Starts: Monday, July 6 / Ends Friday (July 10)
Points: 70 for Winning team, 45 for second, etc
30 more for online challenges to other teams in the public
area for substantive responses. NOTE - YOU *MUST* have
participated in and contributed to your team to be
eligible to participate in the public discussion, and
your online discussion MUST be substantive, sustained,
and not just BS opinion.
This team debate (thanks to Sandy Jenkins and Eric Westphal from 2005):
It began as a WebBoard thrash/Flamewar and became a Team debate.
It ties together gender, power, justice, sexuality, and many other
themes. This is a CHALLENGE to see who can come up with the best
response. First is the DISCUSSION TOGETHER in your teams; The second
part comes with public discussion.
Your tasks: Review Socrates's protagonists' views of justice, and also
Singer, Maise, or any other readings and resources that are
relevant. Using one or more as the basis for your philosphy,
defend the use of the color pink or oppose it.
Starts: Sunday, July 1 / Ends Friday (July 6)
Your task: Who does your team side with, Eric or Sandy. And why.
Is Ralph just a middle-of-the-roader?
Each team MUST defend any one, but only one, of the posters, and explain
why, drawing from class material.
PRETTY IN PINK
Sometimes, WebBoard posts that seem simple raise profound issues that go
deeper than they seem at first glance. A few posts from Fall, 2005, illustrate
the complexity of justice principles that we've discussed Saturday.
Read the initial article and then the commentary.
Your task: Drawing from readings (NOT OPINION OR JUST RHETORIC):
Lay out why the incident is (or is not) a violation of justice principles.
The intent is to draw from all you have learned during the semester in
justifying justice principles, citing texts, other readings you've
come across, and any WebBoard research.
(Thrasymachus says, "I declare justice is nothing but the advantage of the
stronger" - This is your starting point)
Here's the backdrop:
========================
Topic: Pretty in pink (1 of 8), Read 20 times
Conf: Gender Justice
From: Sandrah Jenkins surfridergrll@yahoo.com
Date: Monday, October 31, 2005 10:37 AM
Clueless sexism or malicious backlash?
With restraint and calm,
Sandy
===============
Color Iowa fans furious over foe of that pink locker room
By P.J. Huffstutter
Tribune Newspapers: Los Angeles Times
Published October 31, 2005
IOWA CITY -- The hot-pink toilet seat covers imprinted with the
Hawkeye football mascot sold out weeks ago. Gone, too, are the
carnation-colored sun
visors, the ladies' rose-toned underwear, the
mauve-stained coffee cups and
the salmon-tinted baby clothes.
But there are plenty of T-shirts for football fans in bubble-gum hues with
slogans such as "Locker Room Defense Fund" and "Give That Academia Nut Her
Pink Slip."
The demand for all things pink has soared after an associate law professor at
the University of Iowa petitioned school officials to repaint the all-pink
visitor's locker room at Kinnick Stadium.
Jill Gaulding objected to the color scheme, she said, because it sent a
misogynistic message and represented "a serious obstacle to gender equity on
campus." Hawkeye fans reacted by snapping up pink merchandise and sending
hundreds of e-mails--some of them downright nasty.
For decades, to the annoyance of some visiting teams, players have donned
cleats in a room painted the color of cotton candy.
Initially, the locker room was considered a sports oddity in this town, about
30 miles south of Cedar Rapids. But Hawkeye fans have come to regard the pink
room as a treasured tradition.
When the university finished new locker rooms this year as part of an $86.8
million renovation of the stadium, the school found ways to make the visitor's
side even more Barbie-esque. It didn't choose simple "pink." The school chose
"Innocence" for the walls and "Dusty Rose" for the toilets and urinals.
While the home team changes in a locker room decorated in the Hawkeye colors
of gold and black, nearly every inch inside the visitor's area looks like it
was coated with Pepto-Bismol.
The ceramic tiles in the shower room are pink. So are the bathroom sinks, the
interior of the equipment room, and the open metal lockers that hold players'
uniforms. In fact, the only prominent thing not pink is the light bulbs.
"I teach discrimination law, and this is not a good precedent for anyone to
set," said Gaulding, 39. "What I object to are sexist jokes paid for by my
employer, a public institution."
