■ ; i-’ 1 ' !,; i: : ' ■'
; t ;;>i:';yi.!...
Page 8
November 1, 1996
lOStS
ssic
es and that all four
have the ability to
itop 32.
Spartans are con-
ii has a 15-3 record
i respected oppo-
Idason and Duke
also have the fifth-
in the nation in
yard Ali Lord, who
nine assists,
the Aggies lost
eeting with the
dor midfielder
I they are looking
le.
played them it was
1," Duda said. "We
reir field, and when
vorks went off so it
entrate.
i step up to the
scause from now
imes will be with
1 not play on Satur-
d place game will
a.m. Sunday with
lip game immedi-
1 p.m.
i road
:e play.
1-9 in the confer-
verall. Earlier this
eat the Cyclones
ifeated Missouri
1, 15-9, 15-4. The
) win a match this
total of 18 match-
iig 12 contests,
aurie Corbelli said
rence matches will
enge for the team
know what to ex-
/ Aggies, and be-
nents will have the
ntage.
nted some of the
ome in and fired
dielli said. “The
going to be inter-
of the travel and
ulayed us already,
avily analyzed by
e to beat us.”
NELa.
en, a freshman
dimming team,
drop his time in
as fast as some
face,” Andersen
ns n't mean we can
:m.”
orkouts all week,
at this meet will
aw well the team
red.
e how fast we can
orked to the max,"
Ve’re focusing on
tal blocks now for
sets later.”
improving skills
icentration,the
mg this opportu-
ell the team per-
•etitive environ-
i stepping stone,
der,” Wright said,
g that will make
nn.”
ks of 1997:
do be an “Ab-
enior!”
senior cups and
II be on sale
-Nov. 1
- Hallway!
•97 Prices
ar Shirts
Senior)
ort sleeve)
ng sleeve)
Cmps $1.50
X i {
t-shirts $5-00
sweats $10.00
sill
-shirts $5-00
lugs 50 cents
OP!
r Ad In
talion
-0569
The Monthly Visitor
Men make menstruation taboo topic
Assistant
Opinion Editor
Erin Fitzgerald
Senior political science
and English major
O ops! That’s not a pen. And a Tampax product
doesn’t exactly write well. So often women
suffer the embarrassment of mistakenly
pulling out feminine hygiene products in public.
But why all the red faces and
hot flashes? Because “the
curse” is a taboo subject to
ward which men’s attitudes
are "see no evil, hear no evil.”
The subject has become
hush-hush between the sexes.
Women are wrongly em
barrassed about their periods
because men act so disgusted
by it. Granted, there are cer
tain situations in which
speaking of any private bodily
function would be inappro
priate, so women must use
their best judgment. But in ca
sual situations, girls should not be made to feel em
barrassed about their monthly cycle.
Men — or, in this situation, boys — should grow
up. Perhaps if they understood some details about
menstruation, they would realize how hypocritical it
is for them to label it as disgusting.
Everybody knows “Aunt Flow” visits women once
a month. Yet every 28 days, boys act as if women are
infected with some venereal disease. When a
woman mentions she has cramps, boys cringe and
respond, “Ooh. Too much information.”
Even as this column was under construction, anoth
er female staffer mentioned she didn’t use tampons.
The Batt boys shaigged, squinted and a couple ex
claimed, “More information than I needed to know.”
Furthermore, boys can’t even look at feminine hy
giene products without cowering. The almighty tam
pon is more powerful than an assault weapon. Suppos
edly, it's not the actual product, but rather the idea of
how it is used. To boys, the thought is revolting.
However, they can freely “adjust” themselves,
watch television with their hands down their pants
and pick up a magazine and head for a twenty
minute venture in the bathroom. They can burp,
scratch, gawk at dirty movies and magazines — and
no one says a thing. It’s normal.
But should a woman mention it’s “that time of
the month," boys are thoroughly grossed out.
Please. Boys constantly hawk loogies. That’s gross.
