W27 March 2020

W27

FIT

Volume 53

MARCH 2020

Issue 4

March 2020

the 2020 issue

1

2

MASTHEAD

Mason Auman President & Editor-in-Chief

W27

A LETTER FROM THE EDITOR

Lola Cornillon Vice President & Managing Editor

EDITORS Charlotte Spaid Ethan Sawyer Lauren Brown Lola Cornillon Lydia Sant

ART Mary Helen Guastello Art Director Lara de la Torre Director of Photo Steven Molina Contreras Deputy of Photo Ava Grindley Lola Cornillon Giulia Maria Baretta Victoria Rifa Joseph Macario Designers

CONTRIBUTORS Aileen Laurila Bakhtiar Zein Becca McHaffie Bennett Raglin Beth Sacca Charlotte Spaid Derek Buffington Emilia Smithies Ethan Sawyer Flash Rosenberg Giulia Maria Baretta Glen Mosher Hannah Krebs Joffre Contreras Joseph Macario Lauren Breuer Lauren Brown Lola Cornillon Mason Auman Prerna Chaudhary

This has already been, at best, a tumultuous year. Existential global threats continue to loom while day-to-day life has been pocked with bad news and, too often, tragedy. 2020 is a big year, both on its own and as our introduction to a new decade. At this point, the novelty of year wrap-up issues and decades-in-review has long worn off – leaving us to think about the now, and the future. With this issue of W27, we seek to embrace the new world that seems to be dawning, both with optimism and vigilant critique. There are too many impactful societal and governmental changes happening every day to count – though we do try to give a fair number of them some light in these pages – and these changes are going to shape the year and the decade more is currently conceivable. Consider this the first entry in a new decade of journalism, research and discourse, in which all of these things matter more than ever.

W27 is able to exist thanks to our entire team of dedicated writers, photographers, illustrators and designers – all working in tandem to ideate content and make it happen. I couldn’t be prouder of the way our staff has grown and developed over even the last month. I would like to thank, in particular, our new set of energetic editors as well as our Vice President Lola Cornillon for aiding to guide the content of the issue – and Lara de la Torre and Steven Molina Contreras for finding our visual language. Finally, I must thank Mary Helen Guastello for transforming W27 into a tangible publication, issue after issue – going to work with the layout team to assemble all of our disparate parts and unify them into one vision. It’s a difficult and demanding task, and she executes it with poise and skill, every time.

Ellen Davidson Alexandra Mann Faculty Editorial Advisors

And this is where I yield my time to that very team, whose work is all waiting in the pages beyond me – I’m excited for you to read it, and I look forward to engaging with you all for the rest of this, my last, semester.

Professor Albert Romano Faculty Advertising Advisor

Sincerely,

Mason Auman Editor-in-Chief, W27

W27 Newspaper

@W27 Newspaper

COVER

Illustration by Joffre Contreras Advertising Design 2020 Instagram @fabricoo

www.w27newspaper.org @W27 Newspaper

www.issuu.com/w27newspaper

FIT

MARCH 2020

Contents THE 2020 ISSUE

4 5

Residence Hall Association: Condom Bar & Lounge Beyond the Condom: What Are Dental Dams?

BSU: Black in Time

6

“To the FIT Community” Discussing the First Ever MFA Graduate Show and All That’s Happened Since

7

Vogue Italia’s New Take

8

The Modern Responsible Shopper

9

Animal Agriculture and Its Effects on The Planet

10

Portrait of A Lady on Fire

11

What Does Parasite Really Mean for the Future of Film?

12

The Search Bar Lies Alone: How Microtargeting and Propaganda Influence the World

13

Our Relationship with Social Media

14

2020 Will Have Less Immigrants, Less Funds, and More Partisanship

15

Finding a Voice Amidst Political Chaos: The Importance of Engagement in Local Politics

16

Electability Paradox Prevents Minorities From Winning the Primaries

W27 is PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER. PLEASE RECYCLE AFTER READING. A FIT STUDENT ASSOCIATION PUBLICATION.

3

4

CAMPUS LIFE

W27

Residence Hall Association Condom Bar and Lounge

BY ETHAN SAWYER If you missed the annual Condom Bar, then you missed out. But, lucky for you - I didn’t miss out. And my account of all that went down at this always-a-hit event is as follows.

Oddly enough, well endowed rubber wasn’t the strangest sight my eyes witnessed. I’m 100% positive drag queen Adrena Lin had a dance contest with a unicorn. I’m also 90% sure Adrena is a perfectly assembled dancing robot sent from the future to capture our hearts with her immense movement capabilities, because the moves pulled off by that bewigged beauty shouldn’t be humanly possible. The following phrase is a written interpretation of the sounds I would make if attempting what Adrena pulled off during her performances: guffleskooph.

gestive tables lay games curated by FIT’s wonderous club selection, all offering raffle tickets to the completers of their menial tasks. Raffle winners were awarded penis pasta, vibrators and many more pleasure-parallel products.

At an indeterminate time during the night, I accidentally kicked a boob balloon into some dude’s forehead. To my suprise, he gladly accepted my inadvertent invitation for a face smashing. What followed will go down in the FIT history books as the best game of boob balloon keep-up ever witnessed, and nobody can contest that claim because no one was paying attention to us. If you’re reading this dude with the glasses, I demand a rematch.

Throughout the night, a mysteriously ever-present unicorn used any open space to perform long stretches of improvised dance. Many stretches appropriately revolved around twerking on willing attendees. While watching the fascinating events unfold, two questions kept blipping back to my brain; why did that unicorn eat a person, and why is there an opening in its throat highlighting the digestion process?

Those questions were promptly forgotten when High School Musical’s cast began performing “Get Your Head in the Game,” where the new question in my mind became “am I worthy to stand in the presence of such greatness?” I left shortly after. ■

The Student Activities Board proudly supplied popcorn, cotton candy, and an assortment of floor dildos waiting to have rings thrown at them. The most mentally stimulating sight at this entire event, no contest, was SAB’s field of erect penis replacements basking in the soft vagina-pink glow reflected off looming white structural columns. What a fantastic way to inadvertently represent the mainstream sex industry.

Theatre club put a sexy picture of young Zack Effron on a pedestal and asked people to blindly pin a condom on it. In a completely unrelated quote, sophomore Allie said “It was great.” Pink tables adorned the hall floor, brightly popping above drab tiles, and housed atop these sugPHOTOS COURTESY ETHAN SAWYER

Beyond the Condom: What Are Dental Dams?

BY EMILIA SMITHIES

ILLUSTRATION BY EMILIA SMITHIES

The first time I tried to purchase a “dental dam” at my local Duane Reade, I remember the person I was with being terrified and both of us being uncomfortable when approaching the lady at the counter.

She was perplexed, and honestly she’s not the only one, most people don’t know what they are or how to use them. I think of them as blankets for your carpet; essentially, dental dams are thin sheets of latex that protect us from STDs when engaging in oral sex with a vulva. Although often associated with lesbian sex, dental dams should be used by anyone who has oral sex with someone with a vulva, including cisgender heterosexual couples. Within the US, STDs such as gonorrhea, syphilis and chlamydia are at an all time high. I won’t go into the consequences of leaving these STDs untreated, we’ve all been traumatized enough in sex ed class. But in general, the reason for this increase in infection can be boiled down in a large part to the decline in the use of condoms amongst young people, especially in the 15 to 24 age range. One of the things the CDC found was that STDs disproportionately affect women because of the ease with which these diseases reproduce in our anatomy. Two of the leading preventable causes of infertility and ectopic pregnancies in the world are chlamydia and gonorrhea, both STDs that can be spread through oral sex.

Now, why are schools ignoring the role of oral sex in spreading STDs? One would assume that in an institution that seeks to educate and provide resources, with condoms being shoved into our faces in all health services events, that it would be the same with dental dams. The rebuttal to this is often for students to ask for them or DIY them - which is probably the last thing on anyone’s mind when doing the thing, and schools often don’t have “fresh”

dental dams. The problem with this notion is that it is very phalo-centric. In other words, it’s always about the D, and… it’s 2020, it’s not all about the D. People with vulvas deserve to have safe sex too, we need to feel empowered in knowing we are safe especially in an act as vulnerable as having sex. The idea that sex heterosexual sex is the default is archaic when our generation is constantly experimenting with relationships and sexualities. Dental dams are not just a “gay issue,” they are a feminist issue, they are an equality issue, a health and safety issue.