Gaulding and her supporters have received an onslaught of e-mails from angry
Iowa fans around the world.
"The world will be a better place when you die," one person wrote.
University President David Skorton tried to end the quarrel; he said the
pink locker room stays.
Gaulding has refused to drop her crusade. She has talked with friends and
residents to gather support.
University of Iowa then-coach Hayden Fry had the visitors' locker room painted
pink in the early 1980s to get a psychological edge over other teams. Armed
with cans of pastel-pink paint, the stadium's staff sought to create a soothing
and calming environment.
Gaulding, a devoted Hawkeye fan, wrote in early September to the school's
provost office and its Office for Diversity, and spoke with the school's
athletic department. She explained how the unconscious brain picks up on
stereotypes; most people saw the pink locker room as a way to call rival
teams "girls and sissies," which "reinforces sexism and homophobia."
In the weeks that followed, local shops and roadside vendors began hawking
dozens of pink-colored items to protest the complaints. Sales have boomed,
particularly on weekends with home games, said retailer Ron Christensen, owner
of Game Day Iowa.
"People are buying this stuff to make light of the situation," Christensen said.
"It's unthinkable to change such a tradition."
Copyright © 2005, Chicago Tribune
======================================================
Topic: Pretty in pink (2 of 8), Read 16 times
Conf: Gender Justice
From: Eric Westphal squirrelbite@hotmail.com
Date: Monday, October 31, 2005 03:24 PM
Clueless sexism, no. Bold sexism, yes. And funny. This is a diluted Indian
University of Illinois or Washington Redskins mascot argument here, but
with color schemes at the center. Yes, this enforces
gender stereotypes and the article points this out in the text. However,
these are adults sending and receiving these subliminal messages? Is a good
natured ribbing out of bounds nowadays or is everything taboo now supposed to
be painted, pulled from the shelves and manufactured in neutral patterns or
colors? Where does the line begin and end in reference to the offensive? Can
we really have this all out, non-offensive to all, feel good society? It is
my opinion we can not. We need difference and recognition of difference to
move forth as separate individuals, groups and sects that survive
independently of another. This would include recognition of separate
interests and being able to associate groups with their own interests.
==========================================================
Topic: Pretty in pink (3 of 8), Read 11 times
Conf: Gender Justice
From: Ralph Michaelson ralph_michaelson@hotmail.com
Date: Monday, October 31, 2005 10:38 PM
On 10/31/2005 3:24:02 PM, Eric Westphal wrote:
>Clueless sexism, no. Bold
>sexism, yes. And funny. This
>is a diluted Indian mascot
>argument here, but with color
>schemes at the center. Yes,
>this enforces gender
>stereotypes and the article
>points this out in the text.
Yes, it's bold sexism. Doesn't that by definition make
it an injustice? It reinforces "girly" as an official
policy of proud sexism. I assume you're talking about
the U of Ill symbol. It's not a mascot. Words have meanings.
Whether right-minded or not, the U-I chief is intended
to honor, not to denigrate. The pink lockerroom is
intended to denigrate, and it's intent draws from
gender stereotypes to intentionally demean and
intentionally humiliate as an official policy.
It's also unsportsman like. Swipes at the masculinity
of the opposing team as an official policy isn't just
tacky, it's classless.
Intentionally pushing stereotypes with the intention to
demean may strike some as ok, but it's a violation of
ethics and justice principles. PC = proper civility.
Shoving a gender stereotype in the opposing team's
face shows that we have a long way to go. Dismissing
it as no big deal shows we have farther to go than
we thought.
Ralph
==============
Topic: Pretty in pink (4 of 8), Read 11 times
Conf: Gender Justice
From: Eric Westphal squirrelbite@hotmail.com
Date: Tuesday, November 01, 2005 11:55 AM
Maybe I was assuming they, the athletes, were able to see "beyond the pink"
giving them some credit. Pink, historically reserved for girls, is a celebrated
color for both genders nowadays. If a color strikes at the masculinity of an
athlete and "pink" denigrates their sense of whole, then they have a lot of
growing to do. Again, I reference my all adult arena involved. No color has
ever hurt my feelings. Yes, I agree with your analysis, but my point again
was "where do we draw the line" as to what we deem offensive? It was not the
use of the color pink I took issue with, rather the over indulgence in
everything being so PC, pathetically constructed, to please those whom cannot
make heads or tails out of stimuli. Maybe a neutral hue? That way we can all
be happy, social drones unaware of sexual or gender difference? Boring. Some
arenas of cultural or gender insensitivities surely need to be addressed, but
this is not one of them. Though it does serve as an excellent portrayal or
example of stereotype for a source of discussion.
