Mount Holyoke

Probably the most common thing I hear regarding my collegiate matriculation selection is one of a pejorative why I would ever, in-the-name-of-sanity, select to attend an all-female institution. Unsurprisingly, I have a lengthy and rather complicated reply that first must unpack the question (like a true Mount Holyoke Woman, assuredly). This answer, as you have no doubt gleaned, is one I am indirectly (but also directly) answering in these five posts illustrating facets to life here that I love.

However. This is, as the Buddhists would say, a question wrongly asked.

To begin: Mount Holyoke may exclusively admit women only, but not all of its students identify according to the gender binary, and some are in the midst of a sex change whilst at MHC. I am not going to speak to this, only because I do identify to both a female gender and sex and therefore cannot understand the choice – in fullness – to make such a change. However, something that I adore about going to a woman’s higher education institution, and Mount Holyoke most specifically, is that there exists a powerful and supportive space for such exploration of identity to occur. Furthermore, MHC is part of a five-college consortium, meaning that students from the fellow four universities in the Pioneer Valley are welcome to take classes at my beloved college – including men. So, no, we’re no convent (I am quite fond of convents, though, and nuns in general!).

So this question? Besides being offensive in the more-often-than-not asked in a condescending way, is not exactly accurate. But we can’t all try to be PC 100% of the time, because then we end up singing about dandelions and never dealing with real problems. To deal with the issue at present: yes, I attend a women’s college.

But my eagerness to usurp the gender binary aside, let’s get to the subtext of this inquiry. Because, be real, at least 50% of the people asking this question (in my non-factually-based, completely subjective opinion) are trying to get at a bigger, perhaps perceived-to-be-non-politically-correct question. It’s crude, in my not-so-humble opinion, because what people really want to know is this:

ARE YOU A LESBIAN? Because only LESBIANS go to GIRLS SCHOOLS.

Now, to be perfectly fair, some people do not ask this question with this explicit desire in mind. But I’d wager the thought crosses every single person’s mind who has ever wanted to know why I prefer a college of “chicks.”

Yet I would argue there is the indisputable (but subjective) 25% of people who follow the question of why I chose a women-only school with one of two further inquiries. First, they might ask something leading, suggestive, or abysmally failing at subtlety, like “Well how does that impact you romantically?” or, my favorite, “Well how do you FEEL about being around ONLY GIRLS.” Then, there’s the ballsy, gutsy, go –getters who straight up demand to know my personal business: “So, you’re gay, right?”

To you who want to know if I like the ladies – an inference you made by my choice in going to one of the best educational institutions in the country, not because you’re interested, or want to know me better, but simply want to confine me in a box of stereotypes and prejudices, to prove a point – I’d like to politely tell you to *expletive!* reevaluate a few things. Namely, how you respect your fellow human beings.

Yes, women who identify as something other than a Kinsey 0 do attend women’s colleges. Mount Holyoke is one of the safest spaces I’ve ever encountered, and yes,I support marriage equality and actively seek to fight homophobia as a social disease in all of its manifestations (in case you couldn’t already tell). I do not think whether I like men or women or both is anything to be shut up or ashamed of – I simply think its no one’s business but mine, and the people whom I choose to share it with.

Not out of shame, or fear do i say this; I prefer to remain mostly mute on my sexual preference because it’s for me to know. Maybe I am gay, and I just want to keep it to people who actually know me and prevent the inevitable anonymous hate comment (because that’s really brave, by the way, saying things online you’re too scared to say in real life). Or maybe I’m straight, and am using this soapbox as a platform to stand in solidarity with the thousands of people who identify somewhere on the spectrum of LGBTQ who cannot speak out of fear of rejection, violence, pain and oppression. Perhaps, then, I’m somewhere on this scale and want to spare myself the endless judgements from all sides about conceptions of “bisexuality,” “pansexuality” or an otherwise queer identity. All are equally likely, and no, I’m sorry if this sounds hurtful (it’s not meant to be!), no matter how much I like you, it is on my terms to tell you such things.

It’s not the assumption that I’m gay that bothers me – it’s the undercurrent that BECAUSE of this supposed sexual preference I chose to go to a college of all women. And that at such institutions, women just hop into bed with whomever, and that it is an enormous gayfest of liberal loving (which is a whole other slew of conversations about sexuality, and who defines how you govern your body, for another time).

