The Battalion • Page 5
Wednesday • July 26, 1995
Alt that glitters is not gold
Knowing 'real' from 'fake' often requires a second look or feel
Frank >
Stanford I
Columnist
“Oh, what a tangled web we
weave, when first we practice to
deceive.” — Sir Walter Scott
W ithout a doubt, we all
know what Sir Walter
meant when he wrote this
famous verse. At one time or an
other, every one of us has lied our
ass off and left in our wake a “tan
gled web” large enough to require a turtle excluder device.
We’ve lied to our roommates, lovers, friends, bosses, resident advi
sors, pissheads, cops and especially those we first practiced on, our
parents. In fact, deception is such an integral part of society, it’s be
come a commodity. We buy and sell lies in the form of many products.
For example, automobiles are so full of lies we don’t even think
of them as lies anymore. Plastic “wood” trim is commonplace in
many cars today.
It looks like wood, but it holds up better and costs less. The
only reason manufacturers use plastic wood is because the most
expensive cars use real wood.
If your 1974 Monte Carlo has plastic wood trim it may catch
the eye of that classy girl you’re trying to impress.
“My goodness, wood trim! Is this a Jaguar?” she might say.
An even more ridiculous automobile lie is the “carriage top”
option available on Lincolns, Cadillacs and the like. It is a fake
convertible roof with heavy stitching, fake snaps and even artifi
cial creases where the top would fold down if it wasn’t perma
nently welded to the car’s body.
On beautiful, sunny days, “carriage top” owners must get tired
of telling people, “I would put the top down, but I don’t have a
blowtorch handy.”
Deodorizer spray with “new car” scent is probably the cheapest
automobile lie on the market. A couple of quick squirts is all you
need. A car that’s 5 years old once again will have the bouquet of
curing polyvinyl glue vapor and carpet chemicals that waft into
your waiting nostrils. You can get the same olfactory effect by
sticking your nose into a bottle of rubber cement.
By far the cheesiest deceptive car accessory is the fake car
phone and antenna. The purpose is to fool passing motorists into
thinking the car owner is important enough to make million-dol-
lar business deals in rush hour traffic. If you see one of these fak
ers stopped somewhere, offer them 20 bucks to use the phone for
an emergency; their expression is priceless.
The only thing Americans love more than faking their car’s ap
pearance is faking their own appearance. As a result, the cosmet
ic, fashion and medical industries have risen to the occasion.
Ironically, makeup for women is such an enormous part of our
culture that we don’t even think of it as fake. But it is. Makeup is
just expensive grease paint to make women appear like they
don’t really appear.
Did I say women? Cosmetics are equally capable of faking the
appearance of men as well. One night in New Orleans, a heavily
made up, but quite attractive woman took an obvious interest in
me. She had a face like a porcelain doll and a body like Dolly’s.
My pickled brain told me, “Damn, I must be a stud.”
Then my pickled friends arrived and pulled me away from
“The All New Drag Revue.” In disbelief, I realized much more
than just eyelashes could be faked. Which brings me to the
ridiculous world of cosmetic prostheses.
Buttocks, lips, hips, breasts and thighs are vacuumed, injected,
carved and implanted. And for what reason? To attract a mate?
If a silicon-laden or foam-rubber body does its job and
lures a lover, the lies soon will be uncovered anyway.
The same fate will likely befall women who don
heavily padded bras and men who wear
the newly marketed padded
underwear.
Some plastic surgeons
have even started plac-
ing implants in
men’s bodies.
Firmer fannies, pro
truding pectorals and
bulging biceps can all be
had at the end of a knife. Instead of
working out, guys can pay for muscles and
prompt gushy responses from females.
“Oh hi, Dirk. May I feel your bicep? Oooh, It feels
like ... like, my new breasts.”
In addition to artificial body parts, Americans are prone to
purchase many other fake items. Imitation Rolex or Gucci watch
es, plastic plants, clip-on ties, “leatherette” wallets and fake fur
are parts of everyday life.
The jewelry sold on television is even more ridiculous. Neck
laces made with “genuine diamelles,” “real ruby-red crystals” and
the faux pearl “Ukrainian sno-ball ring,” all are classic examples
of an economy laced with lies.
