Image provided by: Texas A&M University
About The Battalion. (College Station, Tex.) 1893-current | View Entire Issue (March 27, 1997)
The Battalion Page 9 Thursday • March 27, 1997 omen beware eminism preaches impossible goals, dreams Child care plan fails to consider community Ihe Board of Re- able future. gents will decide Columnist i n anticipation of the his year's Women’s Week theme is “1m- Iges of Women: Vi- sitms and Voices.” ■ Angela Doolittle, a laduate student in sociology, said, “This |a universal theme eryone can relate to, a week of encour- ■ement for women to say, ‘Look at what Ve done, what je’re doing [and] jliat we’re going to do.’” Al- lough this sounds harmless, lomen’s Week is the manifesta- pn of a philosophy which is jhything but innocent. Femi- tsm has been the most injuri- ous thing to happen to women i the 20th century, and it has sen a self-inflicted wound, dien feminism is held up to blight, it is exposed for that it truly is, and jeople can see how ]stealthily has rept into the ' ves and cul- ire of people ['ho don’t ven con- ider them- elves fem- H lists. I Femi- lists like I luthorNao- e §ni Wolf have nacted a areful plan, ty bWolf states in lerbook Fire vith Fire, feminists lif si have connived to “pro pose specific strategies... le Wj something that is effective, \KlfopOlfit, inclusive, easy, fun h ihdeven (forgive me Karl [Marx]) lucrative.” The first and greatest lie of feminism is “You can have it This has been the title of countless books and magazine articles, not to mention the i[ ! mantra of feminist preachings ioyoung girls. Anyone who lie [tows up internalizing this lie is Columnist Courtney Phillips Junior psychology major going to be frustrated when life falls short of the standard. This “you can have it all” lie preaches self-esteem and em powerment above all. It should not surprise anyone that an an swer containing the word ‘self’ cannot possibly be the an swer to a problem of our self-absorbed, self-actualized and self-centered culture. Even peo ple who don’t subscribe to so- called radical feminism have been shaped by our “you can do anything you put your mind to” culture. Trouble arrives when ues women. To be a good femi nist, a woman must be aggres sive, dominant, preferably moving up the corporate ladder and using her sexuality to as sert power over men, all the while claiming to be valued to tally for her intellect. Feminism tells women they must break the Donna Reed stereotype only to conform to an other. Feminism completely deval ues traditional “women’s work” and tries to steal joy and fulfillment from women who value their roles as mothers and homemakers. Ironically, a movement based on building confidence tries to steal it from those “sis ters” who are not inclined to dominate the boardroom. I i be V people start believing in self above everything else. When a child grows up believ ing in herself and then fails at something, her world will be torn apart. The second greatest problem with feminism is that it deval- Cosmopolitan magazine, founded by Helen Gurley Brown, mover and shaker of the ’60s feminist movement, is a bastion of the hypocrisy and il logical thinking dominating feminism. This magazine spouts cleverly marketed femi nist ideology so as to reach the less radical. A movement whose micro phone in which “empower ment” is sandwiched between tricks for ‘making men do what you want’ and ‘beauty tips from busty models’ can hardly be called legitimate. Cosmo may be stupid, but it sells. And so has the idea of feminism. The sources by which femi nism is disseminated into mainstream culture also are suspect. Magazines like Cos mopolitan and other “fashion” magazines are poor sources for life philosophies, as are talk shows and books on pop psy chology. But women eat it up. This week is Resurrection Week, a week that stands in stark contrast to what next week will be. Next week will be a cele bration of self, an attempt to encourage and in spire based on emp ty philosophy. In contrast, this week and al ways, women can rest in Je sus Christ, believe in him, be ful- „ filled by him, and be spiri- tual equals of men through v him. If they are confident in him, they don’t have to be confident in self, they follow him, they don’t have to conform to any worldly stereotype. The r Bible personifies wisdom as a woman, and in the proverbs 31 description of a woman of no ble character says, “Strength and honor are her clothing...she opens her mouth with wisdom and on her tongue is the law of kindness...her chil dren rise up and call her blessed; her husband also, and he praises her.” Dave Johnston Junior mathematics major If this week whether to approve the pro posed University Child Care Center. Though members of the Faculty Senate sing its praises, the new facility is mere ly another example of the