As the Washington Post pointed out, in many ways, the "Boy Crisis" is just another manifestation of the backlash against feminism. The latest example of sexism being alive and strong, especially in the sciences, is told by neurobiologist Ben Barres. Ben Barres, who used to be Barbara, published an article relating the experience of being a male biologist versus being a female biologist, as the Post describes:

After he underwent a sex change nine years ago at the age of 42, Barres recalled, another scientist who was unaware of it was heard to say, "Ben Barres gave a great seminar today, but then his work is much better than his sister's."

"By far," Barres wrote, "the main difference I have noticed is that people who don't know I am transgendered treat me with much more respect" than when he was a woman. "I can even complete a whole sentence without being interrupted by a man."

Harvard professor Harvey C. Mansfield calls Barres "a political fruitcake," and Mansfield's colleague, Steven Pinker, echoes his disgust with Barres's article "reducing science to Oprah." Well-known psychiatrist Nancy Andreasen agreed with Barres, however, and said the acceptance rate of her publications soared when she stopped sending out research articles under her full name and used the initials N.C. Andreasen instead. Why, when it comes to providing opportunities to women or taking them seriously academically (and let's be honest, in many other areas too), does less have to be more?

~M.E. Smithberger

The three most popular political parties in the race are the PRI, Fox’s party the PAN, and the leftist PRD. For months beforehand nobody could say who was going to win because polls consistently showed a tie between the PAN and the PRD.

The election took place on Sunday, with the polls closing at 6 PM and an official announcement of the winner expected at 11 PM. But it didn’t turn out that way. A representative from the Federal Elections Institute came on TV to say that the race was so close that with the preliminary results they had it was impossible to predict a winner.

In the year 2000, a notable contrast was apparent to Mexicans. The election of Vicente Fox was considered a victory for democracy, while the elections in the U.S. seemed to be anything but. And it looks like now, in a very close and controversial race, Mexico is taking a cue from the United States. Unlike the U.S. in the year 2000, neither Mexican journalists nor the Federal Elections Institute called the election prematurely and had to make an embarrassing retraction. And neither of the candidates made the mistake in the year of conceding defeat prematurely. In fact, they did just the opposite: both candidates declared victory on election night.

So who is the real winner? Votes are still being counted. At first PAN candidate Felipe Calderón had a 1% lead, but during the day today PRD candidate Andrés Manuel López Obrador gained an advantage. At 9:49 tonight he was ahead by 1.6 %. Any website with the results will also have a disclaimer, “The results could change at any moment and therefore do not indicate a trend.” Vote counting will continue throughout the night until the numbers from every polling place in the country have been computed. And even then there will probably be controversy and accusations of fraud. The real question might be what it is going to take to get one of the two candidates to admit defeat. And whether either will say “you don’t have to get snippy about it.”

Betty Beale, a Smithie and a society writer for four decades, died June 7 at the age of 94. Beale was the leading hostess in Washington D.C. who gradually moved from simply writing about society life to inserting political commentary and convincing her managing editor, who told her the women's page was no forum for politics, to send her to national political conventions. Her strong personality is also apparent from her first meeting with Emily Post. Ms. Beale wrote that Post's "sense of humor was such that when I bit into a little sandwich at tea in her house and jelly squirted out on my fingers, I didn't hesitate to lick my fingers in front of her. I wouldn't have to do this, I told her, if I had been given a napkin." Over the course of her career writing for the old Washington Star and The Washington Post, Beale danced with LBJ ("he had a good sense of rhythm and did a smooth foxtrot"), had a ten year affair with Adlai Stevenson, and excused herself from dull party conversations by saying she had to find a "newsmaker."

In the 2002 World Cup, Korea was voted the Most Entertaining Team. Photo from FIFA website.

That’s right, today is the first day of the World Cup. It happens every four years and people from diverse countries all over the world do whatever it takes to be near a TV to watch it. According to its governing body, the Federation Internationale de Football Association, or FIFA, over 28 billion people watched the last World Cup in 2002. The 2006 World Cup kicks off today and lasts for about a month.

