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