Q: What do you get when you combine lawyers, feminists, and university professors with too much time on their hands?
A: People who should be beaten with a stick (but not a stick any bigger than your thumb).
This is idiocy (h/t Red State):
The pink visitors’ locker room at the University of Iowa’s stadium is making some people see red.
Several professors and students joined the call Tuesday for the athletic department to do away with the pink showers, carpeting and lockers, a decades-long Hawkeye football tradition.
Critics say the use of pink demeans women, perpetuates offensive stereotypes about women and homosexuality, and puts the university in the uncomfortable position of tacitly supporting those messages.
”I want the locker room gone,” law school professor Jill Gaulding told a university committee studying the athletic department’s compliance with NCAA standards, including gender equity.
For decades, visiting football teams playing at Kinnick Stadium have dressed and showered in the pink locker room. The tradition was started by former Iowa coach Hayden Fry, a psychology major who said pink had a calming and passive effect on people.
According to these folks, we have prisons, hospitals, child-care centers, and grade schools all across the country that are, through their very existence, offending feminists and homosexuals. I even have a pink polo shirt from the 80’s somewhere that is taking part in this widespread atrocity (although, in my shirt’s defense, it did not know it was homophobic or misogynistic, especially considering many of my friends said ‘that shirt is gay!’ See! Proof of the oppression! My accompanying knit tie is probably proof of my phallo-centric approach to American culture.) When will this oppression stop?
In all seriousness, the stated purpose is clear- pink has a calming effect on people, something you would want to try to instill in your opponents. It has nothing to do with homosexuality or feminism, and everything to do with winning football games.
But that doesn’t matter. Jeff Goldstein has done great work in the past couple of weeks discussing how certain groups are struggling to redefine language and trying to co-opt symbols to mean what they want them to mean, and this is merely more of the same sort of nonsense taken to a new level. Whether it be some fool taking offense at an ice cream cone, or a bunch of people being offended by school mascots, this type of nonsense should not be ignored. As Jeff ably notes:
Words matter. And ceding control over language to special interest groups is a recipe for social disaster—particularly in a society supposedly designed around the rights of the individual. Edward Said and his academic ilk perfected this linguistic hijacking procedure, wherein political groups—under the guise of ethnic authenticity—laid claim to important terms of debate, then wielded control of those terms as a way to delegitimize critics. And the very same thing is happening here—a testament to how deeply rooted Said’s principles have become in the academy and on the policy level, and a running indictment on intellectual bankruptcy of our modern intelligensia.
Time to push back.
This is foolishness, but it has a very serious and potentially very troubling outcome.
*** Update ***
From the comments:
Professor Gaulding’s wildly overblown efforts to eliminate U of I’s pink locker room are simply a leftist equivalent of Brent Bozell lobbying to get TV shows like “Desperate Housewives” purged from our nation’s airwaves. It’s the same damn logic: “This offends, so therefore, it should NOT EXIST.” It’s infuriating to witness my end of the political spectrum once again wallowing in the same repressive muck that the yahoos of the Christian right love to anoint themselves (and everyone else) with.
Heh.
Joey
I wouldn’t compare this to the Indian mascot thing. I mean, some of those are really offensive. “Redskin” is the Indian equivalent of “Nigger”. That needs to be changed. But this is absolutely ridiculous. How can a color be insulting to anybody?
tBone
Do you really believe this? I see a pink locker room and assume it’s a way to make the opposing team feel … uh, less than manly. Not that there’s anything wrong with that.
I think it’s deeply silly for anyone to get bent out of shape about something so trivial, but I don’t buy the “color psychology” story.
foolishmortal
And that outcome is? Honestly, our society has enough sense that notions like this that are prima facie ridiculous tend to have very short half-lives. Perhaps that sense is not particulary concentrated in the world of academia, but the term “politically correct” is far more widely used in derision than it ever was in earnest. I may be living in a fool’s paradise, but I feel perfectly safe ignoring this type of nonsense.
