Is Rush Right?


In typical form, the Daily Tar Heel’s editorial board posted a rather inane letter to the editor today that calls for the university to end its relationship with Rush Radio WRDU for comments that Rush Limbaugh made on his program last week. This letter was particularly inane on two accounts.

The first problem with this letter is the author’s proposal that the university pull its sports programming from WRDU simply because the same station happens to run Rush’s program earlier in the day. Logistically, this would cause some problems as Limbaugh’s program is syndicated across thousands of radio stations all over the country. Finding stations that don’t broadcast his program could prove unnecessarily challenging. Aside from this, the idea is just plain dumb. Why should UNC, which has no affiliation with Rush, pull its program from a radio station that happens to syndicate his show? And when did the Athletics Department become the Thought Police? Should UNC also pull its program from any TV or radio station that runs Rick Santorum ads, simply because they find some of his political views offensive. It’s patently absurd. Though, I think  one of the last lines of the letter reveals what the author is really after. “By choosing to have UNC sporting events broadcast on WRDU Radio, which also broadcasts Rush Limbaugh, UNC is essentially promoting greater exposure of its students and alumni to Limbaugh’s views.” And we can’t have that now, can we?

But then there’s this whole issue of the girl that Rush criticized, the one who “dared to speak out.” Just what was she “bravely” standing up for? The right for the government to pay for her birth control (a seemingly common theme these days). One wonders how this country has even survived this long. For over 200 years, people have actually had to pay for their own contraceptives. The horror!

The Epitome of Evil

Ignoring the fact that the federal government is effectively broke (and with a nice $16 trillion outstanding loan), where does one get the idea that you are entitled to make your neighbors pay for your sexual life? Especially when one attends Georgetown University and can afford to live in one of Washington’s swankest neighborhoods and pay over $41,000 per year just to attend school, I have trouble being sympathetic. But where does all of this end? Surely if access to free contraceptives is a right, shouldn’t things more necessary to life also be free? Why should I have to pay for things like food or clothes? I can live without birth control. I’d have a hard time living without food.

If this incident with the Georgetown student was a single, isolated incident, you could shrug it off and make snide comments about how entitled Georgetown students are. But this seems to be an increasing trend. Health care’s free. Housing’s free. Now birth control’s free. It’s simply ridiculous.

The DTH Wrong, Again


Last Tuesday’s Sex issue in the DTH focused on the revolution to a “hook-up culture” andthe “norms” or college life.  First of all, I was appalled in the way the DTH handled the issue.  A definite trend, it is true, seems to be occuring regarding the shift from serious relationships to “hook-ups,” but if anything the matter should be treated as a tragedy rather than something glorified with pictures of contraceptives and a Top 10 fact list.  The picture at the tope of the page with the female face trying to tear the condom wrapper was tasteless.

This shift of society is nothing to present in a light manner; essentially it highlights the average studdent’s tendency to forgo weekly church services and cast morals off as childish matters.  I believe that the “hook-up culture” will one day haunt our lives.  Though not all “hook-ups” involve sex, we don’t want the same 1970s connotations hanging over our heads as it does our parents.  Fun for the moment will only last so long; it’s tomorrow that should be on our minds.

Furthermore, I suggest that next time the Daily Tar Heel dedicates a page to this issue, it consider mentioning the word abstinence at least once, because it is, after all, the best form of contraception.  This was simply another example of how the Daily Tar Heel uses its own ideologies to represent the opinion of everyone on campus.

A V-Monologues Monologue



So I’ve done it. I’ve seen it. On Saturday, Valentine’s Day, 2009, we saw the Vagina Monologues. I know that the boys have been writing some hard hitting articles about how it makes women feel like sex objects and is degrading and I have to say they’re right. I’m a woman, and I agree with everything they’ve posted.

Moaning; Orgasm; Clitoris; Vagina; Coochi-Snorcher; Cunt. These were all words used in the play to try and bring out women’s sensual side and make them comfortable with their bodies. Hearing the word “cunt” being chanted and screamed all around me does not make me feel sexy, in the least. Disgusted, yes, but not sexy.

The crassness of the play was not my major issue, and I must give the actors props for talking about some real issues that affect women and making all of us laugh a few times. But, the main problem with the play is that it does not do justice to the cause. This year’s spotlight for the V-Day Initiative is on the Democratic Republic of Congo and the atrocities that occur to the women there. There is no representation of that in the play.

There is one incident of rape, but it was the rape of a minor and portrayed as a “good rape”. There is one monologue that fits the purpose, “If my Vagina was a Village” in which a Bosnian woman describes being raped by soldiers during the Yugoslavian Wars. The actress performed well, and made me understand the pain of women affected by sexual abuse. The rest of it that was supposed to “empower” me did nothing more than disgust me. I support empowering women and do not mind making a twelve dollar donation to the Orange County Rape Crisis Center, but I would rather pay for a self defense class to keep the creeps away instead of sitting in a stuffy auditorium listening to a bunch of actors moan.

In the monologue “Because He Liked to Look at It,” the woman was with a man who insisted on “seeing her.” By saying “her” he meant her vagina. According to the actress, this was because she is defined by her vagina. That is a horrendous message. Women are far more than one organ in their body, we can not be defined by our vaginas. This feminist mindset seems to degrade us into merely sexual creatures. Sex is supposed to mean something a bond between a man and a woman, a way of showing deep love for a person within marriage. The vagina monologues treated it as a cheap circus trick to please one’s self.