However, boys obviously have this mental picture
of blood gushing like a stuck pig because they con
stantly remark, “Thank goodness I’m not a woman.”
Specifically, senior David Taylor said, “I’d rather be
an outie than an innie.”
But to us “innies,” menstruation is merely a fact
of life — similar to a headache. It’s natural, it’s going
to happen and a few pain killers will usually solve
the problem. And — surprise — it’s extremely neat
and clean thanks to cotton, cardboard/plastic, and
dry weave. Plus, menstruation is rather reassuring:
It lets women know that everything is A-OK, giving
them an edge over men.
Aside from the ability to control the human pop
ulation, women can get out of almost any situation
of which a male is in charge simply by bringing up
anything to do with their period. Usually women
don’t even have to finish: “Uh,” (boy holds hand up
motioning to stop), “that’s fine.”
Women can even get out of potentially dangerous
or regretful situations. When a boy continues to sex
ually pressure a girl to go further, all she must do is
grab his hand, open her eyes widely and say, “I think
you’d better stop ... for your own good.” Suddenly,
the excitement dies and the boy’s body goes limp, as
if it is contagious.
Now, for the boys who from this point on will
question a woman when she says this, don’t partake
in the trial and error process. One thing or another
motivated a woman enough to use this excuse, and
that should be enough.
On this serious note, the question is now raised
as to whether or not it is beneficial that the topic of
menstruation is so taboo. Would it be a good thing if
boys were to grow up and stop behaving so hypo
critically? Yes. If they did, women wouldn’t be made
to feel embarrassed about their period and they
wouldn’t need to use menstruation as a sexual ob
struction. Then maybe everyone could speak with
out using as many euphemisms about menstruation
as did this bloody column.
Then again, this might be a futile argument.
That’s all right, though — I’m suffering from PMS.
Television should rate shows
G ood news for all the tele
vision violence alarmists
out there.
According to a UCLA research
report, television violence is
down this year compared to last
year. Fewer television series and
movies contained violent themes.
Not surprisingly, both presiden
tial candidates are taking credit
for the reduction.
Clinton boasted that the drop in
violence on network television is a
direct result of his efforts, including
the introduction of the V-chip —
otherwise known as “another ex
cuse for parents to be less responsi
ble in raising their children.”
It is sad that our government
must provide a chip to block certain
television programs from corrupt
ing the young minds of America.
It is the parents’ responsibility
to monitor what their children
see, not Bill Clinton’s (or, possibly,
Bob Dole’s). Clinton should have
proposed the “R-chip” — “R”
standing for remote. Parents need
only to use the remote control to
change channels if something of
fensive comes on television. It’s a
smarter, more responsible way to
control viewing of television pro-
jgrams by children.
Of course, parents aren't moni-
bring their children around the
clock. It is up to parents to instill
lvalues and morals in their chil
dren regarding what is appropri
ate to watch.
Network television stations
should not be subject to endless
regulation
by govern
ment con
cerning the
material of
programs.
Adults are
quite capa
ble ofkeep
ing their
children
from view
ing pro
grams they
deem offensive. Just because a per
son sees violence on television does
not mean he or she will imitate the
act. I don’t recall having the urge to
blast anyone with a shotgun after
watching Terminator 2.
If someone acts violently as a
result of a television program,
he or she most likely does so
because of an underlying vio
lent tendency that would mani
fest itself sooner or later, re
gardless of what he or she sees
on an Itchy and Scratchy
episode during The Simpsons.
No doubt the violence this per
son witnesses on television may
persuade his or her violent ten
dencies to surface.
However, a V-chip is not going to
stop this violence from occurring.
Other factors besides television will
cause a naturally violent person to
act out his or her aggressions.
The government needs to fo
cus on the root of the problem
and figure out a way to help
these individuals. Instead,
politicians like Clinton waste
time and money creating cen
sorship chips in a feeble attempt
at championing “family values.”