John Cole
Well, for example, if symbols and language can be co-opted at will, some idiot can take umbrage at an ice cream cone and wage his own jihad because the ice cream cone logo offends Allah.
Or no one can use the word artiuclate, because some identrity groups have redefined it as a racial slur.
And on and on and on. Which is why I linked those stories.
ppGaz
If I were on the committee I’d be figuring out how to paint the entire school pink, inside and out, just to piss her off.
I’d rename the school Mary Kay University.
But hey, that’s just me.
Tractarian
I cannot imagine a world where no one uses the word artiuclate.
(In all seriousness, Mr. Cole, you are “en fuego.” Keep up the good work.)
KC
You’re right John, that is absolutely stupid.
John Cole
Heh. Yes. I still type with my feet.
Geek, Esq.
What, no Code Pink joke?
dlnevins
I for one want that pink locker room GONE.
(But then, I did graduate from Iowa State. Heh, heh, heh…)
demimondian
I, for one, want that pink locker room GONE…
…it is ugly.
Narvy
I suppose we’ll have to do away with pinking shears, prohibit gardeners from growing pinks, forbid feeling in the pink, prevent bartenders from making Pink Ladies, forbid the diagnosis of pink-eye, and make everyone chop off their pinkies.
rilkefan
Ehh, a little overt homophobia in football, who cares. Gays, still the new blacks.
Bill from INDC
I even have a pink polo shirt from the 80’s
Whatever, princess.
Defense Guy
Joey brings up an interesting point in the discussion on the current trend of language. When he references the use of the word ‘nigger’ (see how we both feel inclined to quote it), there is a subset of the society, namely the rappers, who seem to feel that they may use this word and not take the sort of cultural and political correct hit that the rest of us would. It is an extension of the larger argument where one part of the society has seized control of a word that the rest may not use. It’s fooked is what it is.
It is the attempt to control the language, and Jeff is correct that we MUST push back against it before it becomes to late. IMO, it has already gone unchallanged to long. No one has the right to use certain words that they would deem offensive if others used it. Either we share a common language or we do not.
srv
DG,
We don’t share a common language. Never have, never will.
Context matters. Always.
KoC
“Redskin” is the Indian equivalent of “Nigger”.
Am I the only one who found this sentence funny?
ppGaz
We don’t.
Any man from mars could land on Earth and do nothing else but read BJ for a week, and discover that. No common language, no common vision, no common set of values and priorities.
And, unless BJ is some freakish anomaly, which it isn’t, then this is the way people want it.
So why would anyone assume congruity, homogeneity, unity?
A large part of the population of this country has declared cultural war on their fellow citizens. What did we think would be the result of that? Group hugs?
Anderson
Point taken, ppGaz, but beware the Golden Age.
When have “we” *ever* had a common language, culture, etc.?
Who you calling “we,” white man?, as the old punch line has it.
At the risk of being mistaken for Prof. Gaulding (who is, it seems, a grandstanding idiot who doesn’t care how much she hurts real feminism), the “common culture” was always the province of a few, defining themselves against the many.
Geoduck
Well, maybe. Cuz I gather there’s still an ongoing debate among the ethnic group in question as to which of the two choices (Indian/Native American) is truly the most appropriate label. Unlike “Redskin”, which is a racist slur, and an utterly unforgivable name for a sports team.
anon
ppgaz sez:
Hmm, like that old Bufallo Springfield song: paranoia strikes deep.
When has this so called “cultural war” ever affected your life at all? Be honest.
stickler
Unless I’m mistaken, our gracious host is himself employed by an institution of higher education.
And therefore must already know full well that the disputes on college campuses are so nasty precisely because the stakes are so vanishingly small.
Professor Jill Gaulding deserves to have her umbrage recorded and spread all across the land, so the rest of us can laugh at her until we pee our pants. That’s all the “pushback” she deserves.
ppGaz
When I have a government that kisses the ass of James Dobson. A president who tries to fuck over his opponent in a primary campaign by playing up to Bob Jones University.