There’s nothing innately wrong with fake diamonds, makeup
or “carriage tops.” They merely blur the line between the authen
tic and the counterfeit.
We will either learn to know the difference ... or learn to as
sume deception.
Frank Stanford is a
philosophy graduate student
Many women owe it all to surgeons and makeup, not natural beauty
H
Margaret
Gordon
Columnist
X oney, do I look fat in
this dress?” “I hate
.my nose!” “If only I
were a C-cup.”
Does any of this sound familiar?
Since most American women are
dissatisfied in some way with their
bodies, it should.
The standards of beauty have
changed over the past centuries,
and while some changes are for the better, some
are not.
Corsets, which were worn by 19th Century
women to bound their waists, are thankfully out of
fashion. These tools of beauty bordered on danger
ous, as many women passed out from lack of air.
% Unfortunately, body modification and dieting are
in fashion. It’s not uncommon to meet women who
have undergone liposuction, have had breast im
plants or worship Richard Simmons and SlimFast.
While some men have problems with their self
esteem because of their appearance, poor body im
age overwhelmingly plagues women.
The problem begins early, and the difference in
the sexes is apparent in children’s first toys: Barbie
vs. GI Joe. Children can’t buy designer evening wear
for Joe or a new armed fighter plane for Barbie.
Young girls usually can’t wait to begin altering
their appearance by playing with Mommy’s make
up. Mothers and daughters often watch beauty
pageants together, dreaming that the young girl
might one day become a beauty queen.
Young boys don’t grow up beheving the best they
can be is beautiful. They want to be
big and strong and feared, not wor
shiped as an object of beauty.
They only begin to understand the
concept of their own appearance
when they become interested in girls.
And whether they are good looking or
not, most accept it fairly quickly and
move on.
The difference is understandable
and can even be labeled ‘biological.”
Men should be big and strong to protect women
and children. Women should have full figures for
bearing and nurturing healthy children — the goal
being to propagate the species.
However, humans should be above all of this bio
logical muck. Because of our advanced minds, our
lives hold more meaning for us than just to avoid
the extinction of our species.
It’s true that physical appearance usually ini
tiates attraction, which sometimes initiates re
lationships. But relationships remain strong
only by means of compatibility and love, not
physical attraction.
Most men realize there is more to a woman than
her physical appearance. Ask the average man
what he wants in a woman, and while he might list
certain physical features at first, he will get around
to personality characteristics eventually.
So why are women obsessed with how they look?
It’s a pretty simple answer.
Grab the nearest magazine. Unless you’ve
picked up Field and Stream, there’s probably a
slim, blonde, doe-eyed woman somewhere on the
first few pages.
Society has a definite idea of feminine good
looks, but it is a standard defined by designers, ad
vertisers and magazines.
While the definition ranges from Kate
Moss to Anna Nicole Smith, it’s basical
ly the same. Women should be thin yet
busty, which is usually a conflicting
combination — hence breast implants.
They should be tall, with full lips, big
eyes and a perky nose.
While most women have one or two of these
characteristics, it is rare that a woman has all of
them unless she has paid a surgeon for them or
bought a Wonderbra.
Cindy Jackson, according to an article in Details,
has had over 20 body-altering operations. She has
had surgeries ranging from tummy tucks and lipo
suction to nose jobs and facelifts.
Obviously, she is not afraid to alter her body
to achieve the looks of her role model. Barbie. In
fact, she has taken up a quest to become, in her
words, “the contemporary feminine ideal in the
Western world.”
The crusade for the perfect appearance has led
many women to dangerous medical conditions.
Many young women starve themselves in order
to gain control of their body image. Anorexia and
bulimia have caused many lifelong struggles and
even deaths. Others turn to food as a comfort for
their imperfect appearance and become dangerous
ly overweight.
While
physical appear
ance is important,
and it is difficult not
to use it as a base of
judgment, it should
not be obsessed upon.
This is a difficult prob
lem to solve, and should begin
to be addressed by stressing the importance of
non-physical characteristics to young people.