Unlike the Communications
Decency Act from last spring, an
other moronic Clinton effort to
censor the media, the V-chip will
probably not be contested in
court as a violation of the First
Amendment because having the
V-chip installed is a voluntary act.
What does this say about our so
ciety? It says we must have an elect
ed official create devices to raise our
children morally.
If Congress really wants to
control viewing habits, the fur
thest it should go is to imple
ment a ratings system for televi
sion similar to the ratings
system for movies.
Movie ratings are not the law.
They are simply a way for parents
to determine if a movie is appro
priate for their children.
More importantly, a ratings
system for television programs
would leave children’s viewing
habits in the hands of the par
ents, where it belongs.
People would most likely sup
port a television ratings system,
as they seem to now support a
ratings system for video games.
It doesn’t take a slick politician
to figure out a plausible policy
concerning violence on televi
sion. It merely takes a little com
mon sense and, more important
ly, the belief that the American
people can think for themselves.
Columnist
Jon Apgar
Sophomore
journalism major
Page 9
Friday • November 1, 1996
MAP0W.IK
£'■>,471 mg psmv mMM
Argument about
rivalries ignorant
Regarding David Boldt’s Oct. 30
column, “Mean-spirited rivalries
block understanding”:
Boldt suggests that we inter
pret rivalries between various
campus groups — such as those
he terms “the Corps,” “Aggie
Band,” “Greeks,” and “non-regs”
— in terms of “brothers” who are
“making fun” of each other; he
claims, “It’s not personal.”
But Boldt’s potentially positive
message is tainted when he
grounds such camaraderie in ani
mosity toward the University of
Texas: “These groups may harass
each other, but see what happens
if some t-sip messes with a guy
wearing an Aggie ring...”
In short, Boldt intimates that
Aggies are united only by mutual
dislike for a different university,
but is this true? Moreover, how
can Boldt consistently maintain
that “looking down on someone
because they don’t have the same
experiences is ignorant” when it
comes to other Aggies, but not
when it comes to students of oth
er universities?
Given Boldt’s argument, isn’t
it a mistake to look down upon
or exclude UT students simply
because they have different ex
periences? Why shouldn’t one
imbue the Aggie/UT relation
ship with the same meaning
Boldt discerns among different
Aggie student groups?
Michael W. Allen
Graduate Student
Teachings of the
Church justified
Regarding Heather Pace's Oct. 30
column, “Catholic Church’s policy
evolves slowly to present day”:
First and foremost, I must
point out that capitalism wasn’t
created until about 200 years after
the Protestant Reformation. Early
Protestants were dead by the time
capitalism was created; they did
n’t abandon Catholicism because
of it. This is merely the first of
Pace’s mistakes.
Equating the debates over evolu
tion, female clergy, and birth con
trol into anything approaching sim
ilarity is foolhardy at best. Evolution
is so hotly debated because it is be
ing taught to the exclusion of cre
ationism (which Pope Pius XII
feared). The question of female
clergy is a topic I am not familiar
with, but am willing to accede the
point that the Church may not have
chosen correctly in that area. How
ever, failing to promote birth con
trol is not an attempt to weigh
down the Third World with chil
dren; it is a statement of the
Church’s adamant refusal to pro
mote anything that could lead to
what it considers immoral behavior
(i.e. extramarital sex).
The Church’s place in society is
as a conduit to a higher power,
something larger than ourselves,
and as a moral guidepost for the
masses. Religion is not a com
modity. The church is not a busi
ness. The Church does not cater
to society and is not governed by
its whims. A “user-friendly”
Church would not be a moral
guidepost; the quicksilver morals
of such a church could be made
to justify anything.
The Church is not above criti
cism, and has been wrong on multi
ple occasions before. However, an
honest appraisal will show that most
of the time, it has been above the
latest trends, and that is why it has
lasted for time immemorial. When
the Church begins catering to its fol
lowers it will no longer be a religious
institution. It will simply become a
hollow shell of lies, without belief,
rotting from within.