When the Majority Leader of the US Senate can’t fart without checking with the Dobsonites to find out which way the wind is blowing.
When a government official uses the word “sanctity” as if he has something to do with it, or claims to be protecting it.
When the Congress votes on a Sunday night to try to force a family to change the way it is handling a private medical matter, and the president for no reason flies back to Washington to be seen playing along with the charade.
When candidates for public office openly try to get votes by pandering to bigoted homophobia.
When the FDA makes decisions based on religio-political views instead of on medical and scientific evidence.
When the government tries to interfere with stem-cell research in order to pander to a religious voter base.
In other words, every damned day, now.
anon
ppGaz said:
Well, that was quite a rant! You sure type fast!
But: Do you honestly believe that the U.S. is a less socially liberal country in 2005, than say 1965, 1955?
Narvy
DG —
You have a point, but it’s been common, if not universal, for minority groups, ethnic, gay, what have you, to use words, fake accents, particular speech patterns, etc. within their community that that are considered insults when used by someone who is not a member of the group.
ppGaz
You asked, I answered.
Yes I do.
Well, if I read your question correctly, which is not certain, you think that social and political “liberal”ness can be tweezed apart and viewed separately. I can’t agree with that without considerable dialogue to get to that point, and maybe not even then.
I’d argue that if social and political liberal-ness are going to be tracked separately, then we have to deal with the gap between them.
What is more of a problem? The possibility that the misguided government will try to coerce a less liberal society (in the same sort of overreaching that would cause an LBJ to try to create a “Great Society”, let’s say)? Or, that a gap will widen between the governing and the governed, creating a sort of socio-political apartheid, a split America always at war with itself?
It’s a rhetorical question, I am not assuming or expecting an answer, nor do I have one myself.
foolishmortal
Symbols and language can be co-opted at will. That is how they came to exist. Furthermore, they can gain meaning within a particular group distinct from their use outside of it: black people may call a friend nigger, gays may refer to a “beautiful faggot”, and I may call someone an Über-geek. That these secondary meanings do not apply outside of these contexts is not an attempt to control the language, just a reflection of the differing meanings that they may carry.
Regarding our imminent danger (“Mr. President, al Qaeda has acquired semiotic technology!”):
If one is the type of person to wage jihad over ice cream logos, the strict regulation of ice cream logo semantics will not prevent the jihad. The enterprising martyr will find another cause to fight for. The real question here is how much we care about the opinons of those with whom we disagree. In the case of these Iowa people, their position is sufficiently silly that I don’t. In the case of the swirly ice cream logo, Burger King’s interest in selling ice cream to UK muslims is such that they are willing to spend money on a redesign.
Someone gets pissed. Either we care, or we don’t. We change our ways, or we tell them to get fucked. I guess I’m missing the linguistic apocolypse.
And finally, I must call bullshit on this “calming influence” business. It’s a locker room. It’s pink. They might as well hand out poppers.
Steve
What is worse? The fact that this law professor is having a bout of political correctness? Or the fact that she has received DEATH THREATS over it?
jobiuspublius
I want Donna Dewberry to finish what she started.
jobiuspublius
Must save the pink room for all posterity at all costs. The fate of football depends on it.
jobiuspublius
The Hayden “Pink” Fry Guest Locker Room and Showers, in honor of …
jobiuspublius
Oh, crap, Harry has been Gannonized! The next election is going to be woefully hilarious.
Kimmitt
Um, pink isn’t soothing — light blue is soothing. Pink is feminizing, and you’re flat-out wrong here, John. Just because it’s banal doesn’t mean that it isn’t sexist or heterosexist.
Brad R.
Hey, speaking of people getting really offended over nothing, Pataki has decided to shut down the International Freedom Center, a center that the ever-honest and scrupulous Michelle Malkin had dubbed a “blame America first monunment.” (I looked at the plans for the memorial. It was anything but that.)