Oral herpes is one of the most common STDs, as it lives in people’s throats and mouths and it is so easily transformed into genital herpes through oral sex. These latex sheets should be readily available at schools and treated the same as condoms in display and education. No one is going to know what they are unless they see them and question their use, it takes away the awkward question to doctors and ensures even people who can’t afford to buy a whole box of them still have safe sex.

So, for now, what can we do? We can buy them in bulk - which is my personal nightmare. But we can also pressure the institution we pay tuition to and other health services to provide them for us and actually use them. Regardless of whether this gets you to start using dental dams or not, I want to reiterate the importance of getting tested, regardless of if you ever come near the D. If you don’t use protection, that is totally your choice, but you have to be responsible and at least let your partner(s) know your status. Needles and checking the “STD Test” box are uncomfortable, condoms and dental dams can be seen as such too, but they’re less uncomfortable than STDs. ■

FIT

MARCH 2020

BSU BLACK IN TIME

BY LAUREN BROWN

In the first week of Black History month, our very own Black Student Union (BSU) opened its inaugural exhibit “Black in Time.” A display of vibrant colors and culture greeted over 300 visitors on opening night. Towering columns of rich patterns and mannequins draped in borrowed garments from several students, staff and creatives coaxed ones eyes from city’s streets and through the glass windows of FIT’s Pomerantz Center. While the exhibition appeared overnight, it took months of intentional curation. I had the pleasure of speaking with curators Awa Kaday and Kiara Williams about what went on behind the scenes, and the work and the many hands it took to showcase such an evolution of culture. “It’s been eight months in the making,” says Awa, “...to gather, source and connect...But we only had a week to put it together.”

The exhibit space consists of carefully curated sections that focus on different aspects of Black history and those who influenced it–– exploring Black culture’s massive impact on everyday life. “Our way to determine the sections [of the exhibit] was through fashion,” says Kiara, the lead curator on the project, “We just kinda let the artwork apply to the fashion.” Considering the hurried place of the average New Yorker I asked, “If someone only had five minutes what would be the best way to spend their time at the exhibit?” “I would say this room.” Awa was describing a small gallery just off the grand showcase area. “That room catches a lot of people’s eye.” As my eyes studied the space I encountered objects that I recognized like a Barbie doll, but with bronzed skin, and things that rekindled childhood memories.

My experience captured the essence of the room; while Black culture is visible in our day to day world, there is still so much to be explored acknowledged. In the spirit of being a continuous learner, I asked the duo about what they learned while putting things together about black culture. “I know a lot about my history,” Awa said as she explained how the team’s research was more of a refresher course for her, while Kiara talked about how she had to dig deeper and gain more knowledge to be better equipped to educate tour groups who’d visit the exhibit. “People genuinely don’t know who they [black civil rights leaders, artists, etc.] are.” So how did this all come to be? What was the vision and mission to create a time machine of black culture? “We knew we wanted to do an exhibit, but that meant we had to curate it…that’s when people started calling us ‘the curators,’ we didn’t know what that meant [to us], which meant sourcing and organizing.”

Being a “curator” meant creating connections and sourcing for people to donate designs and items to fit their intent. This process was something neither of them has tackled, they had to learn things as they went and just simply, make it work; “Do I see myself doing this again? I definitely want to do it again, it was a very big learning experience.” Awa mentioned. With a minor in Art History, Kiara talked about how she’d always been interested in museums and sourcing and putting things together to form a learning and enjoyable experience for visitors.

“I always thought, ‘It’d be cool!’ but it is hard work.”

They received donations from flower shops, 30th Street Guitars, and the Visual Presentation and Exhibition Design program built the bookshelf that is part of the display. The exhibition was an all in task, “We asked for everything, even a wall that they said wasn’t a part of the space.” Awa laughs. Everywhere you look there are enticing works of art from students to vinyls of classic black artists donated from the photography department.

“Everyone really had a hand in it...people really believed in our vision. It was all in our heads and now it’s here. We’re business students not art students.” Often when starting with a thought, the outcome can be hard to see. When asked about how they thought the event was received, “We didn’t know it was gonna be that big...and everyone told us that, but we have never done anything like this in the art world.” The final product of the successful event was not easy. In conversation, Awa and Kiara talked about frustration and time constraints when it came to putting the exhibit together. “At the end of this journey, we realized that it’s truly a community project.”

With the help of several BSU members staying late and giving an extra hand, we can see the excellent exhibit that stands now, until March 7th.

In light of recent events related to the FIT community and racial awareness, it is important to be educated in Black Culture - which has had a massive influence in fashion and the world we live in today. There’s no better moment than the present to go “Black In Time”! ■■

PHOTOS COURTESY FLASH ROSENBERG

5

6

CAMPUS LIFE

W27

“To the FIT Community…”

Discussing the First Ever MFA Graduate Show, and All That’s Happened Since

BY MASON AUMAN On February 7, I sat myself down on the second bench back from the runway at Pier 59, harboring what could be considered a fair, but admittedly not overzealous, amount of anticipation for the impending inaugural Fashion Institute of Technology MFA show. As the show began to unfold, this anticipation was paid off with some legitimately interesting and cool looks – I began mentally recording my review right there. But, somewhere in the middle of the procession, as I began to settle into the rhythm of the affair, a disruption came lumbering toward me. What I saw was a model, strutting with the same assuredness and poise as those who preceded her, but adorned with an alarming set of accessories. Large over-pronounced ears, cartoonish oversized ruby red lips and eyebrows ranging from exaggerated to extravagantly unruly.

The collection, designed by Junkai Huang, was purportedly meant to highlight the “ugly features of the body” – according to Paper Magazine. It’s worth mentioning that this glaring aesthetic choice glided by seemingly without causing any stir within this particular crowd.

I scanned the room rapidly to see if others in attendance were clocking the – at best – problematic choice confronting them, and it didn’t appear that there was even a second thought lingering in the room.

The show went on, after the full collection – every look accessorized with the same overtly racist features – finished its display, and the following designers sent their figures down the runway. Things wrapped up without a hitch, and everyone went about their day. It wasn’t until a week or so later that the collective consciousness of fashion registered what was seen that morning, and what has unfolded is likely familiar to you, as an FIT student, through a flurry of statements from President Dr. Joyce F. Brown. At this point, the story has become a layered and ungainly tale, and it’s likely that by the time you’re reading this, new layers will have been added. In the pursuit of processing any of this and coming to some sort of understanding as to how it happened – we’ve first got to establish a working timeline up to this point.

To start, the show was held on the morning of February 7, at the Chelsea Piers. But any issue with what was on display wasn’t publicly taken by news outlets until about a week later. The Instagram account “@diet_prada” created significant internet buzz around the issue on February 17, citing a New York Post article about the show and referencing the first statement

made by President Brown. In that statement, Brown wrote that it’s important for students to have the “freedom to craft their own personal and unique artistic perspectives as designers, to be even what some would consider to be provocative.”

Additionally, an investigation into the matter was announced. But even before this investigation was launched, we had some intel from behind the scenes at the event.

African American model Amy Lefevre is said to have spoken up about the accessories backstage and was told that it was “ok to be uncomfortable for only 45 seconds.”

This callous response wasn’t issued in isolation. Another student, who wishes to remain anonymous, heard show producer Richard Thornn tell those who were backstage to “back down and get away.” Lefevre, through her brave protest, walked without the accessories, but the same cannot be said for the other models.

Updates on the status of the entire debacle have been even-handed and consistent from President Brown.

On February 21, an email was sent to the community that notes the steps that had been taken to address the issue at that point. The first step, according to Brown, is as follows: “First and foremost, we have commissioned an independent investigation of ourselves. Bond, Schoeneck & King, an external law firm, will immediately conduct a thorough and objective probe into the incident, including what led up to the show and what followed.”

A good start, certainly. But Brown had more information to provide, even before the aforementioned probe yielded results, that changes the narrative of the event. According to Brown: “It also appears – based upon information available – that the styling and accessorizing used in the show were provided to him rather than chosen at his discretion. To us, this indicates that those in charge of and responsible for overseeing the show failed to recognize or anticipate the racist references and cultural insensitivities that were obvious to almost everybody else.

That’s inexcusable and irresponsible – but also why we are commissioning an independent investigation.”

The intent of this message, and the messaging coming out of the school since, has been to shift the focus and burden of blame off of the shoulders of Junkai Huang, the designer. Again, it’s been highlighted that Huang is an international student, did not intend to make any statement regarding

race, and didn’t seem to be aware of even the unintended implications of the designs. Additionally, the accessories – having been reportedly chosen for Huang – are the point of issue, not the clothes themselves. The more important and troubling aspect of this significant misstep is, necessarily, the sheer number of eyes that this decision had to pass by – officials with serious fashion credentials, in a position of mentorship for young designers. How is it that the only questions raised about this decision came from students, speaking up? Besides highlighting an apparent gap in the generational understanding of acceptance and inclusion in fashion, it seems to signal an alarming lack of care.

