66 items found for your search. If no results were found please broaden your search.
(02/08/15 10:52pm)
In an effort to dodge a body-shaming controversy last November, Victoria's Secret changed a campaign slogan from "The Perfect Body" to "A Body for Every Body." However, many consumers are beginning to notice that the lingerie store isn't quite living up to its new motto.
(01/25/15 10:20pm)
From Beyoncé's female empowering VMA performance last fall, to the ever-so-controversial #freethenipple campaign, it seems like no matter how hard you try, you can't escape the topic of feminism. These liberating equal rights movements are everywhere — and this new project takes feminism a million steps forward.
(12/01/14 11:08pm)
On Nov. 26, the Washington Post released a report that took us behind the scenes of former U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's Luskin Lecture for Thought Leadership speech at UCLA earlier this year. There is no doubt Clinton would present college students with an influential speech about leadership and power — so, what would it take ASU to book the potential 2016 presidential candidate?According to the report, Clinton's team stated that the "special university rate" is around $300,000. After that fee was paid by UCLA, a team had to provide Clinton with crudité, ginger ale and hummus. For the stage, her team demanded two chairs with rectangular pillows, a teleprompter, tea, and room temperature water with lemon wedges. Clinton's team also didn't approve of the podium UCLA provided and requested one that better suited the former U.S. Senator. As if that wasn't enough, Clinton also insisted that the speech only be recorded "for archival purposes."Due to Clinton's celebrity status, her diva-like accommodations aren't alarming, but the colossal price tag is.Her appearance at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas last October sparked the same attention. UNLV students were so outraged by Clinton's $225,000 fee, they protested. Daniel Waqar, UNLV's Student Government Student Relations director said, "You could give scholarships to thousands of students, benefit research on campus, give more students grants for research and studying" with that enormous fee. Although Clinton's team has stated that the revenue earned from her speeches goes to the Bill, Hillary, and Chelsea Clinton Foundation, that has been overlooked by many. The money may be going to charity, but Waqar is exactly right. Students all across the country are either buried in student loans or slaving away to pay their college tuition. It is disgruntling to see universities young adults invest thousands of dollars in, spend a large chunk of cash, for an hour-long speech.It is also displeasing to see a political leader who endorses public service have such expensive taste. Charging this immense amount of money makes Clinton's politics seem insincere. Unfortunately, Hillary isn't alone. Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani is another top earner, raking in about $270,000 for one speech. Former Vice President Al Gore is known for his pricey appearances as well, charging $156,000 for a speech in London.These speeches should be centered around benefiting the college students. In an ideal world, politicians would do this for the good of the students and not for themselves. If Clinton continues to demand this amount of money from universities, she might not garner as much millennial support in the upcoming election as she anticipates.If Hillary is coming your way, spare yourself the money and time. Clinton is an extremely likely 2016 presidential candidate, and I have a feeling we will be hearing much more from her in the future. When that time comes — you won't have to pay a dime.Reach the columnist at ambice@asu.edu or follow her on Twitter @alliebiceEditor’s note: The opinions presented in this column are the author’s and do not imply any endorsement from The State Press or its editors.Want to join the conversation? Send an email to opiniondesk.statepress@gmail.com. Keep letters under 300 words and be sure to include your university affiliation. Anonymity will not be granted.Like The State Press on Facebook and follow @statepress on Twitter.
(11/16/14 9:44pm)
On Nov. 12, Paper Magazine released an issue starring the one and only Kim Kardashian titled, "Break the Internet." The issue included a stimulating interview about Kardashians' selfies, reality show and daughter. It also included racy nude photos of the socialite. With those photos, Paper Magazine most definitely broke the internet.The evening before the release of the issue, the reality star did the honors herself and posted one of the photos on Instagram. It did not go over well. Many took to Twitter to trash Kim. User MelissaB said, "#KimKardashian is disgusting. She is a mother now. Her first thought should be how is what I am about to do going to affect my child."Not only did Kardashian's pedestrian haters jump on the comments, fellow celebrities did as well. "Glee" star Naya Rivera commented on Kardashian's Instagram photo saying "I normally don't. But...you're someones mother..." Even "Lovely Bones" star, Saoirse Ronan, stated, “She was naked. Not in a kind-of beautiful, kind-of artistic way. It was disgusting."Kardashian isn't new to the scene; she knows how to get people talking. She may not be a singer or an actress, but we shouldn't hold motherhood against her. For some reason, we seem to think it is appropriate to tell mothers what they can or cannot do, but no one has the right to tell Kardashian what is best for her own child — even if it is Kim Kardashian.Being a mother does not and should not inhibit you from feeling sexy. It is a rarity for women to feel good with themselves after they have given birth. Studies also show that women who are dissatisfied with their bodies after pregnancy are less likely to breastfeed, and more likely to suffer postpartum depression and psychological distress. If that is the case, shouldn't we all back off of Kardashian and stop slut shaming her for being a mother?One of the most courageous actions a woman could do is bare it all for the world to see, especially after giving birth. If Mrs. Kardashian West feels so inclined to pose nude on the cover of a magazine, let her do so.Celebrities like Beyoncé Knowles and Jessica Simpson have posed nude, but their provocative actions have never been vilified like Kim's.We can look at Kardashian's photos as a body movement. Maybe she is telling us, that whether you are old or young, male or female, mother or not — you should feel good in the skin you are in.Perhaps it is the anomaly that is Kim Kardashian that makes it so easy to rip her apart, but being a mother doesn't mean she should stop doing her thing. If you are still concerned about her daughter, I can guarantee you North West doesn't know how to use Instagram or Twitter yet, so it is safe to say that she won't be seeing her mother's nude photos any time soon.Reach the columnist at ambice@asu.edu or follow her on Twitter @alliebiceEditor’s note: The opinions presented in this column are the author’s and do not imply any endorsement from The State Press or its editors.Want to join the conversation? Send an email to opiniondesk.statepress@gmail.com. Keep letters under 300 words and be sure to include your university affiliation. Anonymity will not be granted.Like The State Press on Facebook and follow @statepress on Twitter.
