While setting up for a party a few weeks ago, I noticed one of my female friends trying to hoist a large oak table and carry it into the next room. Appropriately enough, I asked if she needed my help. After all, the table was heavy and she was just one person. I never thought that such an innocent offer would warrant the kind of whoopass that my friend was about to deliver.

Among other things, she exclaimed, “My biggest pet peeve is when people ask if I need help with something. I’ve done more labor-intensive work than anyone here, but people insist that I need help just because I have boobs!”

Needless to say, I haven’t offered her help with manual labor since then.

Let us ignore science for a moment. You know: the empirically proven fact that males, on average, are physically stronger than females. Let’s examine this from a simple human-interaction point of view. One individual tries to do something, another offers help, and the pair usually manages the work more efficiently and effectively as a result. This is the way Neolithic human society has always worked. And although gender roles have traditionally shaped this distribution of labor, they have absolutely no bearing on the communal instinct to help one’s fellow human. I would have made the same offer to a male friend.

There seem to be two major camps of feminists. The members of one group believe in equality and focus on very real modern issues such as disparity in wages between men and women. They serve an essential role in modern society, in which feminism has come under attack because of the irrational and circular arguments made by members of the second group. These individuals, who represent a highly vocal minority of the feminist movement, have learned to extrapolate feminism to every domain of daily life. They are hypersensitive to criticism, actively look for evidence of sexism and find it everywhere.

As one who cares deeply about equality issues, it pains me to see legitimate issues hijacked by those who use the movement as a method of personal vindication, like when my friend felt slighted that I offered her help moving furniture.

She is one of those “feminists” that bandy about the term without demonstrating a true understanding of what it means. On account of their frenzied finger-pointing and paranoia, feminists as a whole have come to be perceived as extremists that eschew showering and relish their armpit hair.

Along with giving real feminists a bad name, the pseudo-feminists alienate men as well. Hypersensitized by the narrative that they have imagined, they are quick to accuse a man of implicitly belittling a woman when he offers to help and ignoring her plight when he refuses. The innocuous act of kindness, generosity or even apathy is interpreted as an intentional and malicious attack on the sovereignty of women everywhere. I’m not saying that a man’s actions are always absent of ulterior motives; I am saying that as adults we should be able to tell the difference.

The irony is that not enough individuals at Princeton are willing to publicly proclaim their feminism, as Caroline Kitchener pointed out in her column “Where have all the feminists gone?,” and I think it’s at least in part because of this vocal minority. The stigma caused by this minority is a real one, as evidenced by many of the comments on past ‘Prince’ articles related to feminism. While varying in content, the general tone of these comments is, “Enough already. There is no conspiracy to put women down. Get over it.” In this way, a very vocal minority of extremists have effectively pushed the issue beyond the sphere of reasonable discourse. In complaining about unimportant issues, they are reducing the urgency of the real ones. No one wants to hear any more about feminism once they’ve learned to associate feminism with complaining. Once this association is made, all bets are off; real feminism has no chance.

Feminism is not a selling point, nor is it a label that automatically legitimizes what you are saying. Feminism is a school of thought and philosophy that must not be used as a street corner soap box, lest everything it stands for be cheapened or destroyed.

It is easy to make a point by shouting the loudest or by inundating your opponent with a mass of statistics that he or she cannot possibly begin to decode. But the fight for race and gender equality is not one that is won by attrition, by wearing your enemies down until they no longer have the energy to fight. It’s a hearts-and-minds campaign in which you aim to turn those who once stood in your way. I understand where they’re coming from. But gender extremists cannot hope to effect real change without first learning to pick their battles.

The decision between paper and plastic has recently began to include the choice of reusable, a $1 option many people are willing to take in order to reduce their impact on the environment.

But reusable grocery bags, made to be used multiple times for shopping, may not be as healthy or environmentally friendly as people once thought.

“The Tampa Tribune” recently investigated and tested reusable grocery bags sold at Wal-Mart, Target and East Coast grocery chains. This investigation spurred the Food and Drug Administration to launch its own investigation into reusable bags.

The testers found unsafe levels of lead in reusable grocery bags that were manufactured in China and sold at Wal-Mart, Target and the East Coast grocery chains Winn-Dixie, Publix and Sweetbay. Lead is found in laminated reusable bags with large print or images to make colors more vibrant.

Lead is a toxic metal that can cause serious health problems in children younger than 6 years old and adults who are regularly exposed to high levels of lead. Lead poisoning in children can cause behavioral problems, damage to the brain and nervous system, hearing problems, headaches and slowed growth. Lead poisoning in adults can cause reproductive problems, high blood pressure, hypertension, nerve disorders, memory problems, and muscle and joint pain.