Before coming to MHC, I literally had extended family contacting me with warning about the “dangers” of going to “that lesbian school.” They worried I might be converted into some heathen sexual practice with another woman. To me, this represents the ultimately offensive and deep-seated prejudice that is the hurtful undercurrent to all such personal inquiries: that being gay is bad, and identifying as something other than a heterosexual automatically makes one a “certain kind” of person. That, in knowing I’m this or that, helps one define me in a better light.

This is dangerous, friends!

To think that because Lizzie is gay or straight I am defined by parameters based on stereotypes is to confine my very sense of self, my very identity. Maybe because I have short hair, you infer that I’m a lesbian – but what does this say to women who have long locks, dresses in an extremely effeminate manner, and appears by all (wrongly seated) standards to be quintessentially straight – when in fact, they are screaming-to-come-out-of-the-closet queer? It tells them that because of a perception they can’t be who they are. And to say that all gay people are one way and all straight people another is tempting, surely, because it is organized and neat and keeps things “clean.” But it also inhibits the power of the human conscience, the miracle of ingenuity and creativity to defy boundaries. It is dangerous!

My frustration with this, then, is really two-fold in essence. Firstly, it is not a wrong, sick, gross, terrible, unholy, or otherwise bad thing to be with someone of the same gender or sex. Whether it’s by choice or biology or both, your personal values and moral code should not be imposed on someone else’s right to Love and marry and bear children. The. End.

Secondly, not all Mount Holyoke students identify as queer in some capacity; I would contend almost half are almost exclusively Kinsey 0s or 1s (that is to say, (mostly) straight/hereosexual). Again, as a good sociologist, I have to clarify that this is my personal observation based on the people I interact with, see, and have shared conversations with. This is not based on any kind of collected data. Still, my core friends at this school represent the wide spectrum of religions, ethnicities, nationalities, races, ability statuses, and sexual orientations. Straight, gay, somewhere in between, some unsure – it’s a blend. And I love it this way, because no one pushes more to think critically and question more deeply than my friends do, simply in being who they are.

This perception held by so many that women’s colleges are “gay” schools is not an image I have any problem with. In fact, I think it says something beautiful and profound about the institution; it says that we are a truly, deeply safe space for all exploring their gender and sexuality identities. It says that we care, and care quite seriously, about the current plague of homophobia in this country and this world, and we seek to combat such prejudice. We seek to be the radical opposite of those who carry signs saying the divine hates the queer; we seek to be a place of radical, revolutionary, lived-in-our-bones equality. We are more than a celebration of identities – we are a living, breathing Community that is engaging these questions within our very selves, our boundaries, and creating something together. A space in which every woman and man and person somewhere in between is Safe. We embrace such a stereotype – we are reclaiming it to make it something wonderful, complicated, and pervasive. I wanted to be here, at this women’s college, so I could endlessly learn from these remarkable people, beyond-reckoning, brilliant people.

And that’s the beauty of Mount Holyoke; all are welcome, and all are meant to be highly respected.

This is part three of five in my women’s college blog series, originally posted on my own blog, Wandering Writes. To see the original description and disclaimer post, please click here!

YA Saves

I have been an avid fan of Young Adult fiction since the third grade. I vividly remember standing in the library check out line with the rest of my class during “Library Time” eagerly digging into my Judy Blume while my classmates palmed their Judy Moody books. I think that moment can also be pointed to as the precursor to my reading Anna Karenina in eighth grade when my classmates were reading…well, they weren’t reading. But that’s a self-indulgent admittedly pretentious digression.

I think it’s this deeply ingrained love of YA that caused the low grade rage I felt when reading the recent Wall Street Journal article by Meghan Cox Gurdon. It’s worth reading (in that it’s a piece of crap but will make the rest of this post make sense) but here’s a short summary: YA is shockingly dark and evil and corrupting the youth of America. If teens read the kind of YA that’s about cutting and rape and depression (oh my!) they will be normalized and thus teens will immediately adopt all self-destructive behaviors and situations presented in YA.

Where to even start?

First of all. To assume that teens will blindly imitate what they read in YA, which I suppose is a possible outcome, is to assume the most basely obvious result. It only scratches the surface of the teenage psyche and expects insultingly little of our comprehensive and analytical skills. It’s also the result that (and I am willing to bet my entire YA collection this) happens the least. Reading about cutting, for example, does not make a teen want to cut. A past trauma, depression, or need to control does may make a teen want to cut. Books are not tools used to create armies of mindless drones.

