my IQ and abilities harshly, and then being pleasantly surprised when I prove myself competent (because cup size and intellectual capacity are obviously correlated).
But I also look at that as my secret weapon, especially with regards to spreading my feminist views. No one really expects to get an earful about sexual inequality when they approach me in a bar, but they usually do. Further, I think my standard conforming looks allow for people not usually inclined to care much about women's issues, especially when they're hearing it from someone who judges their choices about makeup and body hair removal, to listen and to take it seriously because it's coming from someone they can relate to.
Much love,
Sheriff
Anyway.
I've heard from a few friends who know me well that they've got friends reading this blog who think I'm some sort of radical butch with armpit hair. And I'm not hatin' on that identity or persona at all (because that's who I used to be in late middle school), but that ain't me. I'm blonde, short, green eyed, and hourglassy. I look almost identical to Kristen Bell but with hips, tits, and ass. But why is how I look important?
Because being what our culture deems as "pretty" is a very real form of privilege. There's no real dialogue about this, aside from angry jealous snippets among friends ("You're so skinny!" "But you have a double eyelid!" etc), because to admit one's privilege in this instance is something we've been conditioned and taught to be uncomfortable with. It's impolite to admit your own beauty, and with the preponderance of plastic surgery and cosmetics to "fix" your "flaws," we certainly haven't built much of a culture to sustain that admission anyway.
With an appearance that conforms to expectations of my gender, I never have to worry about people questioning my right to use a restroom because of short hair, or be concerned that I'll face discrimination or threats to my personal safety for transgressing the gender binary. Over the summer, when I worked with teens, I think most parents felt comfortable leaving their daughter with me not just because of my stunning intellect or confident manner, but because I present myself in a way that leaves their vision of the world and gender unmolested. My appearance doesn't raise questions (except if my breasts are real, which I get asked by complete strangers with unfortunate frequency).
But there are drawbacks to adhering to a beauty standard. Women applying for "masculine" jobs, like mechanical engineering, finance, and construction, face considerable discrimination when they're seen as attractive. And personally, while I think my looks make people feel comfortable around me, the combination of chesty and blonde usually results in people initially judging my IQ and abilities harshly, and then being pleasantly surprised when I prove myself competent (because cup size and intellectual capacity are obviously correlated).
But I also look at that as my secret weapon, especially with regards to spreading my feminist views. No one really expects to get an earful about sexual inequality when they approach me in a bar, but they usually do. Further, I think my standard conforming looks allow for people not usually inclined to care much about women's issues, especially when they're hearing it from someone who judges their choices about makeup and body hair removal, to listen and to take it seriously because it's coming from someone they can relate to.
Much love,
Sheriff
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)