Shis issue:

(¥Y The most maligned country on Earth

(Y The Report Card: Education
(Y Spreading the word, or just a buzzword?

And more!

Have your voice heard!
Contact: Elliot Chan, Opinions Editor

M opinions@theotherpress.ca

www. theotherpress.ca

 

Chivalry is dead and.
feminism dug the grave

» Is my shining armour sexist?

Elliot Chan
Opinions Editor
& opinions
@theotherpress.ca

 

believe in equal rights—at

least, I want to. I believe
I’m like a lot of other men,
straddling the line between
sexist and feminist, teetering
back and forth by the push and
pull of social expectation and
traditional beliefs. Yes, I’m the
kind of guy who wants to hold
the door open, who wants to
pull the chair out, and who also
wants to split the bill at the
end of the night. I want to be
chivalrous, but what does that
word even mean anymore?

Men pride themselves on

situation were different, I would
pay for everything, despite the
fact that my female counterpart

or more. After all, a woman’s
success is her success, not my
failure by any means.

Yet, there is still this stigma

towards a woman treating a man : that men do not need to be

: chivalrous; they only need to

in certain situations, mainly

: in public—maybe it’s all in my
: head, but I don’t believe it is. I

. " : know that deep down men still
being financial supporters. If my : strive to be the dominant gender. :
: We feel good when we can open
: jars for her, do heavy lifting for

‘ / : her, and even put a roof over her
will be earning the same amount : head. It’s not that we consider

: our mothers, sisters, girlfriends,
: wives, etc. to be inferior, but like

: I said, we’re proud.

Women would argue

: be polite and respectful. Many
: feminists will say that women
: don’t need men to protect them

because they are not damsels

: in distress. But men want to

: protect women and save them

: from distress, even if there isn’t

: any. Guys, how many times

: did you feel the need to walk a

: girl home at night, or at least

: to the bus stop or the SkyTrain

: station? You know, because her

: safety matters. Girls, how many

: times did you judge a guy for not

 

 

: offering or for outright refusing
: to take you home? Whata lazy
: thoughtless bum, right?

I don't want to feel

: responsible, but I do. I know

: that if something does happen
: to her, I would feel guilty,

: and that is just the way I was

: moulded to feel. Sure, it wasn’t
: my fault. I’m not a superhero,

: I’m not evena mall security

: guard, but when a man can't

: protect those he cares about,

: then ina way, he can’t call

: himself aman. It might be my
generation’s narcissism or it

: might just be my own insecurity;
: either way, I feel a greater need

; to protect the women in my life

: than the guys. I'll hold the door

: open for you, dude—while I'm

: here anyways.

It might be the fact that

men have been mistreating

: women since the dawn of time,

: and there will always be dick

: heads out there. That was why

: chivalry existed during medieval
: times, to protect women from

: those dick heads. Now in the

: modern age, the measuring stick
: is not that apparent for either

: gender. But guys, whether you

: area feminist or not, normal

: human decency will always ring
: through; it’s more important

: than any useless labels.

With all that being said, the

chivalry period is over. But that
: doesn’t mean us guys can't still

: do the things Prince Charming
: did. Yes, we should still open

: doors, we should still pull out

: chairs, and hell, we should split
: the bill once in a while—not

: only with women, but with all

: people.

 

#theendofcommunication

» Is new media ruining language?

Joshua Grant
Contributor

Wee I was in my early
teens, it was MSN
Messenger. Then it was text
messages. Now I can’t turn on
the Internet without seeing
some screed about how
millennials can’t think or write
anymore because they live in
a world of “140 characters.”
Or whatever. It’s the same
story. A new communications
technology takes psychic
market share from an old one
and this time it’s certain: the
English language is done for,
gone—or, at least, reduced to
a series of grunts, hashtags,
and one long unstressed and
toneless schwa.

Of course abbreviations
and informalities abound, but

: criticizing that is like criticizing
: techno for being repetitive. For

: what it’s worth, one study found
: that the average word on Twitter
was larger than the average

: word ina selection of classic

: novels and Shakespeare. More

: importantly, though, there’s no
: good evidence that the use of

; new media, with its brevity and
: immediacy, makes people worse
: communicators outside of

: the appropriate context. Most

: of the evidence towards new

: media ruining communication

: skills tends to be anecdotal—a

: struggling student using

: inappropriate “online” language
: in an essay, often. Would they

: have messed up ina different

: way otherwise? Probably.

Certainly, the benefits and

: limitations of different media
: impact how language is used in
: that media and in other media.

; Where the old guard might be
: right is that people who use

: new media will choose not

: to indulge in old media. But

: why should we expect them
to? It’s popular to lament the

: death of the written letter, the

: great Canadian postal service,

: carrier pigeons, and paper

: boys with hard pomade hair,

: but we're living in a different

: world, a world that has moved
: on to other communication

: techniques. Are we worried

: that kids aren’t learning Morse
: code? Or engraving technique?
: Absolutely not. But as these

: techniques were phased out,I:
: can imagine similar panics. This :
: outrage is as old as technology:
: in Plato’s Phaedrus, Socrates

: dissects an Egyptian myth

: to make the point that the

: technology of writing itself

: is problematic because it will

; cause people to stop using their
: memories. And to some degree,
: he’s right. But who needs

: memory when you can write?
What was I saying again?

Any judgement either

way depends on highly

: subjective criteria, based

: largely on whatever media one
: is comfortable with. Look:

: writing a good tweet is a skill.

: It’s a deceptively difficult skill,
: too—tweets are in some ways
: as restrictive as sonnets and

: haiku, and there’s a lot more

: to consider than simply your

: message. Writing an old-school
: letter isa skill, too. Both skills

use language. One is private

: and slow; the other public and
: instant. Tweets as public and

: immediate have affected how

: online communications are

: written, if simply because they
: work better when they’re brief.

: To write a tweet like a letter
: would be just as useless as vice
; versa.

The 140 character panic

boils down to an older

: generation's inability to adapt

; just as much as the younger

: generation's unwillingness

: to compromise. The fact that

: someone versed in the old,

: linear media can't sufficiently

: parse the languages of new

: media doesn’t mean that the

: languages are worse. An email

: might be more brief than a

: latter-day letter, but that doesn’t
: mean that it is an inferior

: mode of communication.

: Language and communication

: aren't devolving. They're

: just changing, like they have

: constantly, to meet (and make)

: new technology. Schwaaa! #yolo