(11/09/14 10:33pm)
On Nov. 4, Republicans seized the Senate and the governor majority while keeping control of the House of Representatives — a feat that hadn’t been accomplished since 2006. Obviously, it was a huge win for the Republican Party, right? Not quite. If we look a little closer, we can see that the Democratic Party now has everything to gain in the presidential election coming up in two years. While the Republican Party is celebrating, Democrats will be getting down to business.Comparing the 2010 Democratic electorate to this one, there has been a marginal increase among women, Latinos and voters in the western U.S. — a fact that is being undermined by the Republican Party domination.Although a majority of millennial voters ages 18 to 29 supported the Democratic Party, their voter turnout rates plummeted from 19 percent in 2012 to 13 percent this time around. Low voter turnout among this demographic aided the wave of Republican wins.Considering younger voters are more likely to vote in presidential elections, we can expect voter turnout to be much less of a problem for the Democratic Party in 2016. Not to mention, during the 2010 midterm election, the Republican wave of voters helped the GOP to major victories — but President Barack Obama won the Presidential election in 2012. With strong potential Presidential candidates like Hillary Clinton representing the Democratic party, who's to say that history won't repeat itself?Another factor that will determine the outcome of the presidential election in 2016 is the inability of the Republican-controlled Congress to work with Obama. Presumptive Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has either the ability to compromise with the president, or obstruct the Democratic president's agenda, turning him into a "lamer lame duck president."Back in 1994, when Bill Clinton was president and Newt Gingrich was the Senate Majority Leader, the situation was identical. Despite their differences, Congress and Clinton were able to be productive. Together, they created a fixed budget and settled on welfare reform. Clinton had to deal with a unified Republican Congress and make it work to make himself look good for his re-election in 1996. However, that is not the case today; with Obama being ineligible to run again, he can be as stubborn as he wants toward the Republican-dominated Congress. McConnell and Obama both seem intent on butting heads and not compromising. It looks like this time around, we will be stuck in a political gridlock for the remainder of Obama's term. Most midterm voters are also not happy with the way things are now, with just 1 in 5 saying they trust the government to do what is right — a fact of which we should be ashamed. A quarter of voters are also dissatisfied with the GOP's performance as well as Obama's. The American people aren't happy and need a leader who will govern for the people and not for their own political party's agenda.It seems as though the midterm elections reflected the American people's despair. It may appear that it is anyone's game this upcoming presidential election but, just as the Republican wave came in strong this time around, prepare for a Democratic typhoon in 2016.Reach the columnist at ambice@asu.edu or follow her on Twitter @alliebiceEditor’s note: The opinions presented in this column are the author’s and do not imply any endorsement from The State Press or its editors.Want to join the conversation? Send an email to opiniondesk.statepress@gmail.com. Keep letters under 300 words and be sure to include your university affiliation. Anonymity will not be granted.Like The State Press on Facebook and follow @statepress on Twitter.
(11/04/14 11:15pm)
The evening of Oct. 28, during Tempe Undergraduate Student Government's week of Sparking Democracy, Arizona candidates spoke to ASU students about what they will do once they are elected. Gubernatorial candidates Fred DuVal, Doug Ducey, Barry Hess and JL Mealer made appearances, along with Secretary of State candidates, Michele Reagan and Terry Goddard. Even unopposed candidate Jeff DeWit spoke to students about what he intends to do as State Treasurer.