There have been consequences for this lack of care – “the Dean of the School of Graduate Studies has been placed on administrative leave while there is an investigation into the events surrounding the MFA fashion show” writes Brown. In the interim, Joanne Arbuckle has been appointed as the acting dean of the graduate school. Currently, Ms. Arbuckle is the deputy to the President for Industry partnerships and Collaborative Programs. The missing piece here is what role, precisely, the now-on-leave Dean of the School of Graduate Studies had in the whole affair, and it’s unclear to what degree we’ll get an answer to that question.

We’re left then, to learn what we can from all that we know now – though it would seem in this case that the student body isn’t the collective that most needs an exercise in learning, with outsourced accessories and the only acknowledgement of a problem pre-news breaking coming from our ranks.

It’s a shame, really, that this happened. For the most obvious and consequential reasons like a display of unthinking bigotry and because it’s taken away from all of the other designers who worked tirelessly to have their own work showcased that morning. The story is now and will continue to be about the controversy – while the other designers who earned their spot in the lineup are relegated to the background. It’s frustrating and unfair, to say the least. So, this article will not be accompanied with images that display the facial accessories in question, you can find those everywhere else.

Instead, what you are seeing is images of the other collections – an array of looks communicating the talent and passion of The Fashion Institute of Technology.■

PHOTOS COURTESY STEVEN BIBB

FIT

MARCH 2020

VOGUE ITALIA’S NEW TAKE

BY GIULIA MARIA BARETTA

In the past few years fast fashion retailers have faced critics and changed their production drastically to reduce environmental pollution. Brands such as H&M and Zara now include garments made with recycled plastic and fabric.

Despite retailers changing their way of manufacturing, fashion will never be environmentally sustainable. Excluding the hypothesis of creating decomposable apparel, the mentality behind this industry is the real issue. Desiring something new makes you part of the endless circle created by our consumeristic society. You don’t need a new jacket, you just want it.

Extinction Rebellion, an international movement that protests and disobeys without the use of violence, was highly criticized by the press due to their manifestation during Aesthetica on London Fashion Week, a trade show where new talents had the opportunity to show their sustainable collections. As stated

by Clare Farrell, one of the leaders of the movement:

McCartney shoes as they please, so they need to find a more affordable solution in fast fashion stores. This cycle will never end if Luxury Houses don’t change their consumeristic approach towards trends.

Surprisingly, one of the industry big players decided to practice real change. As stated by Emanuele Farneti in the “Inside Vogue Italia” podcast: “It takes an average of 150 people involved, 20 flights and a dozen of train journeys, 40 cars on standby, 60 international deliveries, light switch on for at list 10 hours nonstop, food waste from catering services, plastic to wrap garments, electricity to recharge phones and cameras” all to make a Vogue Cover.

The magazine decided to be open about the correlation between fashion publications and pollution, printing an unconventional issue without any photo-

graphed cover. It was in fact drawn by a young artist portraying models wearing the clothing chosen for promotion. Since the introduction of photography, no Vogue has been issued without a proper photoshoot. The magazine also focused on advertising second hand and vintage clothing instead of newness, showing how the beauty industry can be reusable too. A milestone for the publication industry is usually marketing the latest trends and unmissable pieces.

This is the change the industry needs. A radical one, where transparency and innovation are the core of the industry because inspiring is not only giving creative incentives, it’s challenging people’s mentality and showing the vulnerable part of it.

Change is difficult but we live here, this is our planet, this is our future we are talking about, the time for prayers has run out.

The time to act is now. ■

“At this time, we cannot focus on transforming how the supply chain impacts the environment, instead stop creating waste at all”. The tombstone of the fashion industry is its font of sustainability, selling newness. Designers don’t survive creating art, but rather by selling it.

Luxury brands are trying to create new fibres to produce sustainable clothing but is it really going to reduce the level of pollution we are in today? Certainly not.

Those practices should have been done 10 years ago when the situation was still critical, now we are facing a global emergency as described by Naomi Klein in her book “On Fire: The burning case for a green new deal”. “Sustainability has become a greenwash embellishment for marketing strategies. The real problem is the idea that we always need to have something new, the idea of endlessly buying new items to replace our old ones.”

It is understandably hard for the fashion industry to find a solution to this issue due to the nature of the business, but this critical situation shouldn’t put a stone in the creation of art, there are endless alternatives for young designers. Companies should use old garments to create new styles and incentivise exchanges and rental platforms where customers can borrow from one another, because clothing is not valued anymore as necessity but as disposable items. H&M and Zara were put on the gallows for their unsustainable supply chain, but whose fault is that? No one is really addressing the issue of the real fire feeders: luxury brands! Common people are not able to purchase $500 dollar eco-friendly Stella

“At this time, we cannot focus on transforming how the supply chain impacts the environment, instead stop creating waste at all.”

Clare Farrell, Co-Founder, The Extinction Rebellion

PHOTO COURTESY VOGUE ITALIA

7

8

2020 ISSUE

W27

THE MODERN RESPONSIBLE SHOPPER

BY JOSEPH MACARIO One of the trending topics in the fashion world and other industries today is the term sustainability. People are talking about what sustainability is, why it’s important and who is doing it. In the most literal terms sustainability is defined as something being able to be supported or upheld without being weakened. Its environmental and more modern definition involves a product or practice not being harmful to the environment, depleting natural resources or involving unethical business practice.

Brands will use the term “eco-friendly” or “sustainable” to describe their products.

Many brands do not, however, adhere to what a true sustainable product would be described as. One of the larger offenders to these issues is fast fashion, which is defined as trendy clothing that is made very quickly and cheaply in response to catwalks of clothing brands and trends. Companies like Zara and H&M quickly produce these clothes in what are often ethically and environmentally harming ways. The quality of these products is also very poor, so the clothes will be worn once or twice and then discarded to the trash once deemed unwearable. This cycle of fast fashion has negative impacts on the planet and cannot be described as a “sustainable” practice with its current definition. Around 85% of textile waste in the United States goes into landfills while the microfibers in the products end up in the oceans, our ecosystems and our foods. These microfibers do not decay quickly and will be in the earth for close to 200 years. Along with fast fashion’s eco impact is the ethical impact. Many fast fashion brands use labor from outside the U.S. where wages are lower and labor laws are looser. The workforce of fast fashion mostly consists of 18 to 24-year old women who make close to a few dollars per hour while working more than 8 hours a day.

With the facts laid in front of you, many would ask how can I know if a brand I like is practicing responsibly? The best way to see if a brand you’re interested in is ethical is to research. Read up on the policy section of the website and impact reports; a company with nothing to hide is one to trust. Check for locations, names, facts and numbers referring to where and how the products are sourced, produced and manufactured. Look for Fairtrade or B-corp Certified brands.

These are third parties that vouch for the ethics of a company. Also, be aware that some companies can have certain products that are Fair Trade and will try to put that on the forefront of the whole company, so it falls on the consumer to do in depth research to find an ethical brand.

PHOTO COURTESY BECCA MCHAFFIE

While researching brands is the best way to shop ethically, there are other ways you can responsibly shop without needing to go look into the ethics. Thrifting is a huge way to help reduce the amount of fabric waste today. Thrifted or second hand clothing helps to prevent clothing from becoming waste in landfills and slows down the fast fashion process. With more clothing being recycled, there is less need for the production of environmentally harmful textiles and chemicals, while a slower fashion cycle puts less stress on manufacturing employees of fashion brands. Upcycling your clothing and investing in repairs, as opposed to discarding, is much more beneficial in the long run.

This will help to balance out the amount of clothing in the world today. Brands like Nike run a ‘reuse a shoe’ program where a person can donate any brand of worn-out athletic shoes to be reused. All you have to do is drop the shoes off at a participating Nike store, and they will reuse the shoes materials into future apparel, athletic surfaces, such as courts and tracks, and footwear.

So far the program has shoes being reused in 71% of Nike’s products. Investments in more well produced clothing will also help due to the extended use of your apparel along with needing less clothes throughout the seasons. Investing in more sustainable, versatile or classic clothing will allow you to resist the urge of last minute fast fashion buys. Other small ways to use clothing in an eco-friendly manner is to invest in less pollutant washing detergent, shop locally and look for more responsible textiles such as silk, organic cotton, hemp and tencel while trying to avoid non recycled polyester and unethically sourced cotton if possible.