So what’s the most prevalent outcome of reading YA? It’s an outcome so painfully obvious to me that it almost hurts to have to write it, but since some people apparently insist on remaining blind, I’ll type it out. Reading about the darkness that plagues so many teens’ lives – about the rape, the abuse, the cutting, the depression, the reality for many of us — provides a way for the teens who identify with these situations to feel release, to learn that they are able to overcome these situations. To truly understand that they’re not alone.

And for the rest of us? For those of us who were lucky enough to stumble into a life void of these tragedies? Well, we learn empathy. We learn the invaluable lesson that the path we took through life was not the path that most other people have taken, and thus we learn to shape our world views in a less self-centered, close-minded, ignorant way. And it even indirectly explains to those who bully out of ignorance who their victims really are, and thus how torturing them is wrong. In fact, I’m not sure there is any better bridge for teens to cross into a feminist mind-set then the very type of YA Fiction that the author of this WSJ article so admonishes.

Then there’s this author’s tirade of how these books are grotesque. Well guess what? As a generation that was born into images of terrorist-driven planes crashing into a New York City landmark, of catastrophic natural disasters that rendered our people and even our leaders defenseless, of polar bears swimming desperately to no where because their habitat is melting because we just had to have that Hummer and of soul crushing poverty we’re kind of used to things that are grotesque. And beyond that, we are the ones that will have to throw ourselves head first into the grotesque if we want any chance of ensuring future generations a world with any light at all. If we’re protected as young adults, if we’re shielded from the truth of this world, how the hell can our parents or our teachers or anybody else expect us to ever tackle it head on when we’re actual adults?

But in all honesty, the contents of this article – while I found them appalling – weren’t altogether shocking. There have always been whistle-blowers on progress that doesn’t present itself in a neat little package of political correctness, sunshine and rainbows. Older generations always fear younger generations, at least to some extent. What did kind of surprise me, however, were the books that were missing; the books that I think actually deserved to be criticized and the books that actually are a negative force and threat to my generation.

I’m talking about The Clique. I’m talking about The A-List. I’m talking about Gossip Girl. I’m talking about whatever new vapid series of books is in vogue right now.

Okay, maybe it’s a bit of hyperbole to deem these books as threatening to the future of our generation, but really? While the books the Wall Street Journal demonized may be violent or dark, shouldn’t we be worried about the books that are all shiny gloss? These books, which in my opinion have literary merit equal to a middle schooler’s “What I Did Over The Summer” essay, and probably use parallel language, follow young women as they aspire to nothing more than a hot guy and a shopping spree. They teach young women to aspire to beauty over intelligence, to single-mindedly pursue what you want despite whatever harm it may cause others, and to create shallow, meaningless friendship.

But no, we really should be worried about the effects on our teens of reading the tale of the aftermath of a homophobic hate crime, or a young girl recovering from sexual assault.

Thank god there are awesome people, like the fabulous YA author Maureen Johnson (@MaureenJohnson), who decided to take action against this article, and promoted the twitter hashtag #YASaves, which gave YA readers from all walks of life a chance to defend YA and the positive ways it has impacted their lives. Because — what a concept! — young adults are able to determine and elocute how literature benefits us.

I hope Meghan Cox Gurdon does herself a favor and reads the #YASaves hashtag. Maybe she’ll actually learn a thing or two about how teens feel about YA. And maybe before she writes another article, she’ll ask us.

Kobe Bryant: Fined for Using Anti-Gay Slur

So yet another sports figurehead is feeling the repercussions of using homophobic slurs during a game. A few weeks ago, LA Lakers star Kobe Bryant was fined $100,000 for hurling an insult towards an NBA referee. Because of TV censorship, I never caught which word was actually used, but my guess is that it began with an “f” and rhymed with “maggot”. Now Joakim Noah, who plays for the Chicago Bulls, is facing similar consequences after following Kobe’s lead.

Homophobic slurs and gay-bashing still present themselves frequently, but the formation of various campaigns to stop such intolerance is slowly eradicating anti-gay sentiments. I’ve done my part to show support, for I believe the degradation of another individual shouldn’t be acceptable anywhere. That’s why I also support the consequences these men are facing.