The emergence of full-figured models and actress
es is encouraging, but it is only a start. It is doubtful
that society as a whole will change the standards of
beauty, but individuals can begin by accepting peo
ple for who they are and not how they look.
Margaret Gordon is a junior genetics major
Mai i
Call
Affirmative action
outlives welcome
Ending affirmative action is
not a step backward, but a step
in the right direction.
For example, Texas A&M’s
black population does not rep
resent that of the state be
cause they choose to attend
other schools or do not meet
requirements.
The only way to increase it is
to lower standards or force them
to come here. Most universities
are unique in some way, and af
firmative action seeks to destroy
those variations.
What about affirmative ac
tion in the work place? More
blacks fall into the middle class
than any time before. Indians
own an even higher percentage
of motels. Gay men are over
represented in the fashion in
dustry. Two-thirds of NFL
players are black, as are 90
percent of the NBA.
Is this because of affirmative
action or initiative?
Clinton first said affirmative
action was no longer needed,
and then changed his mind
when he realized he needed the
black vote. It is time the liberals
give people credit and stop help
ing those who don’t need help
Shea Snyder
Class of ’95
Drinking column
filled with errors
Elizabeth Preston did an ad
mirable job of distorting facts
in her July 25 column on drink
ing at Texas A&M.
She states that 87 percent of
Aggies spend “every weekend
in a drunken stupor” and im
plied that 29.5 percent of Ag
gies had sex with people they
had never met.
She also overstates the ef
fects of drinking dramatically.
87 percent of Aggies drink.
This does not mean that 87
percent of all Aggies are fall
down, pass out, toilet hugging
alcoholics.
The lucky 29.5 percent of
people who had unplanned sex
may or may not have previous
ly known their partners. The
statistics didn’t say.
Also, a vast majority of
drinkers rarely pass out, puke,
act like idiots or black out. lYe-
ston obviously is not a drinker.
Good for her. But her writing is
overly biased, unfounded, irre
sponsible and ignorant.
She has no personal experi
ence and no credible source for
her information. The only statis
tics she does cite, she mis-states.
She also left out that the
same study indicates Aggies
are less likely to miss class be
cause of alcohol.
Chuck Berend
Class of ’96
'Net' should not
be tampered with
This letter is in response to
Jeremy Valdez’s guest column
on July 19 calling for censor
ship of the Internet. Valdez
states the Internet goes unpo
liced because of a lack of knowl
edge on the part of legislators
and the general public.
Censoring television and print
is a much simpler task than cen
soring the Internet.
Try to regulate digital traffic
in the United States, and pomog-
raphers just move overseas very
quickly and you will have wasted
both time and money, as well as
done absolutely nothing in the
way of eliminating objectionable
material.
The majority of sites connect
ed with pornographic publica
tions or organizations require
registration and some sort of fee,
along with a password.
This problem that Valdez
and Sen. Exon seem to think
exists in the world of comput
ers is one that is largely a prod
uct of paranoia and just plain
ignorance.
Valdez also mentions the
risk of “electronic death
threats” and the “impersonali
ty” of the web as potential
problems. Can’t I just as easily
call someone I don’t know, not
give my name and leave a mes
sage threatening to kill them
on their answering machine?
Another area of concern is
that of child molesters prowling
the Net looking for victims. First
of all, these people are going to
exist no matter how much you
try to police or regulate.
If you don’t want your chil
dren to become victims or see
something on the Net, don’t let
them. Turn off the computer.
The power button works just as
well as it does on a TV.
The Internet is a global form
of communication and any at
tempt to regulate it by this
country is both doomed to fail
ure and just plain stupid.
The Net does a good job of
policing itself, and no control is
needed. If we give the govern
ment the right to censor the
Net and its contents, the gov
ernment has the power to con
trol the flow of information,
which is a freedom we should
protect a lot better than we, as
a people, currently do.
Just because the Internet
has suddenly been embraced
by American society is no rea
son to censor it. Leave it the
way it was meant to be, both
good and bad, like communi
cation should be.