Two examples of ethically responsible brands to help lay a blueprint are Study NYC and Kaight. Both of these brands provide extensive information about how they run their practice along with the facts to back it up. Both brands work with local NYC businesses and woman-owned ethical manufacturers to help produce more responsibly.

Study NYC provides all the names of their partners along with locations and what each location provides. These brands are both fair-trade certified, and they provide information about what textiles they use and how they are recycled. Each brand also provides quick contact information for any other inquiries about their practices. This raises a question: if these smaller companies can provide us with responsible practices, why can’t larger brands? A much larger brand with stronger influence could switch over to these practices with much more efficiency. Quick research into many large fashion companies will show that there is still much improvement needed for them to become a “sustainable” practice. For example, H&M has started to use 25% organic cotton for their clothing, while Zara provides extensive information into their more improved labor and wage practices, but this is far from the position many of these brands should be in, with the current issues we face.

With the current global state, many people are pressing the question of what we can do next. Fast fashion is a large component of many of the problems we see today, but it is also there with the entire apparel industry as a whole. The industry can turn a blind eye to many of these things today, but with the current conditions. ■

FIT

MARCH 2020

Animal Agriculture and Its Effects on the Planet

BY LAUREN BREUER Animal agriculture is the leading cause of all of our problems on Earth. It takes up so much land that it impacts every single industry. And, it is often not brought up enough in our daily lives. Most of the time, change happens when people witness bad circumstances firsthand. first handedly. But when it is just through a picture or a document it is not as impressive impressionable. This issue is linked to global warming and thought to be a political topic; however, it is simply an event that is occurring and needs to be stopped. Political action definitely wouldn’t harm it, but people are the ones that inflict effect change anywhere in the world; we do not need a leader to implement the change we all see as necessary.

Examples of the impacts of animal agriculture are: deforestation, water consumption and pollution, all of which are responsible for more greenhouse gases than the transportation industry. It is a primary driver of rainforest destruction, species extinction, habitat loss, topsoil erosion, ocean “dead zones” and everything else. Seems a little broad. The fact that it is affecting every part of the world, still it is thought to be a political event in every state is odd. It, unfortunately, is a part of life.

People just often choose to do nothing about it.

The documentary Cowspiracy, on Netflix, completely outlines the problems we are blindly facing do you mean ignoring? as a society. It truly amazed me to see that people who work for a specified area in the government (environmental-related areas), “couldn’t answer,” or felt “uncomfortable” answering questions when asked about the animal agriculture industry. They made it so blatantly obvious that they totally knew the answer, they just didn’t want to share. Maybe they have been sworn to secrecy, maybe they are being paid a truckload of money to keep their mouths shut? I don’t know, but their hesitation is suspicious.

There is a part in the documentary where the main film actor is warned to throw his camera away if he doesn’t want to “have his neck on the chopping block.” Originally, he had a production company agree to produce his film, but as he got further into the process, they backed away which clearly showed their hesitation/connection to the exploration.

Another thing that strikes me is that the man who made this documentary says he has supported all of the environmental organizations he visited, yet none of them could answer his question about animal agriculture.

They all say the same thing, how fossil fuels were the leading cause of it all. Some claim that they couldn’t answer that question because they’re not well versed on that topic, or it’s not “their area” of expertise. Yet, their position entails the knowledge of the environment and they are getting paid to do so. · The Beef Industry can claim that it takes only 441 gallons of water to produce a pound of beef compared to organizations like National Geographic which claims it takes 1,799 gallons because of the money and corruption involved. There is no other reason. People re-

ILLUSTRATION BY DEREK BUFFINGTON

volve around money and are willing to go to extremes to keep it. Even if it means depleting resources from the Earth and its living creatures who inhabit it.

Industrial agriculture affects the carbon cycle in multiple ways. One example is deforestation. Due to this action, immense amounts of carbon dioxide are produced, depleting the ozone layer. Trees and plants balance the carbon in the atmosphere, however, when too much is cleared, and not replaced, it starts to affect the world. An excess amount of gas in the atmosphere gets trapped, by the “blanket” that keeps us warm, which causes global warming. When the heat is trapped, it starts to melt things, also known as global warming. ·As for the nitrogen cycle, nitrogen can be transported from the ground surface to the groundwater we drink. If it rains an excessive amount one day on an irrigation system, and that irrigation system exceeds its water holding capacity, the water will runoff. But, since the water reached the irrigation system first, it now contains fertilizer/chemicals “needed” to grow crops. That water then reaches streams, ponds, lakes, etc., and eventually leaches through the soil and can make its way into groundwater along with the nitrate fertilizers. The water we drink is groundwater, and to have nitrate in your drink is very bad. And when this cycle repeats itself, it then contains fertilizers/chemicals.

To reduce the pressure of food production on planetary boundaries is to boycott the meat and dairy industries. Both of these industries take up an enormous amount of land, and are the leading reason for climate change, pollution, and all of the problems on earth.

They contribute a large carbon footprint and use so many resources that in the future, the Earth will no longer be able to give. Being Vegan cuts down a lot of the expenses discussed in this documentary. Making laws to reduce emissions, such as cutting down on meat production would greatly reduce the pressure of food production on the planetary boundaries as well. I hope that people will soon realize that it can be an easy fix, if they are just willing to change their lifestyle.

Animal agriculture is a vicious cycle of never-ending cruelty. When you consume a steak, are you thinking about the process of how it got there? The cows are brutally abused, impregnated and shot with hormones. They are confined to a box no bigger than their body so all they are able to do is lay down and sit in their own feces. They don’t graze the land and eat grass. They are fed hormones to increase their size to create more meat. They are bred to be fatter now so the industry can get more bang for their buck without doing as much labor per cow.

After the killing process, think about all of the blood that runs off the body. Companies would never think of selling bloody steak, therefore, they use water to hose it off. Do you know how much water is used per day to complete such a task in this industry? 1,799 gallons of water to create one pound of beef. As our climate proceeds on a downhill spiral, we continue to contribute to the problem.

The phrase “survival of the fittest” is thrown around to combat the plant-based dieters and the ones that don’t eat meat to make the meat lovers feel better about their reasoning. I am not preaching for anyone to become Vegan or Vegetarian for that matter, but we do not need to eat meat to survive. We have so many, sometimes too many, options. We have substitutes for the ones who love meat and still crave the tastes, everyone has the option of produce, pasta, beans, soup, pizza, chocolate and sweets. Meat is not the main source of protein in the world.

A vegan or vegetarian lifestyle decreases the effects you have on the earth a tremendous amount.

If everyone went vegan/vegetarian, we could hinder the effects of animal agriculture that have been brought upon us and get close enough to reverse the effects and save the planet. But some people still are not convinced that in doing so, it would benefit anyone. You have the opportunity to change this. What is your plan? ■

9

10

W27

2020 ISSUE

PORTRAIT OF A LADY ON FIRE: A STUNNING PORTRAYAL OF FEMALE DYNAMISM AND LOVE IN 18TH CENTURY FRANCE

The first time I saw Portrait of a Lady on Fire, I walked down the steps of the Angelika theater feeling an intense bout of unexplainable emotion, staring into faces lit by fluorescent hues from the neon blue lighting that surrounds the building – making it easy to forget what time of day it is and where you are. Immediately thrust into the 5 p.m. eerie darkness of early December, three of us walked in silence through Astor Place. Ultimately overwhelmed by feeling and thought, I played St. Vincent’s “New York,” in my head; specifically, the line “too few of our old crew left on Astor,” and thought of the time my friend Eric said after a screening of Parasite, “you remember that you can be affected.” Cognizant of steps and time, the effect that Portrait of a Lady on Fire leaves for moments/days afterward vastly mimics the flow of the entire film, a remarkable portrayal of the fragile intimacy between memory and time.

Portrait of a Lady on Fire is a stunning depiction of the relationship between two women in 18th century France, in the rocky sea-side of Brittany, written and directed

by Céline Sciamma. Noémie Merlant plays an artist named Marianne, who has been hired to paint a portrait of Héloïse, played

by Adèle Haenel. Héloïse’s mother (Valeria Golino) has arranged for Marianne to stay at the house, and secretly paint the portrait of Héloïse, who has previously refused to pose for other artists. The portrait is a signifier of Héloïse’s future marriage to a Milanese nobleman and once it is finished, her and her mother will leave the estate for Milan.

