Image provided by: Texas A&M University
About The Battalion. (College Station, Tex.) 1893-current | View Entire Issue (July 28, 1994)
rsday • July 28, plot srformances of its cast Scenes of Sarandon butting heads over ig legal details are clever inquiries and 3rts. a newcomer to the i, is but a flicker in i’s” galaxy of big-time ngth is in scenes of anguish. However, nal spurts of emotion nd in a fizzle, ent” strays from the pense thriller genre r on the characters, >1 ent scenes. There between characters erstage and leave else behind, g Grisham’s plot. Thursday • July 28, 1994 Little things make all the difference Feminist movement progress depends on complete equality, acceptance ELIZABETH PRESTON Columnist kend of July 22-24,1994 liar figures in millions i ( number of screens st Gump three weeks, 2,095 screens gross S21.9 ies 1/2 weeks, 2,561 screens $20,7 lent 12 weeks, 2,052 screens on King six weeks, 2,611 screens $14 in the Outfield vo weeks, 1,921 screens $0.9 seven weeks, 1,679 screens $3.9 “week, 1,785 saeens $3,2 veek, 1,481 screens S3 rouble jr weeks, 1,388 saeens $1,8 sdow r weeks, 1,341 saeens $1,3 D r. Pamela Matthews, director of the Women’s Studies program, tells a powerful story about her feminist awakening. She was a graduate student taking a class from a respected professor who read to the class a draft of an essay he was writing. Throughout, he referred to the poet Emily Dickinson as “Emily.” When the professor asked for suggestions from his graduate students, Dr. Matthews finally raised her hand and asked if it was appropriate to refer to the author by her first name. “What do you expect me to call her? MS. Dickinson?” the professor sneered. Since then, two other professors in conversation with Matthews referred to Dickinson as “Emily,” and both made exactly the same comment about “Ms.” Dickinson, scoffing at the suggestion that they were doing anything offensive. Many people will argue that the focus of the movement needs to be on “bigger” issues than “mere” naming. In reality this IS the issue. Women deserve to be recognized on every level, in every classroom and field, as equal to men. These professors wouldn’t have dared to call Shakespeare “William” or Chaucer “Geoffrey,” so why do they feel it permissible to refer to Dickinson as “Emily?” The idea that women are less deserving of respect than men is so pervasive in our society that most of us don’t even notice or flinch at thi^ obvious insult. One of the reasons that this attitude is so rampant is religion. Various doctrines teach women from birth to facilitate and obey men’s wishes. In the Baptist denomination, women are taught an interpretation of the Bible that says men are the spiritual head of the household. Catholics forbid birth control and women priests. The Church of Christ does not allow women to be elders or to lead the service of worship. Mormons believe that mothers should remain home to raise young children unless circumstances absolutely require them to work. Muslims’ culture only allow women to lead prayers if there are no men present. Some factions of Judaism do not allow women to be rabbis. While each of these religions is deeper than these single aspects, the continued focus on men as providers and leaders of women encourages women to remain and even to see themselves as inferior. Sexuality is another topic where men often dominate. Not "This is my body. If I give it to you I want it back. My life is a non-negotiable demand." — Marge Piercy only do men generally control dating, marriage proposals and sex, they also encourage a double standard. I have heard that horribly offensive saying, “He is just sowing his wild oats,” ' innumerable times, yet the idea that a woman might have some wildness to live out is almost unheard. Women who date often and have an active sex life are still labeled “slut,” “easy” or “whore.” However, when someone refers to a man by these labels people stare and usually reply, “A man can’t be a slut.” I believe that no one is a slut; people just make different choices. But, if women are to be incorrectly labeled as such, I know that men should be also. In “Backlash,” Susan Faludi notes that when research studies emphasize the supposed negative effects of the women’s rights movement are done, everyone is eager to print the news. Though often badly researched and full of logistical holes, these studies were rushed to print by a media eager to print bad news about the women’s movement. When well-researched reports came out that contradicted the earlier findings, they were largely ignored by the same media. Faludi notes that one of the reasons for the anger towards the feminist movement is that the majority of men are very bitter towards it. She reported that in one seven-year study, Anthony Astrachan found that no more than five to 10 percent of the men surveyed genuinely supported women’s efforts towards independence and equality. In “Right to Life” Marge Piercy beautifully summarizes some of the rights that every woman deserves. “I will choose what enters me, what becomes/flesh of my flesh ... I am not your cornfield, / not your uranium mine, not your calf / for fattening, not your cow for milking. / You may not use me as your factory. / Priests and legislators do not hold/ shares in my womb or my mind. /This is my body. If I give it to you/1 want it back. My life/is a non-negotiable demand.” Child care. Abortion. Divorce. Rape. Sexually Transmitted Diseases. Weight. Age. Birth control. Sexual Harassment. Equal pay for equal work. Every woman in