While the recent study did not show any indication of an immediate health threat to the public, lead in reusable bags could possibly contaminate the food products kept inside them and leach into landfills once a consumer disposes of the bag. The researchers found that in the long-term, the lead from reusable grocery bags could seep into groundwater after disposal and, over time, paint from the bag could flake off and come into contact with food.

Wal-Mart and Target have not recalled their reusable bags and recently released statements to dispel any health concerns.

Wal-Mart tested its bags did not find levels as high as the Tribune’s test and the company plans on selling more basic and plain versions of its bag. Target also remained confident in its testing methods. In response to the Tribune’s story, Safeway re-tested all its reusable bags and found them to be lead-free.

Reusable grocery bags are a popular alternative to using plastic and paper bags, and some cities are considering outright banning one-use bags. While the City of Eugene is not considering a ban on plastic bags, the City of Portland is. Meanwhile, in Washington, D.C., and other U.S. cities, consumers who use plastic bags are charged extra when they don’t bring their reusable grocery bags.

This would be a good option instead of banning plastic bags entirely, University junior Yufei Chen said.

“I think it’s a good idea to pay for it,” she said.

U. Oregon junior Elizabeth Shepard said she uses plastic bags at home as garbage bags.

“You can use those bags at home for other things,” she said. “Banning them isn’t a good idea.”

Other U. Oregon students said they had a hard time remembering to bring their reusable bags with them when grocery shopping.

“I never have them with me to use them,” senior Sarah Kanthack said.

Consumers should also focus on bacteria, which can form on the bottom of reusable grocery bags, when considering their health. Health experts recommend that consumers regularly wash their reusable grocery bags to prevent the formation of bacteria and E. coli. However, the catch is that washing reusable grocery bags uses energy and water, making them less environmentally friendly than their original purpose.

Stealing someone’s virtual identity is now easier than stealing candy from a baby.

Firesheep, an add-on for Mozilla’s Firefox Web browser, allows people to “side-jack” the online accounts of others connected to the same Wi-Fi network. It adds a sidebar to the Firefox browser window. When the Firesheep user logs on to a website, the account information of anyone else connected to the same wireless network and logged on to that site will appear in a list on the Firesheep sidebar. By clicking someone’s account information in the sidebar, the Firesheep user can effectively hijack that person’s account.

Ohio State’s wireless network uses WPA2 encryption to provide security to its users. But that encryption does not completely protect people from the add-on, which has been downloaded nearly 1 million times, according to the personal blog of Eric Butler, the freelance Web developer who created Firesheep.

“A password-protected (WPA2) wireless network or even a wired network just requires that attackers perform one more step to carry out this attack,” Butler said in a blog entry Oct. 26. “It’s not very helpful to just enable WPA2. … Doing so might actually give users a dangerously false sense of security.”

Information technology experts agree.

“There could possibly be students or other people on our network that are playing around with a tool like this,” said Shawn Sines, information technology specialist for Security Planning and Outreach at OSU. “If students aren’t making the right choices when they go to these websites to protect themselves … then they are still basically exposed to this risk.”

The Office of the Chief Information Officer posted several tips on the BuckeyeSecure website to help students stay safe on the Internet. But each recommendation comes at a cost.

Sines said students should use only secure versions of websites to ensure their protection. He advised students to use a Firefox add-on called HTTPS Everywhere, which is meant to provide users secure connections to every website they visit.

But HTTPS Everywhere limits people’s access to certain websites that are not equipped to handle secure traffic, said Joe Bazeley, information security officer for IT Services at Miami University.

“It’s a much more complicated decision than saying, ‘If you do this, then you’ll be safe,’” Bazeley said.

Many popular websites, including Facebook, Twitter and Foursquare, provide their users a secure connection when they log on to their accounts, but after users log in, their information is vulnerable.

“They present you a secure front door where you come in … and then as soon as they have done that, they shift you back over to an insecure area,” Sines said.

When people log on to a website that requires a password, the website sends them a “cookie,” a text file that stays on their computers to keep them logged in. The website checks those people’s identities whenever they do something on the site, such as write on someone’s Facebook wall. To verify the users’ identities, the website checks to see if they have the cookie.

Firesheep allows people to intercept others’ cookies, giving them access to those people’s accounts.

“As long as you have the cookie, then the website feels like you are that person,” Sines said.

Zach Kaufman, a third-year in mechanical engineering, said he regularly logs on to Facebook using OSU’s wireless network and was unaware that his security could be at risk.

“I think it’s cool that people have the knowledge to create something like” Firesheep, he said. “But I don’t think that it’s right that they should be able to use it.”

Kaufman said he is not worried about someone side-jacking his Facebook account and will continue to log on to Facebook despite the security risk.