In many ways, the passing of time is unclear. Initially, days are marked by the walks that Marianne and Héloïse take, and then in many ways, time becomes a blending of moments – fleeting exchanges that both animate the narrative, and act like the haze of exploring a new person. Marianne is meant to study Héloïse for the portrait, and through doing so, the act of gaze becomes a pivotal form of action in the film. The initial first half is a “slow burn,” as said by Sciamma herself. Marianne and Héloïse do not smile at one another for an hour and twenty minutes – and as described by Sciamma, this time is dedicated towards illustrating the impatient/patient internal conflict that is being in love.

PHOTO COURTESY IMDB.COM

BY LOLA CORNILLON

Héloïse as their relationship progresses, the emotional weight of an abortion, an eerie yet remedial choir of ladies that sing around the fire, all work to illustrate the remarkable dynamism of women. Quite often, period pieces are painted as flavorless (have to be told) renditions of the past – equally implying that the past lacked flavor. When asked about the modernization within this 18th century story, Sciamma replied, “I didn’t want it to be modern, I wanted to make them alive…I wanted to give back their bodies, the rush of blood – give back their presence - women of the past.” Portrait of a Lady on Fire is the art of portrayal in a time period where women were limited to select narratives, and like a good film has the power to do, the film events new images, and it surprises.

The masking of the lady stems from the historical placement of roles that are established through their clothing, social roles, and ultimately, “made up” personas.

In Efrat Tseëlon’s series of essays: Masquerade and Identity, she uses the phrase, “the lady is a fake.” The lady is a fake

As the film progresses, we are introduced to the mythological tale of Orpheus and Eurydices. In this tragic love story, Orpheus is able to reunite with his deceased love Eurydices, under the condition that he does not look at her until they reach the Upper World (Earth). As the story goes, Orpheus, burdened by his love and curiosity, could not resist and turns back to catch the gaze of Eurydice, who then immediately vanishes.

As Marianne and Heloise unravel the story, it is suggested that Eurydice asked Orpheus to “turn around,” and that he did willingly, because the memory of her has the power to last longer than the potential of losing her forever. Fleeting moments become the crux of the relationship between the artist and the model, Marianne and Héloïse, and their relationship becomes memorized through gaze and “turn around” moments.

To see Portrait of a Lady on Fire is to notice the details. The physical transformation of Marianne’s portraits – varying versions of

PHOTO COURTESY IMDB.COM

demonstrates the history of women playing characters in society – this idea existing as a voice for the historical stripping of a women’s ability to portray herself as an individual with dimension – because systematically we paint women like poetry, (soft and misunderstood) – until there is a shift, in films such as Portrait, and we begin to recognize the strength of dynamism and desire. Women who are portrayed as dynamic; as equally ethereal as witchy are ultimately the greatest threat, and therefore scripts and narratives are dominated by characters that are less disruptive to the painting of women’s essence as non-essence.

The second time I saw Portrait of a Lady on Fire, I left the Cobble Hill theater and wrote in my little pocket notebook: films that make you feel something, WHAT IS THE POINT OTHERWISE. And perhaps, that is the lingering realization that many of us are having with this film. How brilliant that a film can event new images, be haunting and be giving, and at the most fundamental level of dissection, make you “feel affected.” ■

FIT

MARCH 2020

What Does Parasite Really Mean for the Future of Film?

PHOTO COURTESY STYLE CASTER

BY HANNAH KREBS Hopefully many reading this have seen Bong Joon Ho’s Parasite, and have likely left the theater with conflicting emotions. Parasite is the story of a poor family who cons their way into becoming the servants of a rich family.

Over the course of the film, the audience sees just how fantastic and equally out of touch the upper class can be. It became the first foreign-language film to win Best Picture and how it will affect the Academy and the future of film will remain to be seen. Whether or not Parasite will change the industry for the better has been a big topic of discussion lately.

Consequently, these conversations have allowed people all over the country to connect with one another and influence their opinions on what an Oscar winner can be.

I saw Parasite in October, shortly after it was released, and I enjoyed every minute of it.

Bong Joon Ho is my friend’s favorite director and she attended the screening of the film at the New York Film Festival, so I knew a little bit about the film before going in. However, she only gave me a brief summary of the plot because she agreed with many critics who advised that it is better to watch the film without knowing any of the details. The only information she was willing to share was that it was “a dark comedy about capitalism.” I immediately became a fan.

Living in New York, we see the most extravagant things imaginable, buildings with over a hundred floors, clothing stores selling designer dresses for thousands of dollars, restaurants with fixed menus starting at $200 a person. To the majority of the population, this opulence is daunting. When I moved to Harlem last spring, I became more aware of the true divide of wealth in Manhattan. Even riding the subway, the tell-tale signs of wealth seem to stop after 96th St. As a matter of fact, most obviously wealthy people rarely venture into neighborhoods north of the Upper West Side. This occurrence is something I have often spoken about with my friend because the transition from luxury to pre-gentrification New York arouses confusion and frustration within me. It is this feeling that resonates with people who have watched Parasite as well as a reason for it being so successful at the box office.

PHOTO COURTESY SOCIAL NEWS XYZ

We are all aware that the divide in economic classes is not only a problem in New York, or restricted to cities, for that matter. The wealth gap is plaguing the entire nation. We are all very fortunate, not all families can help send their children to college and, according to patch.com, nearly 1 in 5 New Yorkers is poor.

Although movie tickets are expensive in New York, friends, families and couples come together to be entertained and step into another reality for a couple of hours. Film draws audiences of all backgrounds, and although Parasite was an obvious criticism of the upper class, Vice writes that wealthy celebrities like Chrissy Teigen and Elon Musk loved the film.

I read what New York Times film critics had to say about Parasite’s impact on the future of Hollywood and the Academy, and they were very eye opening. Many critics explained that while the film is a great accomplishment and will go down in history for being the first foreign language film to win best picture, it also meets all the classic criteria of an Oscar winner. A.O. Scott states that the film is “Admired by critics and adored by audiences. A box office hit all over the world. A wonderfully entertaining movie that tackles serious issues.”

Like major directors Spike Lee, Martin Scorsese, and Quentin Tarantino, Bong Joon Ho is witty and charismatic and has developed his own fan following as a result.

Parasite is not Bong’s first film to gain acceptance among American audiences. Snowpiercer, a 2013 English-language film focusing on climate change, capitalism, and human nature, which received about half the amount of money at the box office as Parasite, was a critical favorite but did not receive any Oscar nominations. Okja, a 2017 Netflix film about the horrors of slaughterhouses and the horrific extent science will go to save humanity was nominated for a Palm d’Or at Cannes Film Festival. These two films were fairly successful but neither were as quirky, urgent and unsettling as Parasite.

The term “Bongslide” has been used to describe how Bong Joon Ho captured wins for Best Picture, Directing, International Feature Film and Writing (Original Screenplay). It

is also the first film from South Korea to be nominated for International Feature Film, previously known as Foreign Language Film, according to oscar.go.com. In recent years, foreign language films have been nominated and/or won Oscars, such as Cold War and Roma and directors of color like Barry Jenkins, Guillermo del Toro, and Alejandro G. Iñárritu have been successful and made names for themselves in the industry. In terms of diversity, these are amazing achievements and should not go without acknowledgement, but there is still much progress to be made.

There are many other great foreign films like these that unfortunately go unnoticed. These films may be screened at festivals in the United States, but they do not capture the attention of the mass public. One reason for this is because many of the films are experimental or art films that do not relate to the average American.

Women are also just beginning to receive their long overdue recognition. At this year’s Academy Awards, some women won in their respective categories, with Renée Zellweger winning Best Lead Actress and Laura Dern winning Best Supporting Actress, but female directors are still struggling to secure a spot among the men. Perhaps there would be more diverse films nominated in all categories if there was greater representation of women and minorities on the board. After ninety-two years, white men still make up the majority of the Academy. LA Times reported that “By the Academy’s count, about 50 percent of the 842 film industry professionals invited to become members this year are women... About 29 percent are minorities.”

But with these changes, female membership will only be 32% and the percentage of minorities, constituting 16% of the group, will not change.

Discussions regarding the significance of Parasite and its impact on the future of film may not change the Academy’s views on international films completely, but they have the possibility to influence the stories filmmakers tell. While one foreign film’s Best Picture win may not change the course of American cinema forever, it is a step in the right direction. ■

11

12

2020 ISSUE

W27

THE SEARCH BAR LIES ALONE: How Microtargeting and Propaganda Influence the World

BY ETHAN SAWYER ILLUSTRATION BY BAKHTIAR ZEIN

My Youtube recommendations have been flooded with flat earth conspiracy videos for about a month. Just one click created thousands of windows promising glimpses at this new picture taking shape. The solution to this situation is quite simple; I need to click on the search bar and look for something new...but I don’t want to. The thoughts of a hidden truth have lingered within my mind for years, but now I see validation.

