A Field of Verbal IEDs

     Recently, in a Times article I read, the author discusses how her college-aged daughter has now been converted to the side of P.C. language. Words such as "microagressions" and "cisgender" have now become a part of her daughter's vocabulary. So, one wrong mix up of gender pronouns or incorrect nomenclature earns her a dagger-like stare or groans of pity from her daughter. As a result, her house has become a field of "verbal IEDs", where she must always watch where she steps (or, in this case, speaks).
     Our nation has become much like this author's house. In our case, however, the battle is between political parties, and their weapons are P.C. phrases.
     This is not to say that all P.C. language is bad; Its intentions to eliminate bias on the basis of race, religion, or gender are admirable. But, merely altering semantics is not enough to sew shut the ever-expanding chasm that has split the nation.
     Virtually no difference exists between "abuse vs. torture" and genital mutilation vs. genital cutting"; They are all abhorrent (Okrent 771). These phrases are synonymous, and the minute differences in connotation are only the result of politically fueled battle. They waste time and distract from the real issues. Ultimately, if we can't agree on semantics, we should at least agree to disagree. -MC

Their points are one and the same.

Survival Town

Setting: Survival Town, Nevada. Sixty miles north of Las Vegas
Date: May 5, 1955
     It was a clear, early morning. Looking out, it seemed like a perfect town; Tidy houses and electrical substations were visible and homes' pantries were well-stocked with typical canned and packaged foods, like any other American home. But there was no bustling of breakfast being prepared, no yawns of children rising for school, no purr of automobile engines. In fact, there was no sound at all. The residents had been petrified, although not from fear. They were mannequins.
     Survival Town was built by the United States government in order to evaluate explosions' effects on people and buildings. It was a part of the covert Operation Teapot, which aimed to establish an effective strategic method of dispensing deadly A-bombs.

A mannequin before...

...and after. He would've been burned alive

Mannequins were dressed like people and placed in varying areas of exposure - outside, inside, in a vehicle, and so on. If the clothes were burned by the blast, it meant that a human would have been burned alive. The bomb, named Apple-2, was dropped shortly thereafter.

     Though it is apparent today that these tests caused cancer and distress to those living near the sites, they were deemed necessary at the time to "fight the Communists". The fear of hostile takeover by the Russians only fueled the "rampant...McCarthyism" (Williams 929), which began when Senator Joseph McCarthy ran around the government accusing various officials of being "loyalty risks" to national security.

     This was in a time where the Atomic Energy Commission assured nearby residents that radiation levels were "only slightly more than normal radiation which you experience day in and day out wherever you may live". Dead sheep were a common sight, and the rabbits fled.
     So, consider this: The Cold War wound up not requiring nuclear weapons (or, for the most part, violence), so why do we insist upon keeping a multi-billion dollar stockpile today? What are we so afraid of? -MC

Sources:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2015/sep/21/building-the-atom-bomb-the-full-story-of-the-nevada-test-site
http://time.com/3675016/nevada-a-bomb-test/
http://www.history.com/topics/cold-war/joseph-mccarthy

The Unmarked Hijab

Disclaimer: I've incorporated my own political views into this post. It is not my intention to offend anyone, and I apologize if I will.
     As I read Deborah Tannen's "There is No Unmarked Woman" the other day, alarm bells went off in my head. They were screaming "Donald Trump" like bloody murder. Truly, as Tannen went on to describe how she "considered the clothes of each woman" she saw and paid no mind to the style of each man, I immediately though about our great President's unequal treatment of the sexes (Tannen 552). He is the type to peg Tannen as a "male-bash[er]" when she states that men, unlike women, have the option of going about their day unmarked and are not viewed as objects of affection or targets of sexual impulses.
     Really, though, I think being "marked" versus "unmarked" is dependent largely on your own perspective. I'm not saying this applies in every case - after all, I don't think the misogynist President will ever cease to judge women by how "tight or revealing" their clothes are - but this is especially true for hijabi women, who are followers of Islam.
     In American society, hijabs are sometimes seen as a symbol of oppression; Why should these young women be forced to cover themselves up? They are occasionally marked as ignorant followers of religion without the ability of free thought. In fact, in extremists' views, the hijab poses a danger to America. It is a reminder to them that all terrorists are Muslim (which, of course, is false). Thus, hijabi women are marked even more deeply. 
     However, in many cases, hijabi women feel as though the hijab completes them. It frees them from the burden of our society's obsession with physical appearances. In that sense, it renders them unmarked. They are able to remain modest and to be viewed for their intellect rather than physicality. 
     These women have the right wear their hijabs proudly and to be unmarked in their own way, a point enforced during the Women's March in Washington D.C. on January 21, 2017.

Protesters at the Women's March

It is not the hijab that marks them, but rather society's ever-negative view. -MC

P.S. If you need a pick-me-up, just watch this video, titled in French "Hijabs for All: The March for Women". It depicts two Muslim women helping pin American flag hijabs to other supporters of rights. The moment at the 32 second mark is particularly heartwarming.