However, these recent events really got me thinking about the prevalence of other types of inappropriate name-calling. We wholeheartedly reject the notion that gay-bashing is okay and that using the F-word (and I’m not talking about “feminism”) is tolerable, yet society seems to openly embrace other negative terms. The most obvious one being, “bitch”. Okay, maybe society hasn’t quite “embraced” it, but it does accept it’s open usage. “Bitch” has become the new “bro” or “dude” and it’s commonly used to describe things that are great or cool (“Man, that song is bitchin’”). It has a positive connotation as well as a negative one. Bitch is an all around descriptive word that can be used to express various things. We forget how the word “bitch” can be used to degrade an individual – that is, until we hear, “That girl is such a bitch.” And even then it isn’t taken seriously because nowadays even friends call each other “bitch.”

I have a huge problem with this, not only because of the word’s history and the fact that it’s been used as a tool for verbal abuse, but also because its neutrality in today’s society permits and accepts its usage whilst describing or referring to females.

Women have worked so hard to stop people from accepting the term “bitch” as appropriate terminology. It’s sad that our society, in which public figures are punished, if caught, for calling a gay man the F-word or a black man or woman the N-word, has softened the sting that a word like “bitch” used to produce. Shouldn’t using “bitch” be held to the same standard?

Unfortunately, I know a lot of girls who call each other “bitch”, “whore”, and “slut.” They use the argument that if the intentions of the word aren’t bad, it can be used as an endearing nickname. Yeah, I’m pretty sure my gay friends are going to welcome the idea of me calling them F-words. And using that same logic, maybe Kobe and Joakim were just giving their gay friends and fans a shout out.

Seriously?

what does it mean to be a soldier

Not a single female was to be found in my first semester history course.

Our class discussed this curious state of affairs extensively, and it was decided after much deliberation that another history course offered during the same block – Gender, Culture, and Power – had absorbed any females interested in learning about current affairs in the Middle East and Central Asia course. Do women find hardcore politics unappealing? I think that would be a gross generalization, but the better question is: Do men find gender studies emasculating?

In any case, one morning, my favorite history teacher who taught the class, started a conversation about the military. As was her style, she often began the day with some relaxing banter before pulling out the academic big-guns. She was extremely quirky, and wore Navajo inspired prints paired with plaid shorts. At Christmas, she put antlers on the side-mirrors of her decades-old van, and a big red pompom on the front grill.

A jock sitting in the back corner of the room, his shoulders hunched and his elbows plying against one of several old wooden tables in the room, said that he had applied to West Point.

“Who do you think would be the least likely candidate for West Point in our class?” My teacher had a way of impulsively saying things  without realizing the socio-political under-workings that she had set in gear.

Everyone either said my name, or another boy’s name (who, incidentally, came out to me a couple of weeks ago).

I thought that my jaw was going to shatter as tendons began to sprout from my neck. “I’d kick ass at West Point,” I said loudly, only to have my affirmations chuckled away by my classmates as they gave me knowing glances and smirked at buddies across the room. “Oh, really?” The jock leered at me, his eyes lit up by my comedy.

This was extremely upsetting for me to endure. I’m by no means the strongest boy in my grade – I’m probably one of the weakest, skinniest ones – but that doesn’t mean that I lack all of the qualities of a good soldier. I don’t have plans to join the military any time soon, but I’ve always felt that there was so much more to being a soldier than just brawn. At least, the recruitment commercials that are broadcasted on television seem to espouse this message. They talk about building character and learning life lessons in the battlefield and brotherhood; there is no mention of how much of a man you have to be to ‘belong’ in the military. I have discipline, I am brave, I am resourceful and intelligent and I feel like I have proved this time and time again in ways that none of my classmates have. Why is it, then, that I seem to be the least soldierly of the bunch?

The military is romanticized. We say that the military is about so much more than the visible muscle mass of our troops. Soldiers are good people as well. Soldiers are the cream of the masculine crop. They are supposed to both firm and gentle, defenders of the peace. I think that the fact that people laugh me out is proof enough that this is a myth. The military is a harsh place where, until recently, gay and lesbian soldiers were unable to serve openly. Female soldiers are raped, and our troops sometimes kill innocent people. During their free time, captains spend their time producing offensive videos for the supposed enjoyment of their morally upright troops. Our soldiers are the clean-up crew of democracy.