Why sound you care about a soccer tournament—excuse me, football, as it is known to the rest of the world—when the sport is not terribly popular in the U.S.? For one thing, football, deemed “the beautiful game” is wonderfully simple. The concept of offsides is the only relatively complicated rule that a viewer would want to learn, and even that is not necessary to understand what’s going on. Just pick a team to root for and watch them struggle to put the ball in the other team’s net, using any body part except their hands. While football does not employ the intense strategizing of say, “American football,” anyone can enjoy it. And fans can take pleasure in watching the way a team can employ an offensive strategy to neutralize the other team’s defense or the breathtaking way a seemingly-impossible backwards bicycle kick clinches a crucial goal.

And football is a social experience. Whole nations are united in euphoria with an announcer’s “GOOOOOOOL!” Even a game between the two least important teams can unite spectators in an emotional rollercoaster of faith, joy, loss, and adrenaline. In a recent game I watched between two Mexican clubs, with both teams’ hopes of advancing to a tournament on the line, fans were literally sobbing in the stands. The camera kept zooming in on the losing team’s supporters’ tear-streaked faces as they cried and prayed. Then, in the final seconds of the game, the entire losing team rushed the opposite goal, and it was the goalkeeper who scored the crucial goal. The fans’ tears erupted into screams of joy, and the other team’s fans burst into tears. And like any sport, one team’s story of triumph or defeat is composed of the individual stories of its players, the majority of whom have overcome obstacles to get to where they are today, and who can be charming or infuriating, heroes or villains.

And it can unite or divide. You don’t have to root for your national team if you don’t want to. If you watch the World Cup in a large group, in a restaurant or a sports bar, you can pick favorites between whatever two nations make it to the final game and spend the entire game arguing with the other half of the room.

If you want to join the rest of the world in this international pastime, FIFA’s website can get you started with schedules, lineups, and even streaming video for whatever games you can’t get on TV. Websites like worldsoccer.com can provide you with an introduction to the sport and the tournament. If you’re the gambling type, sports betting websites have the odds for every game. For some between-game reading, National Geographic has a series of eloquent articles about the beautiful game, including my favorite, a tribute to being a soccer fan in the U.S. where the sport is often underappreciated. And for U.S. sports fans, the Boston Globe has published an article comparing various teams in this year’s World Cup to their counterparts in U.S. sports.

I have never been a regular American Idol viewer. A show that spawned Clay Aiken and “From Justin to Kelly” never made it on my list of must-see TV programs. But this year I happened to see a couple of episodes of Idol. I didn’t like the episodes I saw, I didn’t see any performances on it that were extraordinary in any way (except, in the beginning, extraordinarily bad), and I’m beginning to resent that talk of American Idol has saturated the media. In fact, I’m resenting it so much that I never want to hear about this season of American Idol again. I can’t erase the episodes I’ve already watched from my mind, but I can refuse to hear or see any more news about Idol from this moment forward. Or can I? This is my diary of my efforts to have an American-Idol-free week.

Tuesday, May 23:

The problem with American Idol is that it is being covered like it is really big news. And I don’t think it is. Sure, the show is popular, but neither of the two remaining contestants seems to be any good and frankly I don’t see how it could be big news if either one of them wins. I don’t want to hear about it anymore. I don’t want to know whether the next American Idol is What’s-Her-Face or Prematurely-Grey-Man. I won’t watch the show and I won’t read about the results in the news. I need to see how long I can go before somewhere, somehow I accidentally find out who the winner is.

I know if I don’t turn the TV on, I won’t run the risk of seeing the show. But that would be too easy. I want to watch a little bit of evening TV and I want to be able to do so “Idol”-free. Luckily, tonight I’m watching TV with my dad, who would veto anything and everything to do with current pop culture anyway. We settle for a documentary about Nat King Cole. I wonder who would win American Idol if a young Nat King Cole were transplanted to the show today.