Ryan Hensley
Class of ’96
TThE ByVUT/VUI ON
Editorial Staff
Jay Robbins, Editor in Chief
Rob Clark, managing Editor
STERLING Hayman, Opinion Editor
Gretchen Perrenot, City Editor
Jody Holley, night news editor
Stacy Stanton, night News editor
Michael Landauer, aggieufe Editor
Nick GeORGANDIS, Sports Editor
Stew Milne, Photo Editor
News: The Battalion news department is managed by stu
dents at Texas A&M University in the Division of
Student Publications, a unit of the Department of
Journalism.
News offices are in 013 Reed McDonald Building.
Newsroom hours:
Sunday, 2 p.m. to 1 0 p.m.
Monday — Thursday, 1 0 a.m. to 10 p.m.
Friday 10 a.m. to 5 p.m.
Newsroom phone: 845-3313; Fax: 845-2647
The Battalion Online: The Battalion offers photos and
the day's headlines on the worldwide web. Web
Site: http://128.194.30.84
Advertising: Publication of advertising does not imply
sponsorship or endorsement by The Battalion.
For campus, local and national display adver
tising, call 845-2696. For classified advertis
ing, call 845-0569. Advertising offices are in
015 Reed McDonald and office hours are 8
a.m. to 5 p.m. Monday through Friday. Fax:
845-2678.
The Battalion (USPS 045-360) is published daily,
Monday through Friday during the fall and spring
semesters and Monday through Thursday during the
summer sessions (except University holidays and exam
periods), at Texas A&M'University. Second class
postage paid at College Station, TX 77840.
POSTMASTER: Send address changes to The
Battalion, 230 Reed McDonald Building, Texas A&M
University, College Station, TX 77843.
Editorials Board
Established in 1893
Editorials appearing in The Battalion reflect the views
of the editorials 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 information on
submitting guest columns.
Jay Robbins
Editor in Chief
Rob Clark
Managing Editor
Sterling Hayman
Opinion Editor
Kyle Littlefield
Assistant Opinion Editor
Fee Increase
A&M's new proposal still is too much.
On the totem pole of public edu
cation, the students constantly find
themselves shoved underground as
a support piece rather than at the
top, where they belong.
Yesterday, in a meeting with stu
dent senators, A&M President Ray
Bowen announced changes in the
proposed general use fee increase.
The new proposal, which calls for a
$10 increase each year for two
years, is the result of cooperation
between the administration and the
students. However, this proposal in
creases fees too drastically. That’s a
$30 increase per 3-hour course.
Earlier this year, the Texas Leg
islature cut A&M’s budget by $6.7
million, leaving it up to the Univer
sity to find funds elsewhere.
The University decided to make
up for part of the budget cuts by
raising the general use fee.
The original proposal would have
increased the general use fee by $14
per semester hour the first year,
and an additional $6 the next.
The students should not have to
pay for the irresponsibility of the
Texas Legislature. The Legislature
should ensure that the cost of a pub
lic education remains reasonable.
While all the rhetoric lingers, the
fact remains that the University
needs more money.
Money for an overdue pay raise
for a faculty and staff that has been
called the “best in the world” by
A&M students.
Money for a bolstering of the
floundering liberal arts program
that supports the core curriculum
courses all students must take.
Both of these monetary needs are
crucial to Texas A&M’s establish
ment as a “world-class University.”
Last week, the Student Senate
released an alternative plan to the
administration’s original proposal.
Its solution would be to taper the
increase of tuition by $6 a semester
hour per year for four years.
The Student Senate’s plan is a
more reasonable solution. The slow
er increase would assure that the
students who pay the most — future
freshmen — would receive most of
the benefit of the extra money.
Those who will be leaving A&M
soon would not have to pay for im
provements at a University they no
longer attended. The slow addition
to income would force A&M to prac
tice fiscal responsibility and prudent
planning.
And the fact that the original
proposal would have increased the
fees to the highest possible level
would ensure that further fee in
creases would not be possible.
The Student Senate should be
commended for its prudent, well-
constructed proposal. And the Uni
versity also deserves credit for its
cooperation and willingness to de
crease the adverse effects the fee in
crease will have on students.
However, students still will
have to take on a severe added
cost burden.
The University administration
and the Board of Regents should in
vestigate every option to remedy the
Legislature’s failure. Only as a last
resort should they squeeze the mon
ey out of A&M students.