Play Wrong to Glorify Rape, Prostitution

Eve Ensler performing the Monologues

Eve Ensler performing the Monologues

Imagine a play that involved audience participation in chanting the “C” word, veneration of child rape, the glamorization of lesbian prostitution, contains detailed descriptions of female masturbation, and teaches that women are merely sex objects. Now imagine this play being shown at a prestigious college and no one seeming to care. What is UNC’s production of the Vagina Monologues? Correct!

Not many things surprise me here at UNC any longer when it comes to offensive events, but I think someone was trying a bit too hard when they thought of this one. Apparently in UNC land it is permissible to teach that women are nothing more than sexual objects. Not only that, teaching that they are nothing more than sexual objects is justified with the excuse that it helps to empower women and fight violence. Yeah, no. The student organization selling tickets for the event in the pit was simultaneously giving out free condoms to men. That’ll teach those rapists!

The Clair Booth Luce Policy Institute offers 10 fact vs. fallacy claims in a handout entitled The Vagina Monologues Exposed. Among the most offensive and ridiculous facts include the fact that the Monologues venerates child rape. A woman gets a girl of 16 drunk (in the original play she was 13 years old) and then rapes her. The little girl explains that the experience “transformed my sorry-ass coochi snorcher and raised it up into a kind of heaven.” The original play ended with the line, “if it was rape, it was a good rape.”

So, I’m confused. How does promoting child rape empower women? But then again, we have to be “viewpoint neutral.” We mustn’t judge them because they are different. Maybe child rape is okay for them but not for you. Isn’t that how the usual multiculturalist/diversity line goes?

May I suggest that the “feminists” who put on such evil and their organization be castrated from our community. There is no place for them. Or, if they are to receive permission or funds again in order to put on the Vagina Monologues, they ought to be required to have “pro-child rape” printed in bold on each of their flyers.

When, for the sake of fairness I attend this play Saturday in order that I may further write about it, I do not know what will keep me from turning over the tables in the theatre out of righteous anger.

(Update: The student organization Carolina V-Day Initiative that puts on the play received 1,100 dollars of your student fee money; outrage anyone?)

The End

Sue Johanson

Sue Johanson

Well, that’s it.  We have committed suicide as a society.  We are no longer worth anything to God, to country, or to family.  I know this because the DTH recorded the reactions of students to Sue Johanson’s “Sex Talk.”

“I thought it was amazing, especially the part where she put the condom on with her mouth,” gushed one Freshman (aww I didn’t say “first year” CRY ME A RIVER).  But that wasn’t the best part, “She helped male students by explicitly explaining how to stimulate a clitoris — by touching, fingering, fondling, petting, stroking and oral genital sex.”  Wow, that’s not offensive at all.  I mean, obviously it can’t be because it is against the harrasment policy to offend anyone.

According to Sue your sexuality is “the most important aspect of living.”  Well that would be in line with the sentiments of the Vagina Monologues that UNC will allow to be performed on campus this weekend.  That’s just great.  UNC’s message to women: you are nothing more than a sex toy.

I love living here at UNC and I love my friends, my classes, and my teachers.  But, I despise this university’s values.  They are repugnant.

God and Man at UNC


In this year of our Lord 2008, UNC dogmatically promotes “intellectual freedom” and is opposed to discrimination on the basis of “religion” or “creed.” Chancellor Thorp has stated his “profound commitment and support of Carolina’s efforts to achieve a diverse and inclusive community.” According to him, “Diversity constitutes a strategic goal of our Academic Plan and a key element of our aspirations for being a great university.”

This the mantra of a university that ended a thirty year tradition of a Christmas tree display in Wilson Library because there was a “diversity of feelings and opinions about it.” In other words the display’s implication no longer fits the university’s creed. But fear not! “The Friends of the Library will continue to provide a seasonal event in Wilson Library on Dec. 11 that will include the telling of winter-themed folktales.” Yes! Now that’s more like it; it’s not offensive, stale, and stupid. Hear ye, hear ye: “All holiday celebrations must involve politically correct bull crap.”

I wonder what the members of the General Assembly who chartered the UNC system would say. After all, their language is a far cry from the neutral, we are a blank slate, fill us in, language of today’s UNC. I’m talking about the General Assembly that offensively commanded, by law, that if “any student shall deny the being of a God, or the divine authority of the Holy Scriptures, or shall assert, and endeavor to propagate among the students any principle subversive of the Christian religion, he shall be dismissed.”

What a distance we have come. Today the law should be written as follows: “if any student shall be offended by the female orgasm he/she/whatever shall be dismissed.” After all, if there is, as the university asserts, such a “diversity of feelings and opinions” about a non-descript Christmas tree, and that diversity prompted the end to a thirty year tradition, what, I wonder, is the diversity of feeling about an “I Heart Female Orgasm” event in which you can “learn how to have your first orgasm, or how to have better ones.”

I can see the class reunion of us, the future leaders of America, now: “Remember back in ’09? That certainly was a great female orgasm event; I met my wife there.”

I assume the women’s rights groups who promoted this and other like events on campus care about such problems facing our society such as unwanted pregnancy, fatherless homes, and violence against women. If so, may I suggest the solution to these and other related issues involve not the advertisement of a “FREE Sex Toy Raffle” in the name of “empowering women,” but a return to what the founders of UNC understood; that morality and religion (specifically Christian values) are the foundation for a healthy society. Let UNC Chapel Hill stop its dishonest jargon regarding non-discrimination and say what it means: that it is decidedly anti-religion (for, if it is for all religions, it is for none).

Now, having “killed God,” UNC rots in the rank stupidity of its own purposeless existence. God help us.