The documentary ends at 10 PM EST, and I’m not sure but I suspect that on some nearby channel, American Idol is ending too. I could see comments about the show on any 10 PM newscast. I head for my computer, thinking the internet will be safer than TV. But my homepage is a news site. And my Yahoo! Email always has links to current headlines at the bottom of the page. So does the Daily Jolt. I’m afraid to check even Sophia’s Draft, afraid that one of our enterprising writers has already posted a comment about the show.

Suddenly, I realize that nothing is safe. I won’t be able to read the newspaper tomorrow, or listen to the radio. Anyone, anywhere, could comment on the Idol results at any time, from radio DJs to the customers at the restaurant where I work. I’m even afraid to read my friends’ instant messenger away messages, although none of my friends is really a devoted Idol fan. But where do I draw the line? I don’t want to know the results of American Idol, but I don’t want to drastically change my life to avoid them.

I know it is very possible to live a full, productive life in the United States and not know or care the slightest bit about American Idol. My parents, for example, are totally oblivious. But I have the disadvantage of already knowing something about American Idol. If I find out the results, I’m going to remember them.

Wednesday, May 24:

It is reasonable to assume that, since American Idol is entertainment, any entertainment news is going to do a story on the results. So I won’t listen to pop music radio stations, I won’t read the entertainment section of the newspaper, I won’t go to entertainment news sites on the internet, and I won’t watch E! Entertainment Television. Sounds simple enough. But I still want to be able to read the paper every day, go on the internet, and watch the news on TV. If I restrict all of those activities to just news, not entertainment, can I avoid Idol?

I change my homepage from my usual news website to the smith website so I won’t accidentally see any headlines on the internet. But in the afternoon I happen to go to Dunkin’ Donuts with some friends. Apparently Dunkin Donuts have TVs in them now, or at least my local restaurant does, and it is playing CNN far too loudly. In the background, I hear a story about American Idol come on the news while I’m sipping my coffee, but I’m also talking to a friend so I don’t hear what the story says. Even more of a close call comes when I get in my car and switch on the radio, thinking I can listen to a pop station if I just listen to the songs and change the radio station when the DJ gets on the air. But the song ends and the very first thing the radio announcer says is “Before we get to the next song on our countdown, here’s your next American Idol!” I change the station just as the American Idol theme song starts to play. That was close.

Later, while I’m channel-surfing at home, I happen to see What’s-Her-Face and Prematurely-Grey-Man singing. Apparently the show did not end last night as I had thought. This must be the results show now. I turn off the TV and go to bed.

Thursday, May 25:

I decide it is okay to listen to National Public Radio this morning as I drive my mother to the train station. One of their morning news shows is on, and the reporter is doing a story about immigration in Boston. But as soon as the story ends, the announcer gets on the air and says: “Your votes have been counted, and the winner of Morning Edition Idol is..." Even NPR has been sucked in.

For the rest of the day I avoid the entertainment section of the newspaper and don’t watch TV. I do listen to the radio, but it is live coverage of a news conference with President Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair—I sincerely hope that their discussion of the Iraq war won’t segue into an opportune comment about American Idol. Hey, it’s possible.

Later in the evening I’m at a friend’s house when the Comedy Central show on her TV starts to make fun of Idol. As much as I would like to hear the punch line, I stick my fingers in my ears and sing until the joke is over. The “la la laa, I can’t hear you” method should be reserved for extreme situations, and preferably not around other people, but my friends already know me well enough not to bat an eye at this behavior. There used to be a saying “friends don’t let friends watch Friends.” My friends help me stay Idol-free.

Friday, May 30:

I can’t believe it—I’ve made it all the way to Friday without hearing the results of American Idol! I didn't see the results in the newspaper, or on the internet, or hear about it on the radio. Nobody mentioned them to me in passing, and I didn't overhear it from customers at work. Now the show is yesterday’s news, and my heart starts to fill with the wild hope that I could go the rest of my life without ever knowing who won season five.