Oh, and while we’re on the topic of memorial designs that offend small-minded wingnuts, need I remind you all of the crescent memorial in Pennsylvania?
John Cole
Do you just flat out make shit up? I mean, even though you are directly contradicting someone and telling them they are wrong, even in the presence of google?
Google it. I dare you. I bet you find a bunch of statements like:
Baron Elmo
This kind of crap is why political correctness does the left wing of America far greater harm than good… and this opinion comes from one who considers himself a fervent leftist, by the way.
Why is this kind of thinking so popular amongst people who should be intelligent enough to know better? Because fighting for things like, say, equal pay for women, improving conditions in inner city schools or ending discrimination against gays in the Bible Belt is hard, time-consuming and expensive work that, more often than not, ends in heartbreak… but ANY self-appointed do-gooder can jump on a fellow human being with both feet for using the word “Oriental,” purchasing an Eminem CD, reading Playboy or (my favorite) hassling a college professor for his use of the phrase “more bang for your buck,” which was mistakenly assumed to be a sexist expression (in fact, it refers to explosives). Political correctness gives a feeling of accomplishment to those unable (or unwilling) to deal with serious issues of oppression in the manner they deserve. In regard to real sexism, racism and homophobia, this “more right-on than thou” approach is the equivalent of cleaning your house by hiding the dirt instead of removing it. Your home is filthy — but hey, it LOOKS clean, and that’s good enough, right?
Professor Gaulding’s wildly overblown efforts to eliminate U of I’s pink locker room are simply a leftist equivalent of Brent Bozell lobbying to get TV shows like “Desperate Housewives” purged from our nation’s airwaves. It’s the same damn logic: “This offends, so therefore, it should NOT EXIST.” It’s infuriating to witness my end of the political spectrum once again wallowing in the same repressive muck that the yahoos of the Christian right love to anoint themselves (and everyone else) with.
As a white southerner, transplanted to Berkeley, it’s staggering how many snide comments about rednecks, crackers, trailer trash, and how many dumb incest jokes I’ve encountered over the years… mostly from people who consider themselves politically aware, many of them good friends. Someone as thin-skinned as Jill Gaulding could easily raise holy hell with these oppressive pig-dogs for the grievous crime of, well, making sport of poor people. (Not that Gaulding would ever do something as, well, gauche as defend the lowly redneck.) Personally, I prefer not to take offense at such silliness, and will often reply with an equally barbed riposte of my own, submitted with a smile.
If the Gautama Buddha didn’t say it, he should have: “Save your outrage for when it is truly needed.”
Narvy
Baron Elmo —
Brilliant! I wish I’d said that. I’m convinced that the trivia screeners and offense seekers are much less interested in achieving an Eden of social equality and harmony than they are in asserting their impeccable correctness for their fellow almost-but-not-quite-egalitarians to admire.
More than a feeling of accomplishment, forcing the People In Charge to do their bidding is a real power high, and that’s a lot more important than actually achieving a worthwhile social goal that actually affects the actual lives of actual people. And it’s a lot easier to get the adulation of their not-very-oppressed colleagues and prop up their sagging egos by single-handedly forcing the repainting of a locker room than by working for a long time as one among many to make a substantive social change where it’s really needed.
Krista
This is ridiculous. Nobody deserves death threats over this – just scorn and ridicule. People like that piss me off, because they fight battles over stupid, petty, meaningless crap like that, which then trivializes the whole equal rights movement. If people like her had learned to pick their battles wisely, then we wouldn’t have women my age who say that they’re for equal rights, but would sooner poke themselves in the eye with a fork than refer to themselves as feminist. They’ve engineered their own backlash, and it’s the younger women who are paying the price, as they’ve been taught to think that being a feminist means being a shrill, man-hater with a megaphone and a bunch of slogans, but no plans.