the world is affected by the issues raised in the fight for equality, and every woman needs to find her place in this incredibly important effort. wmgmmmmmmmmmm mmammmmmmmmmmmmmmm Elizabeth Preston is a junior English major The Battalion Editorial Board Mark Evans, Editor in chief William Harrison, Managing editor Jay Robbins, Opinion editor Editorials appearing in The Battalion reflect the views of the editorial board. They do not necessarily reflect the opinions of other Battalion staff members, the Texas A&M student body, regents, administration, faculty or staff. Columns, guest columns, cartoons and . letters express the opinions of the authors. Contact the opinion editor for informatioi on submitting guest columns. Skewed statistics Calculated 'facts' often obscure truth Almost every argument is backed by statistics. Dependence on these num bers as evidence and unconditional ac ceptance of these “facts” often skews the truth and leads to false conclusions. Unfortunately, statistics are easi ly manipulated and misinterpreted and can give a misguided view of the facts. Statistics are often exaggerat ed to support certain causes by mak ing a problem seem worse. The estimated number of homeless in the United States ranges from 223,000 to 7 million. Advo cates for the home less stress the larg er figure. Opponents of government-fund ed shelter projects generally quote low er numbers. Several years ago Sen. Paul Simon claimed that 50,000 children were ab ducted in the United States each year. Studies of federal crime data later determined that 5,000 was a more accurate number. When O.J. Simpson’s history of abusing his wife was revealed, wom en’s advocacy groups jumped on what ever statistics they could find to make the problem of spousal abuse seem as bad as possible. Time magazine re ported that 4 million women a year were assaulted by a “domestic part ner.” Newsweek put the number of women beaten by “husbands, ex-hus bands and boyfriends” at 2 million. Yet, research by the U.S. Department of Justice found that all crimes against women numbered just 2.5 million. On the local front, some people claim that the Bryan-College Station area has one of the highest unemploy ment rates in the nation. However, these statistics include “unemployed” college students who are not even seeking jobs and make up a large part of the city’s population. The wide variance and uncertainty of these statistics re veals a serious prob lem with our society. Issues of great im portance to the pub lic are argued with unverifiable evi dence that is wild guesswork at best. A tremendous lack of scrutiny ap pears in the analy sis of many statistics. If a group or organization hears one statistic that supports its cause, no matter how unsubstantiated, it will adopt it and spread it as the truth. Audiences should develop more skeptical views of the number crunch ing often presented as facts. The use of statistics also carries a responsibility to make sure those numbers are correct. t N "ABC ihow” HB0 C i ^ Be Show” NBC is AP Graphics ew 'name' symbolizes lore than just identity With all the vitally important polit- al whining going on about whose Ifestyle will kill the soul of America, I link we have overlooked a deep and Pwerful question. I’m talking about _tie startling and unconventional new, range and probably dangerous prac- ce of people substituting unpro- unceable symbols for names. All right, I only have one example, but I think it best to discuss it now while some of us still have real names with real phonetic components. The name is a circle with a vertical ray pro jecting down from the bottom and a hor izontal swirly bar tangential to the cir cle. It resembles a bizarre combination of the symbol for female and the symbol for the Tristero in Thomas Pynchon’s “The Crying of Lot 49.” I saw it the oth er day while skimming an article in PC World on new CD-ROM titles. Immedi ately after the first printing of the sym bol the author explained, “the per former previously known as Prince”. Prince? Prince who? That really does n’t help much, either. Was it just “Prince” or “Mr. Prince”? It is confusing enough to wonder what name appeared on this guy’s checks and court documents when he was called Prince, but how do we des ignate the person now without purchas ing a special font package called “Times New Roman featuring the performer pre viously known as Prince”? And is there supposed to be a pronunciation of the symbol? Is it read “Barb” or “Urkel” or just the euphemistic “performer previ ously known as Prince”? “Performer previously known as Prince” sounds way too much like “Knights who until recently said ‘Ni’” for me to take seriously. If I wanted to get the gentleman’s attention at a party (not that I would have anything appropriate to wear) would I get mobbed if I just called out, “Hey, Prince!” or whistled and drew his new symbol in the air with my finger repeatedly? How does one address the performer who was until recently called Prince? The idea of drawing a symbol in the air really isn’t that hard to deal with if you happen to be in China, trying to com municate with persons from a different dialect region. In that situation (hopeful ly rendered obsolete when the new stan dardization is fully implemented) the Kanji are constant in meaning through out China (and even in most of Japan), but pronunciation varies wildly with re gion. Could it be that the symbol for the performer until recently known as Prince is similar to a non-standardized Kanji? Some would pronounce the symbol “hey, you” or “Prince” or “weirdo,” while others might call him “boss” or “hey you with the holes in the seat of your spandex pants” or “rich eccentric at the decline of his talent,” but, by using the symbol, all of these verbal elements can be under stood as the same person. I am inspired. Perhaps I should change my name to that little biohaz ard symbol and then give people dirty looks whenever they try to address me. And in case any of you are getting the same idea, just remember: I got dibs on the biohazard symbol. You can call me Mujaad. Kenneth Wayne Elwell Bryan Cry and the world laughs at you Trend toward crude, insensitive humor begs questions about modern society The BaUalion erieour- ages letters to the editor and will print as many as space allows, letters must be TOO words or less and indude the au thor's name, dass, and j^hone ramd^er. We reserve the right to ecfe letters for length. style, and accuracy. The Battalion - Mail Cali Ot 3 Reed McDonald Texas A&M University 77643-1111 fax; (409)845-2047 Q: What is O. J. Simpsons wife dressing up as for Halloween this year? A’ A Pez dispenser. A fter I dried my eyes from laughing hysterically at this latest O. J. Simpson joke, I realized what a sick person I am. It’s not just me, though. It’s most of the people I know. Gone are the days when our society’s sense of humor was satisfied with the stupidity of Barney Fife, Lucille Ball’s off-the-wall stunts or simple knock-knock jokes. We have become a society that searches for humor in almost every tragedy and misfortune. One example of this warped sense of humor that amuses most of us is the popularity of MTV’s “Beavis and Butthead” show. For over two years, these two cartoon morons have been more popular than a canoe in Haiti. Their clever dialogue, such as “Huh, huhuhuh, huhuh, huh,” and “He said, ‘dump,’” continues to captivate audiences of our generation. Why are these two imbeciles so funny? They are underachievers and bums, and between them have as much sense as a piece of toast. Their agenda each day is to disrupt class, break a few laws, and find some domestic animal to torture or mutilate. It is really interesting to observe how members of older generations respond to this type of humor. Neither my parents, nor my grandparents even crack a smile during a “Beavis and Butthead” episode. Yet many of my friends attentively watch every scene while repeating the gibberish dialogue they just heard. Another indication of this sick humor that our society possesses is the blitzkrieg-like fashion that jokes are developed and spread at times of tragedy J. STERLING HAYMAN mmmmmmfgggigg p Guest Columnist or misfortune. I had friends call from across the country to be the first to tell me jokes about O. J., Michael Jackson, Lorena Bobbitt, Jeffrey Dahmer and especially David Koresh and the Branch Davidian congregation. It is kind of sad that it took me only minutes for a friend from Arizona to relay a punchline about Somalians, yet days for me to notice that hundreds of thousands of people are dying in Rwanda. One proof of our warped humor is the popularity of "Beavis and Butthead". For two years, these cartoon morons have been more popular than a canoe in Haiti. When the space shuttle Challenger exploded, killing 7 astronauts, there wasn’t a dry eye in my school. Most weren’t crying; they were gasping for air to recover from their laughter. It seemed that the “Honey, you feed the dogs. I’ll feed the fish,” punchline was a bit more emotional than the saddened voice of Dan Rather on the news. One increasingly popular topic for humor is sex. I guess that this topic steadily has become more fair game as society’s attitudes toward sex have changed. Most of today’s sitcoms are filled with sexual innuendos concerning masturbation, homosexuality or promiscuity. This humor seems to be the basis for many of the most popular characters on television. After all, what would “Cheers” be without Sam, the sexual conqueror; or Dan on “Night Court;” or even Kelly on “Married, With Children.” Most of the funniest jokes these days are in the poorest taste. Humor relating to death, disparity and the downfalls of society. This is probably because it is easier to poke fun at those who aren’t able to defend themselves ... the dead, children and those with physical deformities. Humor is, and always will be, in an evolving state. Just as our humor has become more warped, it has also changed for the good. Previous generations laughed at jokes and humor that many people don’t find the least bit funny today. Racial and ethnic jokes are beginning to decline. This is a good sign that our society is becoming more and more intolerant to racial prejudice. Although there is still a very large problem concerning racism, it is steadily decreasing, and it’s an excellent sign when derogatory statements that evoked laughter from our ancestors are greeted with looks of scorn and disapproval from many members of our generation. It will be interesting to see what sort of things we think are funny when we are no longer the younger generation. When we are in our seventies and eighties, will we still cackle when we see colorful characters on MTV beating the hell out of a frog and mooning pedestrians? Or will we assimilate to our grandchildren’s style of humor? As for most of my friends, myself included, the warped, sick and twisted sense of humor will still be alive. Well probably continue to make fun of the dead, the famous, the weird and most of all... Republicans. J. Sterling Hayman is a junior political science major