Humming with joy, I scoop up a pile of newspapers to put them in the recycling bin—and I see it. On the top of yesterday’s Boston Globe, a teaser for the entertainment section has the winner’s name and picture right on the top of the front page.

It’s over. I know who won American Idol. And, because I’m writing this story, I will probably never forget who the winner was. Every time anyone anywhere mentions the fifth season of American Idol, I will have a mental image of the winner crooning some forgettable pop song. But I have learned a lesson about the influence of the media in my life. We’re bombarded with information constantly under the guise of news. Some of it I would consider "real" news, and some of it isn't. While we can take the initiative to seek out what we consider "real" news, it is a lot harder to tune out all that other stuff. My downfall was that I cared too much. If I had just completely ignored American Idol as I have every other season, I would have forgotten the results the minute after I'd heard them.

I heard, once, that the President of the United States does not read newspapers or listen to any news reports. He gets all the information he needs to know from his Senior Staff. For the rest of us, it's a lot easier to just forget the news we don't need to know.

So who won? What’s-Her-Face or Prematurely-Grey? I’m not telling. If you don’t already know, consider yourself lucky.

It threatened to rain all Commencement weekend, but luckily for the Class of 2006, the weather held off long enough to guarantee Commencement ceremonies in the Quad instead of the ITT. The Class of 2006 undergraduates and graduate students received their diplomas on this past Sunday, May 21. The rain did start in the middle of the ceremony, prompting parents to scramble for their umbrellas and a warning to the graduates to be careful of the slippery ramp. But the sun came out again soon, there were no major mishaps during the ceremony, and hundreds of proud graduates went home with their diplomas.

Following tradition, prizes and awards were announced at the "Last Chapel" service in the Quad after the Ivy Day parade on Saturday, May 20.

At Commencement ceremonies on the 21st, the college awarded honorary degrees to Jewel Plummer Cobb, Paula Deitz '59, B. Elizabeth Hormer, and Ruth Ozeki Lounsbury '80, Jody Williams, and Jane Lakes Harmon '66.

Stacey Baird addressed the audience as Class President. She said that her four years at Smith have taught her that great minds often don't think alike, and that Smith has taught her the value of diversity of ideas. She concluded her speech with a quote from the poem "The Whitsun Weddings" by Phillip Larkin.

The commencement address was given by Congresswoman Jane Lakes Harmon ’66. She spoke on the topic of leadership. Several people in the audience commented that her speech seemed a little too self-congratulatory and that Harmon took too long to get to the point, "a typical politician speech" as one student put it. At the end of her address Harmon did give eight pithy statements to graduates about leadership. She said that leadership is “inside out” and that it takes work. Leaders learn from failure, never give up, and that leadership is lonely, for women in particular: “sadly, I have learned that women don’t always support each other.” It gets harder to be a leader the higher one climbs, and “when you succeed as a leader, your most important obligation is to mentor and help the women who come after you.” Finally, Harmon stressed the importance of being there for family members as well: “all of you have families. They need you too.”

Anything that increases journalistic optimism must be pointed out, if only for the novelty of any hope that is found in the media. Rolling Stone has redeemed itself from this with its 1000th issue. While some may argue that the issue is worth picking up solely for the cover that cost founder Jann Wenner $1 million, the issue is more compelling for its reflection on its organizational ethics and the history of its political coverage (which is admittedly more interesting than its actual political coverage normally is). Rolling Stone boasts that it once was--it arguably is no longer--the kind of magazine that would bite the hand that feeds it, putting Eric Clapton on the cover in May of 1968 and panning his album with Cream in the same issue. While some say that the issue is overly self-congratulatory, which it probably is, it's refreshing to read about a time when Hunter Thompson led the RS critique of American Politics and a pop star like Britney Spears would never make the cover of a rock magazine.

If you've been following the news at all, you probably already know that today is "A Day Without an Immigrant," a nationwide boycott by immigrants and those who support immigrants rights. The goal of the protest is to create a real life version of the movie A Day Without a Mexican and show exactly how crucial immigrant labor is to the U.S. economy.