Granted, I think that soldiers should be respected for the fact that they do go and put themselves in danger on a regular basis because I sure wouldn’t like to do that for a living. But I also think that many of the men who we respect are a lot more than the time they serve in the military. I think that they are great people in spite of their service, and the fact that they would enlist is proof of that. I don’t think that their character is directly related to participation in the military, or the values of the military itself.

By the same token, I think that it is inconsistent that people who believe in moralizing militaristic ideals think that people like me are completely incapable of serving in the military. It goes to show that they are hypocrites who use a myth to obscure their own bigotry as they see fit. If soldiers are made by their exercise regiment, then the cut of a man and the military are two entirely separate entities.

Originally posted on the BAM blog

Sky News Reporters Richard Keys and Andy Gray

Anyone living in Britain at the moment would have to be hiding under a rock to have missed the current Sky news sexism row. It hasn’t quite got its own ‘-gate’  suffix yet but it’s surely only a matter of time, as what started as a few off-the-cuff comments has snowballed into a national debate.

Sky Sports presenters Richard Keys and Andy Gray were commentating on a football (soccer) match last Saturday, when, believing their microphones to be switched off, they made sexist remarks about the female referee, Sian Massey. The game hadn’t even started when they were already criticising her ability to do her job, complaining that women “don’t know the offside rule” and that “the game’s gone mad.” They also complained about Karren Brady, one of football’s most prolific businesswomen, who had written a recent article about sexism in football.

Ironically, during the match, Massey correctly called a query which many sub-standard referees may have missed. She has kept fairly quiet throughout this time, accepting Keys’ and Gray’s apology. Brady, on the other hand, was outraged by the men’s comments.

What worries me the most is the reaction of the general public. The two men lost their jobs, though not straightaway; after a rather inadequate apology, Sky decided that heads had to roll. But there is a lack of support for this action from many Brits. They believe the two men have been unfairly treated and that this is another case of ‘political correctness gone mad’.

I find it hard to believe that this blasé attitude towards sexism still exists. Britain has made huge strides in the last 20 years in regards to racism and homophobia. It’s completely unacceptable to make a racist or homophobic joke in any context, and yet we still encounter sexism around each corner. As Anna Kessel, who writes for left-wing daily national The Guardian, said, ‘Try explaining the difference between an expletive-filled rant concerning the colour of a player’s skin affecting his ability to do a job, and an expletive-filled rant about a person’s gender affecting her ability to do her job.’ This is the problem in Britain today – one of these is not acceptable, and the other one is.

It’s not just in football where sexism is still institutionalized. What’s most worrying is society at large’s attitude towards sexism. Many men nowadays believe that society is anti-men, and made up of men-hating, extreme feminists. They complain that when it comes to sexism, it’s labelled as ‘a bit of a laugh’ when the jokes are about men, and discrimination when women come under fire.

They may have a point. Personally, I feel it is just as unacceptable to make sexist remarks about men as about women, and I would like to see harsher penalties when this occurs in the media. However, we cannot forget that women are still the ones who need help here. We are still struggling for equality, and the fight is not helped by the attitudes of men like these. The sacking of Keys and Gray has caused an unfortunate backlash – I just hope that this is not a setback for women and for the issue of sexism to be taken seriously.

Teddy from 90210: Closeted Gay = Open Homophobe

I would like to preface this entire post by mentioning that most actors who play high school students in our favorite dramas are really, really old. Though they have not yet succumbed to the allure of Life Alert and Jello three times a day, they are a shockingly false portrayal of what teenagers actually look like. I’m going to postulate that shows such as 90210 and Gossip Girl have female dominated audiences, so I suppose having really old male actors serves to sexualize high school beyond its sordid reality?

In any case, Trevor Donovan, the 90210 regular whose character is slated to come out of the closet this season, is 32 years old. Though this is largely a case-in point statement, I’m going to drag out my story even further. Because I can.

Donovan’s character, Teddy, begins to struggle with his sexuality this season in 90210. He gets drunk at a party and accidentally (or not so accidentally) makes out with a gay kid in his class. He doesn’t remember it until later, and the shit hits the fan. Teddy can’t deal with what he has done, so he proceeds to act like a total jerk towards the gay kid, who doesn’t even want to coax Teddy out of the closet. But because Teddy is so paranoid, he calls the kid a faggot, and then gets into a brawl with him in the hallway. All of this nonsense happens because Teddy can’t accept himself.