DougJ
You wanna talk about stuff that makes us look weak to our enemies?
tzs
Uproariously funny. Geez, whadya want instead? That baleful hospital green that makes me think of mildew and antisceptic? Black with purple polka dots? Bright fluorescent orange with cheerful yellow stripes? Oooh, how about replace all the lighting with black light, death heads on the walls, and a disco ball overhead?
Some people have WAY too much time on their hands….
Can’t we find some stage-hogging politician to shove through a law declaring the locker room a piece of “national heritage” and the color sancrosant?
I like the idea of repainting the room Mary Kay pink just to piss the professor off. Serve her right. And I’m a feminist.
Tony Dismukes
This has nothing to do with “lawyers, feminists, and university professors.”
It has to do with idiots.
That is all.
RSA
This part of what John quoted is nonsense, in that it completely misconstrues the nature of “the academy” and who constitutes our modern intelligentsia. Prospect Magazine, for example, has a poll of the world’s top public intellectuals online–how can anyone characterize the work these people are doing as being intellectually bankrupt? (Not that it’s a perfect set of candidates, but it’s a reasonable sample.) This business at Iowa is a tempest in a teapot–an unknown academic at a second-tier university pushes her particular hobby horse into view, and people start talking about the death of intellectualism in general. This is the way the academic world works. People go off in their own direction and maybe make a name for themselves by carving out a particular area of their own; their statements are not necessarily representative of anyone else’s views even in their own field, much less in all of “the academy”.
Pb
Of course research has shown that the color pink is the most soothing–that’s why computer experts came up with the pink screen of death (PSOD)!
Kimmitt
John — you’re absolutely right about the color’s soothing quality; I should’ve looked at more than one website before posting. That’s my bad.
I still think it’s lame.
skip
Huh? Edward Said, the LATE Edward Said is controlling our dialogue? What’s this: the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Ramallah?
Sure, I see all those Arab news anchors out there, spinning away. MEMRI keeping tabs for the Palestinians. A plethora of friendly arabists like Richard Perle, Charles Krauthammer, Wolf Blitzer, Ken Adelman, Ken Pollack, Norm Pohoretz, George Will, Lally Weymouth, Bill Safire, Mona Charen, Cliff May, and so on, ad infinitum.
scs
If I were a graduate student now I’d write a paper on the power of pink. Pink has been kind of an issue in my life this year. I painted my living room a shade of pink, (its barely even pink, kind of a light tan/pink). I thought it would go well with the dark brown accents I have. But since I painted it, most everyone who walks in there feels the obligation to visciously insult me and the color.
If I had paintd the room any other color, I doubt anybody would care at all! One girl told me, like she was trying to educate me, “it’s too feminine” like that was a horrible thing to be. Another guy compared it to a mental institution. I asked one guy who insulted it, what if I had painted it peach? He said, well that would be okay. Peach is just one yellow shade away from pink, but peach is “okay”?! And the educated lefty,supposedly most open-minded types were the worst ones, worse than the country repairmen. Homosexual marriage, okay by them. But a pink room? Horrors! I actually don’t even like the color that much anymore, but because I think it blends in too much with the brown, not because I think it’s too feminine. But I think I’m going to have to keep it just to prove a point.
I think they should paint the other locker room pink too and then everyone will be happy. People should just get over pink already. Its just a color.
Pro-Pink Iowan
I’m living at ground zero for this, and it’s so incredibly stupid. The two east coast lawyers that have been pushing this are clueless. Great waste of taxpayer’s dollars if you ask me.
The death threats to the other professor, Erin Buzuvis, are of course completely uncalled for. I think she got them mostly for misquoting Hayden Fry about why he did this, not that makes it right of course. But people here still love Fry, and you can’t fly in from Boston (where these two are both from) and a week later bash a living ledgend without pissing a lot of people off.
I hope these two have enjoyed their 15 minutes of fame. But I wonder what it’ll cost them on campus…