I’ve grown to like the people in these poorly produced videos, they feel like friends popping into my recommendations to say hello, they make me feel appreciated and loved, they opened my eyes to the wondrous flat world those silly government dummies tried to cover up. Youtube keeps recommending. I keep accepting. The search bar lies alone.

Most people reading the above snippet will jump into this paragraph thinking “That situation could never happen to me. I’m a smart person,” but in truth, if you’re on the internet, a similar situation has already happened to you. It happened the second you agreed with an idea. An algorithm took that idea and used it to generate links to supportive opinions, which you clicked on because human nature dictates we do everything in our power to feel good and be right. The algorithm funneled you into a one-way tunnel of love towards feel-right-be-good-town where the citizens all agree and everything is awesome.

In 1948, sociologists Paul Lazarsfeld and Robert Merton outlined this process of Monopolization (Algorithm generating only supportive links), Canalization (Being funneled), and Supplementation (Feel-right-be-good town’s citizens agreeing with you) as the perfect environment for mass persuasion. They then proceeded to explain how it was all conceptual and would never realistically happen. In our 2020 reality, social media has allowed for sustainable bubbles of feedback loops that segment the USA, along with the rest of the world.

Social Media Feedback loops aren’t all a danger to society. Some loops create cat video fanatics.

The danger comes when an outside force injects its propaganda into our bubbles. But they can’t use generic propaganda, they have to adapt to each individual loop. This is where Microtargeting comes into play. Microtargeting is a lot to swallow at once, let’s start with some bite size pieces. In 2019, 72% of Trump’s campaign ads were seen by 0 to 999 Facebook users, meaning each individual ad was seen by only a couple hundred people on average. Seems like a waste of time at first glance, but in reality those thousands of ads are riffing on the same theme, with slight tweaks for a select group of behavioral, geographic, psychographic, and demographic data points. These specialized data points hold power because they don’t just look at your current interests, they predict your future interests as well, to a scarily accurate degree. Microtargeting has allowed political campaigns to stare into your soul and target your very being.

To truly understand the power of Microtargeting, follow me on a quick detour to retail giant Target. In 2012, Forbes released an article on Target’s innovative new data-mining methods that could predict pregnancy before the child-bearer was even aware themselves. Target had perfected their algorithm to a point where they could closely predict someone’s pregnancy and delivery date after a single sale of just 4 items. The process was so perfect it had to be manually modified to dissuade people from asking too many questions. As explained by Target’s senior group manager for marketing Andrew Pole, “If we send someone a catalog and say, ‘Congratulations on your first child!’ and they’ve never told us they’re pregnant, that’s going to make some

people uncomfortable...then we started mixing in all these ads for things we knew pregnant women would never buy...we found out that as long as a pregnant woman thinks she hasn’t been spied on, she’ll use the coupons.”

When it comes to Microtargeting, the question is not will you be targeted, but where are you being targeted. Of all the soul-staring overlords looming over the American people, Russia has come out as the most well known, while also being such a vast entity that their influence will likely never be fully understood. In 2017, Facebook shutdown 470 pages and accounts linked to Russia-backed political propaganda. In 2019, Facebook was still discovering pages that have existed from the very start of Russia’s 2016 attack on national unity, or were created to fill the gap left by Facebook’s initial culling. Newsweek reports these pages “had a bigger reach than The New York Times and The Washington Post combined,” while being curated by three people who barely spoke english. One among those three was a 13-year-old girl, while another was a disabled elderly woman who had to be taught to use a computer.

As reported by Judd Legum of Popular Information, these Facebook pages directly derive their power from Canalization. Pages grow an audience around topics that have been proven to appeal to Trump supporters, like “patriotism, Jesus, and cute dogs.” Over time, Trump propaganda starts to slip between the dachshunds, eventually blending seamlessly into a solid red smoothie held together by an echo chamber of like-minded individuals.

To imply America is the only country being targeted by foreign disinformation campaigns would be a mistake, so expand your horizons with me and mentaly travel to Europe, because Russia is manipulating things over there as well. Beyond social media, traces of Russian interference, like server data and electronic signatures, have been seen on political sites in Italy and Germany, highlighting the Kremlin’s apparent dismissal of the western world’s requests for stoppage. To complicate things further, far-right European natives have been regurgitating Russia’s messaging on social media, blurring the digital line between foreign and local propaganda sources.

Beyond Russia and the West, a symbiotic relationship between fake news and WhatsApp has begun to unfold within India. A mass decrease in data rates alongside a mass increase in smartphone sales has created the largest WhatsApp user base in the world at 400 million, dwarfing Brazil’s number 2 selection of 120 million users.

While it may seem like just another messaging app to most Americans, WhatsApp is closer to a personally-managed internet forum in the eyes

of the rest of the world. In the 2017 election season, the Bhartiya Janta Party (BJP) created 10,344 WhatsApp groups, all coordinated to spread information within the political party. Due to the closed and communal nature of WhatsApp, monopolization, canalization, and supplementation thrive, paving a path for fake news to spread. Ahead of the 2017 election, disinformation dispersed on WhatsApp triggered a slew of riots in Uttar Pradesh, killing 62 people.

In one of the most extreme cases of social media propaganda, Myanmar’s citizens have grown to use the words “Facebook” and “Internet” interchangeably, because Facebook is the internet and main news source for a majority of the country. Seeing a golden opportunity, the country’s historically oppressive military developed Facebook pages aimed at fans of national celebrities, then used the newfound influence to spread anti-muslim messages.

Camouflaged military accounts were deployed to dismiss detractors and incite violence within the fan pages, creating an online environment of fiery hostility, continually stoked by what appeared to be normal citizens. When Facebook finally stepped in to quell the storm, thousands of muslims were dead, and over 700,000 had fled the country. If Lazarsfeld and Merton were alive today, I have no doubt they would point to the Myanmar situation as a perfect example of what they feared possible when first proposing the outline for perfect propaganda.

With all this info stored in your brain, I’m gonna present you with a headline. Please take a second to imagine what it could mean before continuing: “Facebook creates new ad rules ahead of 2020 elections to give users more control.” If you were expecting anything reasonable, like a ban on false ads, I am immensely sorry. In reality, Facebook’s new policies won’t stop political microtargeting or paid false ads, but they will let you choose what ads you see. Senator Ron Wyden has a quote that sums up my frustration perfectly, saying Facebook is “[fooling] people with fig leaves instead of taking real action.” I’ll go a step further than Senator Wyden and propose that Facebook isn’t just fooling people with nothing-action, they are making it much easier for propaganda to spread. Monopolization is the most influential section of Lazarsfeld and Merton’s propaganda outline, because without counter messaging there’s nothing to pull you away from the inevitable drain you’re going to stumble into, and there won’t be a ladder waiting for you if an attempt to leave ever occurs. With these new rules, Facebook isn’t trying to help you. They’re just putting oil in the sink and dismantling the ladder. ■

FIT

MARCH 2020

13

OUR RELATIONSHIP WITH SOCIAL MEDIA

BY CHARLOTTE SPAID As we enter into 2020, here are a few things to consider about social media: The average person spends more than two hours on social media everyday. Twitter is turning 14-years-old, Instagram 10-yearsold and Facebook 16-years-old. Most of us have grown up with social media being new in our lives. I remember getting Facebook when I was 11, in elementary school, and I thought it was the coolest thing ever. I would get on Facebook through our old desktop, post weird things about my day and play those old Facebook games like FarmVille.

Now Facebook lives on my phone, in my pocket. I’m sure many of you recall what it was like not being connected to a computer growing up, and then discovering the wonders of social media. Now, through the years, I can’t help but wonder and speak about what social media has meant to us, how it’s changed us, our relationship with it and what it looks like for our future selves.

It seems as though social media has become a big part of our identities in the 21st century, practically attached to the hip of many. Social media and technology are a wonderful thing, but the way it affects our mental health has increasingly become a concern today. From not only how we interact with others, but the way we interpret with ourselves. Lately, I’ve noticed many people taking a break from social media, to better their mental health. People I know are deleting an app, such as Instagram, to disconnect from something that seems so real but is not, to get in touch with the people and life around them, to focus on their headspace; ridding it of the pride, jealousy, anxiety and depression that’s so often connected to their screen time. But why has something that has seemed so great become so daunting to us?

In the past year, I have tried to be on social media less. I noticed that my headspace wasn’t that clear when I was on it, I noticed that I didn’t feel as in touch with myself or what was going on around me. I felt as though the time I had spent on it was wasted, and it didn’t feel very fulfilling. It feels like the moment we want to distract ourselves, we grab our phones. It’s filling a void that’s hard to come to terms with.