The exact same scenario happened in Gossip Girl a couple of years ago. Erik Van der Woodsen comes out of the closet, and his lover/boyfriend/fellow gay who isn’t out yet/classmate calls him a faggot as well in order to preserve his manliness.

I guess I’m just perplexed as to why it’s only the closeted gay kids who end up being so awful to the out gay kids. Of course, one could argue that these kids are so repressed that they have to attack anything that may cause their secrets to come spilling out, but I think that this is only partially true in real life. It is the infallible, absolute truth of television.

I’d like to see a few storylines in television where straight kids who aren’t doubting their sexuality go after gay kids, and then realize they were wrong. I think that many series are missing this aspect to their shows, and it’s an important perspective to incorporate into any teen series. For all of the closeted kids who berate the out kids, those kids eventually come to terms with who they are and accept the world and there are happy bunnies and cupcakes and rainbows. Hooplah. The lack of storylines where inherently biased people learn to accept others in spite of their differences is somewhat scary. It’s encouraging bigotry through omission. Gay people aren’t the only ones who have to overcome the hurtles that come with being gay. There is an entire world that has to learn to accept gay people, and the silver screen does not portray this in the least. The closeted gay kids call others fags because they’re closeted gay kids. But other types of people aren’t encouraged or discouraged from partaking in the verbal abuse of LGBT youth. That message needs to be projected to everyone through showing scenarios where all different types of people overcome their presumed notions.

Last week at Syracuse University, Michelle Deferio, Syracuse resident (not student), and her father stood on a street corner on campus holding a sign that read, “Homosexuality is a sin, Christ can set you free.”

Chris Pesto, a junior drama major, decided to take action.

In his own words, on a facebook note about the protest, Chris wrote:

Chris Pesto and Michelle Deferio

Today (Wednesday, November 18th) I left my voice lesson and noticed two adults on campus holding signs that said “Homosexuality is a sin”. First, I would just like to say that I support people with their own opinions. I think that everyone is entitled to their right to think what they want. However, when someone comes on my campus, where I pay tuition to live, I don’t think it’s appropriate to rub such a hateful sign in someone’s face. I decided that because this woman thought it was okay to make me feel uncomfortable in my home, I would retaliate and make her feel just as uncomfortable, if not more.

This woman was wearing a ankle-length corduroy skirt, which, as we all know, is a fashion nono. So, in order to make her feel uncomfortable, I stood next to her and held a sign that said Corduroy skirts are a sin! I don’t think I have ever drawn so much attention in my life. SO many people asked to take a picture with me, I got laughs, high fives and there were the few that even cursed off the woman standing behind me.

As I drew interest to what was going on with myself and the woman with the hateful sign, I started to draw a crowd that stood with me in support. Before I knew it I had 100+ people holding signs for gay rights asking people to honk their horns to support. I was interviewed by a news station, and more than 5 student organization papers, and the post standard of syracuse.

I never expected anybody to come stand by me and support and I appreciate it so much that everyone came! It meant so much and it proved to those ignorant people that we aren’t afraid, and we will put up a fight.

I’m proud that Syracuse has such a homosexual friendly community.

According to an article in The Daily Orange, Michelle and Jim Deferio are members of the Open-Air Campaigners – an evangelist group who preach their beliefs in public places, such as sidewalks, parks, and apparently college campuses. When asked about the students protesting against them, Jim stated, “”We have free speech in this country, but you don’t have the freedom to not be offended.” (Which I think can best be interpreted as “we have the right to offend you” but please, correct me if I’m wrong on that one).

Although it may have started as a single, humorous defense on Chris Pesto’s part, his one action turned into a protest for a more loving and accepting community. Administration officials heard the call of their students and stated that the Deferios were no longer welcome on Syracuse’s campus.

All I can say is rock on. I mean that sign is so great. I think it’s really cool that somebody could look at that sign, which to Chris was in a way a personal attack as he identifies as gay, and not respond with anger, but with a sense of humor. I always feel pretty weary about protests for “love” that only end up attacking the opposing side. This was clearly handled pretty well.

Go Syracuse!