Chris Huffines
Class of'00
I am a Catholic, but I do not
consider myself a “customer” of
the Church, nor do I expect to be
treated as such. Why would any
one place faith in an institution
that continuously “catered” to the
whims of every generation?
The Church has, for some time
now, allowed for belief in evolu
tion. That is why it is taught in
parochial schools, so I’m not sure
I get the point of the article.
As for the Church’s praise for
women who stay home to raise
their children, is that such a bad
thing? Last I looked, society was
n’t exactly in top form, and maybe
this has to do with the rise in the
number of children being raised
by day-care centers.
There are no women priests
because Christ didn’t set up the
Church that way, and the Pope
cannot change a rule because he
feels like it.
The world has always been
“ever-changing” and the Church
has maintained itself fine. If
Pace doesn’t have the same be
liefs, then she can join another
church. But do not criticize
Catholics for theirs.
God made the rules and the
Pope is there to reinforce them.
He is, however, human, and does
not hold the power to go around
changing rules just because a
few people decide the rules
aren’t modern enough. Without
stability and a strong hold on its
beliefs, the Church loses respect
and faith in its teachings, and
that is what loses “customers.”
Jennie Whitman
Class of'99
If the purpose of Pace’s col
umn was to upset every
Catholic Aggie on campus ...
then congratulations. But, if she
was trying to say something
about the Church and explain
the Pope’s statement, then it
would have been nice if she had
spoken with a knowledgeable
Catholic during her research.
First, the Pope, in a state
ment to the Catholic Sciences
Council, said that theories of
evolution may be more than a
hypothesis and that they can be
useful in education.
Basically, he edited the state
ment of Pope Edward VII, who
said that evolution was a hy
pothesis. In no way did the Pope
endorse evolution. The Church
has always held that God gave
man a soul and therefore life.
This position was unchanged by
the Pope’s statement.
Second, the largest single
group of people in the United
States, save classifications of
male or female, is Roman
Catholics. By this standard, the
Church need not “compete” with
nor “cater” to the whims of the
uninformed masses.
Third, the Church considered
ordaining women and has de
cided against it. Women have an
important place in the Church.
Probably the most respected
woman in the modern world,
and one who will be canonized
for her work, is a Catholic nun ...
Mother Theresa.
Fourth, every time a sperm
mates with an egg it is a gift from
God. To prevent that “miracle”
would be to deny a gift from God.
For this reason, the Church has al
ways been against birth control. If a
member would like to remain child
less, they can abstain.
I, and every other Catholic,
would appreciate it if Pace looked a
little deeper when stating opinions.
Much of her column is simply
not true.
Bryan Nelson
Class of'96
The world is indeed an ever-
changing place, but there is one
thing that remains constant and
unchanging: God.
He is the same now as He was
in the beginning of time.
Just because peopJe and soci
ety change, does not mean that
the Church should.
Admitting to injustices and mis
takes is a positive tiling, but chang
ing one’s beliefs and fundamental
values just to appear more enticing
to the population at large has never
been a characteristic of the Church.
Its message and teachings
have remained constant over
time, and it has never followed
the path of other denomina
tions in trying to “cater” to its
“customers.”
On the contrary, the Church
does not view its members as
“customers” at all, but instead
as parts of the body of Christ on
this earth.
Pace’s column about the
Church is an obvious distortion
of the facts, and the writer’s lack
of knowledge on the Church is
quite apparent.
Kristen Lawrence
Class of '98
The Battalion encourages letters to the
editor. Letters must be 300 words or fewer
and include the author's name, class, and
phone number.
The opinion editor reserves the right to
edit letters for length, style, and accuracy.
Letters may be submitted in person at 013
Reed McDonald with a valid student ID. Let
ters may also be mailed to:
The Battalion - Mail Call
013 Reed McDonald
Texas A&M University
College Station, TX
77843-1111
Campus Mail: 1111
Fax: (409) 845-2647
E-mail: Batt@tamvml.tamu.edu
For more details on letter policy, please call
845-3313 and direct your question to the
opinion editor.