Although the add-on appears malicious to many, Butler’s reason for developing Firesheep was to expose the lack of security on the Internet, his blog says. He said the Internet security issues will not be resolved until all websites properly encrypt their traffic.

“True success will be when Firesheep no longer works at all,” Butler said in his blog.

“Writers have to know things … They have to know things about life. Musicians don’t,” Fran Lebowitz, professional cynic and writer, declares in the recent HBO documentary about her life, Public Speaking. Lebowitz was hired by Andy Warhol to write a column for his Interview magazine in 1970 and then continued on to write two well-regarded books of essays. She now speaks and contributes articles to various magazines despite the nearly three decade-long “writer’s blockade” that has kept her from producing another book. Martin Scorsese documents this fascinating woman through various speeches and interviews that reveal her humorous insight in regards to anything and everything intellectual.

Her point is valid. Music does not inherently or necessarily stem from any heightened understanding of reality the way that good writing is thought to (though it can). Music comes from talented musicians who practice a holistic craft. They are not forced to know about life the way writers are, only about music.

This is a concept we often forget in regard to our artists — most notably in recent months, Kanye West. West has been derided for his outlandish comments in relation to just about everything. In a recent Today Show interview with Matt Lauer, Kanye was forced to speak on his previous comment that “George Bush doesn’t care about black people.” Flustered by Lauer’s directness, Kanye gave a half-hearted apology after hearing that George Bush called the comment “one of the most disgusting moment’s of [his] presidency.” Lauer reveled in the moment, watching his words bind the hip-hop sensation in his seat.

This interview was an absolutely ridiculous display. First, let me speak briefly to Bush’s comment. The fact that Bush considers a crazy pop-star’s hyperbole one of the most disgusting moments of his presidency is a little disgusting in and of itself. The list of things Bush screwed up while in office is too long to enumerate here and the fact that getting his feelings hurt by an over-paid man-child with microphone privileges tops the list shows that he still has absolutely no understanding over what exactly a president does.

But the larger point I am trying to make is that Lauer and Bush alike are suffering from debilitating cases of “taking Kanye seriously.” It seems like the epidemic is spreading and it’s discrediting his music. Let’s learn a lesson from Ms. Lebowitz and let Kanye frolic and make his music. He has proven himself talented time and time again, especially on his most recent album, My Beautiful Dark Twisted Fantasy, which has been irrefutably deemed at this point a masterpiece.

This same issue caused a media frenzy after the 2009 MTV Video Music Awards. Kanye took the stage after Taylor Swift’s win for Best Female Video and announced, “Beyonce had one of the best videos of all time” (never actually saying that she should have won). The media went crazy, quick to call Kanye himself a racist. Allow me to diagnose retroactively a brief outbreak of, “taking Kanye seriously.” Was the stunt immature and unbecoming of the emcee? Definitely. But, Beyonce’s “Single Ladies” video was one of the best videos I too have ever seen and seeing teenybopper Swift win the award for “You Belong With Me,” a sappy melodrama of bland middle-American teenagers, was frustrating to say the least. Kanye is not a beacon of morality and social grace; he’s a loud-mouthed rapper that was offering his opinion at an inappropriate time.

Kanye has said ridiculous things in the past and I assure you he will continue to say ridiculous things in the future. As long as he remains as jaded in the public eye as he is, he will forever be given opportunities to speak his mind and clear the air. But it’s a self-perpetuating process. We give him press to clear up his tarnished name and he gets defensive and says crazy things. The man is not an orator, he’s a rapper and a producer and a damn good one at that. If we ask Kanye what he thinks about politics we’re going to get a ridiculous response. If we ask him about hip-hop we’re going to get the opinion of a maestro, albeit coated in self-promoting boastfulness.

Later in the film Lebowitz declares that there is “too much democracy in the culture not enough democracy in the society. There’s no reason to have democracy in the culture … the culture should be made by a natural aristocracy of talent … It should have to do with ‘how good are you?’”  This is a point that I feel we, as an audience, tend to lose sight of all too frequently. I have heard countless times from fans that they prefer artists that are socially responsible and insightful rather than over-inflated superstars like Kanye West. This misses the point entirely.

Artists make art. They are not politicians who make policy nor are they judges who rule on right and wrong. They make music and they make it for the public. They are allowed to rule the world of music with authority, because they are simply better at it. Kanye does this, signing artists like John Legend and Kid Cudi and influencing their music through his label G.O.O.D. music. This is what Lebowitz is getting at, not necessarily an aristocracy, but a meritocracy. Kanye has earned his place as an authority in hip-hop, but not in politics. Let’s stop asking for his opinion on the latter.