Now for injustice, when growing up, both the locker rooms of my high school
were painted blue. I shudder at the thought of all those scarred females,
under 18, forced to adhere to a male dominated arena of organized group sports.
How they learned to adjust post high school baffles me.
Now what's the difference here? Nothing really, just an overly sensitive
individual.
=================================================================
Topic: Pretty in pink (5 of 8), Read 9 times
Conf: Gender Justice
From: Sandrah Jenkins surfridergrll@yahoo.com
Date: Tuesday, November 01, 2005 06:09 PM
Eric, were those lockerrooms painted blue with the intent
to offend? That's what's at issue here, right? The intent
to draw on gender stereotypes to intentionally offend?
At Iowa, everything is a pastel girly pink: Toilets,
sinks, everything. A published picture showed u-g-l-y.
If opposing teams find this tacky and insulting, and if
there's an acknowledged intent to demean by challenging
the masculinity of the opposing team to give your team
an edge, is that just?
A rule-driven view of justice would provide a rationale
for calling it unjust or unethical: It's wrong to do
intentionally do harm. Lots of variations of this, but
that's the gist. An ends-driven view could argue that
the harms to the whole (women *and* men) outweight the
value of "edge" for the Iowa football team. Instead of
rhetorical opinions, why not weigh the pros/cons in
a set of justice principles and establish from there
where lines should be drawn.
Sandy
=================================================================
Topic: Pretty in pink (6 of 8), Read 10 times
Conf: Gender Justice
From: Eric Westphal squirrelbite@hotmail.com
Date: Tuesday, November 01, 2005 07:06 PM
It's just. Thyrmascus says so. Drawing upon his wisdom.
It's meant to be offensive to "boys." That's apparent.
It's a source for a good argument and for taking up a debate on gender
stereotypes. Thanks Iowa.
Drawing the line is up to the individual, my line is way off the pink locker
room mark. People are too sensitive if I am to believe that a color really
attacks morale.
Hence, we loop back to our debate over what is being imposed and achieved by
this use of gender stereotype. Of course I get the gist of what the topic at
hand is. Other than rhetoric, or opinion, I don't feel that it is a
substantial enough argument to go sifting through texts to back a stance
that is so weak in foundation.
The argument is painted there on the walls for us.
No denying, once again, but I don't get the fuss.
Even here, where the male inmate population is forced to wear pink.
http://www.hemelconservatives.com/jokes/arizonaprison.php
So what? Most, if not all of us reading this, can dissect the issue at hand.
I was wondering why it was an issue, or anything other than a tool for debate.
People really get all flustered over the petty stuff still? If the cons can
handle it...
=============================================================
Topic: Pretty in pink (8 of 8), Read 2 times New
Conf: Gender Justice
From: Eric Westphal squirrelbite@hotmail.com
Date: Wednesday, November 02, 2005 12:08 AM
There are no sides to take on this issue. I believe we all agree as to what
the deeper issues at hand are. At least that is what I got out of the reading.
This is another example of what can be construed as insensitive use of
stereotype. While light hearted in context, painting walls pink to offend
another male team, or attempt to, is a great example of deeper public issue
in relation to such use.
To make an interesting note, however. While mentioning this subject to others,
the response I keep getting from those not engaged in a forum like this is;
"well it's 20 plus years of tradition, what the heck"?
I find it interesting how people are quick to dismiss the grandiose picture of
what is implied by the pink locker room. Quickly aligning themselves with
gender stereotypes and furthering the use of such imagery. And quick to gloss
over my bringing up the topic, or digging in with more inflammatory remarks.
All I can think of is how generations are separated by difference, race and
gender. While quick to dismiss this topic on here as funny, when carried into
another realm, I find it interesting as to how concrete some individuals mind
sets are in relation to sex, gender or homophobia.
Go to jt's class homepage
Any questions, drop me a note. Jim Thomas - jthomas@math.niu.edu