Here are some negative aspects of social media that affect, or even control, many of us today. Most people struggle with comparing their lives to other people, being sucked into what their ideal life “should” look like, and ultimately, lowering our self-esteem.

Following that can be jealousy or the feeling of being left out from seeing what other people are doing. Social media was found to actually link to social isolation and sadness. Some people have been found to be addicted to social media and the need to always want to “connect.” There’s this delusion that social media can help our brains, but sometimes it just makes it worse. Many studies show that long usage of social media can cause depression, anxiety and many more damaging things to ourselves.

And social media has sadly been a massive

place for bullying. Social media is a tough thing to break down; it has its benefits, such as connecting with people all around the world, but most definitely has its hindrances. It comes down to the question, are we willing to see these negative aspects of social media, and to consider if they are declining our mental health, and what exactly should we do about it?

When we make a post, “likes” are supposed to determine how good our post is. How diminishing is that, if we don’t get a lot of likes?

There’s such a rush of the feeling of gratification from social media, but it can worsen our image of ourselves if these needs and likes aren’t met. Instagram is testing out the aspect of taking away likes on some people’s accounts. Instagram wants to better the well being of the space and make it less toxic. You can’t see likes on other people’s posts, and they can’t see yours, but apparently you can still see your own likes. Some users feel better about this but can still see if their post doesn’t perform well. But this still doesn’t help the content of Instagram and the need to feel better about oneself, or the toxic attachments to it.

My friends and I talk about the concept of a “follower” on Instagram. How frightening it is, how so many people care to look at it, how it’s of such high importance. A true definition of a follower means that you’re devoted to someone, that you possibly follow their beliefs and ideas. But now what does that mean to us? Who and what are we choosing to surround ourselves with?

We are choosing to follow the things we want to see, or even want to be. Choosing to follow friends, inspirations or idols. Creating our own reality, living it in our heads.

But then taking a step back from it all, looking at the people and the true reality of life

we have, and being unsatisfied that it doesn’t look that way. It’s a vicious cycle many of us fall under, choosing what we see, choosing the perfect thing for people to see about us.

But what of it’s all real? It’s hard to break that cycle, it’s so easy to just grab your phone and go back to the reality we created. But breaking it can possibly make us feel whole again.

Accepting ourselves and the life we have can be really difficult.

These are a few things that I’ve been practicing that have been working for me, and maybe they’ll help you. My phone used to be the first thing I grabbed and consumed my brain with when I woke up in the morning. Now, I fill that time with things that I think fulfill my inner self. I carry a book with me everywhere I go and in the times I am waiting I read instead of being on my phone. Yes, I am even that person who reads on a packed subway train. I spend a lot of free time doing things that help me connect with myself and my emotions, ultimately things that grow me.

Some of those things, for me, are keeping a journal, going outside, to the park, or a museum. And I choose to surround myself with people who also aid in my growth, people who will spend genuine time with me, not feeling like we need to be on our phones. At the end of the day, at the end of my life, I’m not going to remember what I saw on social media, and I don’t want to regret the hours I spent on it when I could’ve been making memories elsewhere. I hate the idea of the hours that my phone has sucked away from me, I have chosen to limit the amount I am on social media. I have chosen to detach myself from the weight of the number of followers and likes that my social media carries. I have chosen to find inspiration in the life around me, and I have chosen to do what’s best for my personal mental health and growth by trying to connect with myself every day. What will you choose? ■

ILLUSTRATION BY GLEN MOSHER

2020 ISSUE

W27

2020 WILL HAVE LESS IMMIGRANTS, LESS FUNDS, AND MORE PARTISANSHIP

BY PRERNA CHAUDHARY

As we enter the new decade, it is a good time to reflect on what is in the past and what is about to come – the changes, as well as the continuing trends.

The Census Bureau states that in 2020, children under 18 years old belonging to racial minority groups became the majority of children in the United States by a slight majority. Non-white Hispanics will become the largest minority group in the electorate in 2020, which is perhaps the reason Democratic presidential candidates, like Bernie Sanders, are heavily campaigning towards them and relying on their votes in populated states, like California. With non-white Hispanics becoming an even greater part of the voting electorate, candidates will have to take their views into account for policies, perhaps regarding immigration.

Currently, immigration policies are rather restrictive, and the Department of Homeland Security released data stating that legal immigration under President Donal Trump has decreased 7%. Countries that were affected the most included Mexico, China, Vietnam, and South Korea. Likewise, at the United States’ southern border, “851,000 were apprehended and taken into custody by border patrol agents in the fiscal year 2019,” according to Business Insider.

This number is a 300,000 increase from the number of migrants facing the same consequence during the Barack Obama era.

If Trump wins reelection in 2020, then it is likely that this number could increase further and at a faster rate than it did in 2019.

Forbes noted the 10% decrease of international students in the United States from the 2015 school year to the 2018 school year.

Following this trend, the Trump administration is attempting to limit the “authorized stay” period for students that it is aiming to complete by September 2020. This will lead to a lower number of working-age immigrants in the near future, which is another goal of the current administration.

As of October 2019, Section 212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act was already being used to prevent new immigrants from coming into the country, “without health insurance, potentially reducing legal immigration by hundreds of thousands of people per year,” says Forbes and the Migration Policy Institute. It is possible that this would lead to the implementation of the Inadmissibility on Public Charge Grounds, which would prevent immigrants that need government benefits, like Supplemental Security Income, from staying in and coming to the country.

Although this attempt to reduce the influx of immigrants has been stopped by the courts for the time being, if the administration is able to put it through the courts, then the number of immigrants coming into the country will significantly decrease in years to come. The fact that the American birth rate has already been decreasing steadily for four years foreshadows that the

birth rate in 2020 will continue to decline, making it the lowest birth rate in 32 years.

This dangerous trend coupled with fewer immigrants can further lead to a shortage of working-age adults soon as immigrants have children at higher rates than native-born Americans. In June 2019 Pew Research Center predicted that immigrants and their American born children were supposed to “play the primary role in the future growth of the working-age population” until 2035, but now that future may be changing due to unexpected policies.

The problem with having a smaller workforce also has to do with the increasing number of elderly people. The population of elderly people, people 65 years old and above, a great majority of who will remain white, is rapidly increasing. In 2030, the number of elderly people will be greater than the number of children, especially if there are fewer immigrants in the country.

Although an increasing population of elderly people is a positive because of extended life expectancy and better medicine, this can have long-lasting consequences on the working force paying for government benefits, like Social Security. In 2020, larger sums of Social Security will be given out than be contributed, which means that there will not be enough funds in the next twenty years to use for the younger population.

Similarly, the funds of New York City will likely be changing in 2020. The Census Bureau reported in 2019 that the New York City population decreased from the year prior.

The New York Times stated that the “city is projected to lose two seats in the House of Representatives after the 2020 [census] count,” leading to a decrease in the overall number of seats in the state would decrease, as well.

This decrease of representation in Congress would lead to a decrease in the allocation of funds to the state from the federal government. The New York State website states that the Division of the Budget estimates a decrease of $1 billion for the General Fund of New York state, potentially causing “economic uncertainties” that may pose

PHOTO COURTESY THE NEW YORK TIMES

14

a “heightened risk to State finances.” This would most likely lead to a decrease in funds for Medicaid, transportation, social services, and higher education. Low-income New Yorkers would be hurt the most.

While the number of seats New York has in the House of Representatives will likely decrease, Texas and Florida are likely to gain more seats due to their growing populations, according to CBS. Texas is predicted to end up with three more seats than it had in 2019, which means that it would have the second most amount of electoral votes among all of the states. This increase in electoral votes gives the state more leverage in a national presidential election, encouraging future candidates to focus their campaigning efforts in the state even more than they already do.

A University of Texas poll shows that Texas is becoming a battleground for both Republican and Democratic candidates as it becomes a more of a swing state. This shift in political ideology is partly due to the diverse communities in Texas’ metropolitan areas and partly due to the election of President Donald Trump, according to Mark Jones, a political scientist at Rice University.

As some states are becoming purple, others are becoming increasingly red or blue. One looming issue that is heavily based on partisan lines is climate change. Pew Research Center found that 52% of Americans believe that global “climate change should be a top priority for the president and Congress.” 64% of respondents state that the protecting environment should be a top priority, only 3 points behind strengthening the economy.

What is even more surprising is the disparity between Democrats and Republicans on this issue. There is a 50 point difference between the percentages of Democrats, at 75%, who would like to prioritize climate change and environmental protection over Republicans, at nearly 25%.