Today is also an important day in Mexico. May 1 is El Día del Trabajo, the equivalent of Labor Day, and many people don't have to work today. To show solidarity for friends and relatives in the U.S., many have unofficially declared it "Nothing Gringo Day" and refuse to buy U.S. products today. The move is controversial because large U.S. companies tend to support lifting restrictions on immigration, and, therefore, are one of the immigrant movement's greatest allies. Many people I've talked to in Mexico do not realize this, but, surprisingly, many people do know and plan to boycott U.S. products anyway. It seems that the average Mexican likes the idea of dealing a blow to the United States enough not to care about the logic of it all.

This attitude comes from the love-hate relationship that Mexico has with the United States. As a U.S. citizen living in Mexico I've been asked too many times to count what it's like to live in "el Imperio." And why do all gringos hate all latinos? But even more often the first question I am asked by a new acquaintance is, "Where are you from in the U.S.? Because I have relatives who live there...." Mexicans love to hate the U.S. for being an arrogant, imperialistic empire determined to meddle in the affairs of Latin American countries and exploit their economies. But at the same time the U.S. is a land of employment for so many people who can't find work in Mexico, and Mexicans devour U.S. culture as soon as they can get it. Of the 80-something cable channels available here, less than five are Mexican. My friends' favorite shows are South Park and the Simpsons. Mexican telenovelas are incredibly popular, especially among the older crowd, but so is Desperate Housewives.

So what's the deal with the whole immigration thing? Recent protests in Chicago, Los Angeles, Milwaukee, San Diego, Texas, and Boston, among other locations, brought to light an issue that has been simmering under the surface of U.S. politics for a while. But, until now, it has not made much of a splash in the media. People know the basic arguments: immigrants who enter the country illegally shouldn't be here, they're illegal, and they take jobs that should go to U.S. citizens. In the words of comedian Stephen Lynch, they're known for "taking our welfare and best jobs to boot, like landscaping, dishwashing, picking our fruit." On the other side of the debate is a growing latino population in the U.S. that argues that almost everyone in the country is descended from an immigrant, and that there wouldn't be so many illegal immigrants if it weren't so hard for people to come to this country legally. The most recent protests stem from the idea of making illegal entry into the country a felony. Because designating illegal immigrants as felons puts them in the same category as people who tamper with federal elections or bomb federal buildings. The back-and-forth between the two sides has been going on as long as there has been illegal immigration to the U.S..

The average news-watcher in the U.S. might be tempted to tune out the immigration debate because it is nothing new. But what is interesting is that many in Mexico see the recent clashes as more than just a flare-up in an old debate. Speculation in Mexico is that immigrants' rights protests will become the next big civil rights movement in the U.S., akin to the most famous movements of the '60's.

Is that realistic? At first glance it seems unlikely. The civil rights movements of the '60's had a few key characteristics that today's immigrant rights movement lacks. First, there hasn't been a sensational news story to grab the attention of people who otherwise wouldn't pay attention. The sheer numbers of people protesting has been sensational, but to really grab people's attention it may take a hate crime or similar act of violence. No such crime has made a splash in the U.S. news yet. Unfortunately, that doesn't mean that these crimes don't happen. When U.S. border patrol agents shot a young man in the back for throwing a rock at them, it made a huge sensation in Mexico, but barely made the news on the northern side of the border.

Secondly, the immigrant rights movement in the U.S. has not yet produced a charismatic leader to grab attention and make headlines. Some would argue that the movement benefits from many charismatic leaders, and that s why the protests have been so successful. But the movement would benefit from one or two people at its forefront to really grab the attention of the nation.

What the movement does have is manpower. Depending on how today's boycott goes, it remains to be seen whether that will be enough to turn immigration into the Next Big Issue in the U.S.. Will "a Day Without an Immigrant" have lasting results? Stay tuned.

It is not necessarily relevant, but it is always fun for Smithies to note: Katie Couric's rejection from Smith is frequently mentioned as a consolation to high school seniors who are rejected by their top choice school.