This is an indication of the increased partisanship in our country and Congress in the upcoming year. From the ending 2019 on a politically heated moment of the presidential impeachment to starting 2020 with a partisan delivery of the State of the Union, we can expect more of this in 2020.

FIT

MARCH 2020

15

FINDING A VOICE AMIDST POLITICAL CHAOS: THE IMPORTANCE OF ENGAGEMENT IN LOCAL POLITICS

BY AILEEN LAURILA While the current state of American politics feels daunting and nightmarish, it has drawn the attention of the American public - becoming a central point of discussion around the globe.

Focus on our federal government and President Trump often takes the spotlight, shying away from the conversation around localized political fronts. While discussion is important to the flow of information and education within our country; real change is enacted by citizen involvement in local politics. Discussing politics holds importance - traction is vital during this heavily anticipated and historic presidential election.

But traction alone cannot suffice, and many socially-charged conversations fail to reach beyond the topics of presidential primaries and Washington-based scandals. Outrage is necessary, but without action, we are left emptyhanded. By focusing only on the constant chaos in the capital, our real power as voters is lost.

Local politics are an integral part of upholding our constitutional rights and creating change within the places we reside. In a time where presidential and federallevel politics seem all-consuming, local politics are often overlooked by the average American voter.

Local-level politics require the greatest amount of community involvement considering they do not get national attention or coverage.

I too, am guilty of doubting the real effects of local politics, and the true impact of my voice as a voter. In a system so dated and flawed, helplessness is not a foreign feeling - but we must learn to exercise our voices and stand our ground to witness the change we wish to see. I believe it is important to engage, to strive for the idealistic democracy we all long for, something fair, just and sustainable. Balancing the game of politics with care for human rights can feel near-impossible.

Perhaps our heavy focus on bigpicture politics has caused us to be dismissive towards the needs of our communities, and how great of an asset it can be to organize as one. Change happens through action, through organization, through volunteering. By finding and supporting those who are fighting for human rights and decency, the corrupt political landscape feels less intangible and more personal. Getting a grasp on local issues and learning to use your voice as a voter and citizen

“

Focusing on local politics has offered me a sense of hope in this broken democracy and changed the way I approach political involvement.

”

ILLUSTRATION COURTESY CONNECT TRAVEL

at that level provides a sense of proficiency and confidence when engaging in higher-level politics.

Focusing on local politics has offered me a sense of hope in this broken democracy and changed the way I approach political involvement. Mayoral candidate Sarah Iannarone, from my home city of Portland, Oregon is running a campaign that refuses large donations from corporations and is entirely staffed and backed by community members. Grassroots campaigns and community organized canvassing remind me of what democracy and exercising your right to vote should really look like. Organizations like Grassroots Campaigns offer employment to those looking for a start in politics but fear they do not have the connections they need. As stated on their website; “Grassroots Campaigns is a progressive organization that specializes in running faceto-face campaigns for political parties, candidates, and advocacy groups.” Through canvassing and other outreach positions, Grassroots allows everyday people to find their political niche and educate on issues they feel most passionate about.

It is easy to get caught in the whirlwind of media coverage around national issues. We often forget that decisions made by local officials are ones that dominate

our everyday lives, much of it is in the hands of officials people often wouldn’t know; public transportation, police reform, public health, sanitation. What is often overlooked or not frequently taken advantage of is the ability to contact, voice concerns to, endorse or directly support these officials, who are not as out-ofreach as one would think. With big names in politics, I see many voters taking an all-or-nothing stance, often failing to see flaws within the person they support, placing them on a pedestal. This behavior can be dangerous, as it is our duty to correct and critique policies and ideas to create a power-balance that is healthy among voters and government officials. This attitude of call-outs and suggestions is more than tangible when it comes to local issues, creating a gateway for people to take similar action at a higher caliber. Through building conversation around regional policies, showing up for local elections, organizing communitybased fronts, and taking action on a more personal level, we can form a better system and enact real change from localized action. ■

FIT

MARCH 2020

16

Electability Paradox Prevents Minorities From Winning the Primaries

BY PRERNA CHAUDHARY

ILLUSTRATIONS BY BETH SACCA

Democratic candidates have been campaigning across the country in hopes to be elected as the frontrunner for their party in the 2020 presidential election. According to an Ipsos poll, a Monmouth University poll, and research firm Avalanche study, Democratic voters’ top priority in choosing a presidential candidate in the primary is electability. This term has ambiguity, various meanings, and several connotations and implications.

Collins Dictionary defines electability as “the quality of being electable,” but what qualifies as electable is truly unknown. The New York Times reported in 2016, Hillary Clinton won the Democratic nomination against Bernie Sanders in the Iowa Caucus by “the smallest margin in caucus history, 49.8 to 49.6.” One Iowa Caucus voter, city councilwoman Casey Dehoedt, chose Clinton over Sanders because she believed that Clinton was more electable.

Dehoedt’s theory proved to be wrong in the general election.

If Dehoedt and a few other like minded voters had chosen the candidate their beliefs aligned with more, then it is possible that a different candidate could have been the winner of the Iowa Democratic Caucus. The Iowa Caucus does not guarantee that the winner will be the eventual Democratic nominee for the general election, but the Caucus is certainly persuasive to later primary election voters.

On a similar note, Democratic voters in 2019 polled by Avalanche strongly suggested that many people would vote for who they deem as electable over the candidate they actually prefer. The study stated that 24% of the respondents who chose a male candidate when electability was a factor said they would vote for a female candidate if electability was not a factor. Although predictive polls of the Democratic primary are extremely volatile, this study makes a strong case for voting who you wish for, not who you believe can win the election. If even a fraction of the 24% of voters who changed their mind when electability was not a factor voted for the candidate they actually

liked, the results of the primary – and potentially general election – could be altered.

Among other factors, gender plays a significant role in who is considered electable. Of the Democrats and Independents polled in a 2019 Ipsos study, 74% said that they were “comfortable with a female president,” but only 33% said that they believed that their neighbors were comfortable with a female president. The gap between who is electable and who is not is based on assumptions like the one about gender in this study. Voters, however, do not actually know who other people will choose.

The problem with electability is that it implies that the United States voters are not ready for a change from most of the recent presidents: white, male, and heterosexual. Choosing a candidate based on their supposed electability limits the voter’s options and eliminates diversity from the pool. If voters want someone electable by the entire nation, they are primarily saying that the country is not ready for candidates that are women, people of color, or LGBTQ community members. Other electable qualities that appeal to American voters, like being charismatic, likable, and relatable are more difficult to achieve for minority candidates, especially women, according to the Barbara Lee Foundation.

Women face a particularly challenging obstacle in politics because they have to appear strong for issues like national security and the economy, but not too strong or they are seen as aggressive. They have to be understanding for the topic of health care, but not so weak that they won’t be able to assert their authority to get bills passed.

A study showed people associate the characteristics of “competence, ambition, aggressiveness, confidence, [and] toughness” with politicians, and those are stereotypically masculine traits. As proven by the Avalanche study, men are often seen as more electable because the characteristics of a politician are so-called masculine. Elizabeth Warren, in many cases,

is more electable than Bernie Sanders because she does not use the title “socialist” that many voters find unattractive, is less outlandish than him, and has proven to be competent, especially in regards to the inner workings of the economy. She remains unelectable, however, because she is a woman, despite her ideology greatly overlapping with Sanders’. Their verbal delivery and gender are some of their most prominent differences.

After the 2016 presidential election, Democrats are wary of nominating another female candidate against the incumbent that still expected to win by 65% of registered voters polled by CBS recently. The disillusionment is understandable, but there is a chance that Democrats could be overlearning from the mistakes made in 2016. It is virtually impossible to know who other people will vote for, and oftentimes people do not vote for the easily electable candidate. Currently, Sanders is in the lead in the Democratic primaries, significantly ahead of previously electable candidate Joe Biden.

These results of who is leading and who is lacking are unstable, and candidates that are both electable and unelectable have changed their position many times in the polls. The states that had the earliest primaries, Iowa and New Hampshire, are not racially representative of the entire nation at 90% white when the nation is 60% white. Primary Caucus voters that look to the earlier primaries as indications of who they should vote for have a flawed voting strategy because the early Caucus states’ choice does not always end up being the Democratic or Republican nominee.

Voters cannot predict how neighbors, other states, or the entire nation will vote. It is best to just vote for who your ideologies align with and who you believe in. That way, the candidate you are rooting for actually has a chance of winning, and you are not left only slightly disillusioned if your second or third choice loses. It may be a greater risk, but that can often lead to a greater reward. ■