University’s increas ing competition with private industries. As it stands, apart ment owners are threatened by a proposal to build apartment-style residence halls, the Student Recreation Center has ruined business for local gym owners and now the University wants to get in to the child-care business. The regents should not approve a facility which will pro vide little benefit to students and staff and possibly cost local work ers their jobs. The Faculty Senate resolution said the new service would be cheaper and closer to campus than other area day-care centers. The resolution passed by the Stu dent Senate left out the claim of lower prices, because it is not true. Although the center’s fee would be competitive, it would not be much less than other providers in the area. A quick jaunt through the Yellow Pages shows that the proposed location will Hot provide a large proximity advantage, because many local churches bordering campus pro vide day care also. The Student Senate approved the resolution because the new center would guarantee available child care for a certain number of children of faculty and students. This requirement means the center may not always be filled to capacity. If another provider has better or cheaper service, many of those guaranteed slots may remain emp ty, which would cause higher prices at the University’s center. Drafters of the proposal point out that it has become standard for many large universities to offer free or subsidized child care for faculty members, but those universities usually offer free football tickets and parking as well — neither of which is in Texas A&M’s foresee regents’ decision, the Stu dent Service Fee Alloca tion Board allotted $10,000 for the Child Care Center to provide schol arships for the children of students. Now everyone from married students to Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual Aggies members are ex pected to pay for the child care of a few Aggies' children. A group of stu dent senators have been trying to secure privately sponsored scholar ships, but some students cannot pass up a chance to increase fees. Given the size of A&M com pared to the surrounding commu nity, a large number of businesses exist to support the University, its staff and its students. When the University expands into private in dustry, it often carries a negative impact on the community. If the University is so intent on insuring child care for the families of faculty and students, they should at least consider subsidiz ing an existing provider. By using a local center, private industry will receive some sort of encourage ment. It makes more sense to give money to an entrepreneur than for the University to open a small business of its own. From a social point of view, the thought of contracting out the rearing of children is an ugly no tion. Children should be consid ered a priority. They are not pets to be left in a kennel but budding individuals to be taught and cher ished. Although child-care providers work hard and are de voted, it is difficult for them to provide a large number of chil dren with the same level of care a child would receive from his or her own parent. Even casting aside the moral ar guments, the proposal is bad busi ness and bad economics. The ad vantages to the University are negligible, but the impact on Bryan-College Station is potential ly devastating. If the University Child Care Center isn’t approved, who knows what will happen to the $10,000 in Student Service Fee money. Society gains entertainment, esteem at the expense of celebrities verdoses. A | shotgun to the head. Wife- leating, adultery. What is so hard ibout being famous? From the outside ooking in, the ^ :elebrity life seems to [sb* )e the good life. But time and again hat view is brought Into question when isomeone who has ■achieved some mea- B sure of fame (in most cases that neans an entertainer) is found Hit to possess destructive be- Columnist Mason Jackson Junior journalism major havioral tendencies. Everyone gasps in horror, “How could this happen to some one who has every thing, by the way, do you have any more de tails?” To quote Don Henley, “We all know that trash is king, give us dirty laundry.” Was it Extacy or something newer and trendier that did in River Phoenix. They say Steven Tyler is clean now, but let us know about the first sign of a relapse. Perhaps it is insecurity over fame’s fleeting nature that caus es some celebrities to behave as they do. Imagine — someone does their job. It’s stressful, but it is something they enjoy doing. They do their job well enough to gain recognition and exposure and eventually fame. More than they deserve. They’re good, but not this good. People are going to figure it out sooner or later and then it will be all over. The same people kissing their butt today won’t wave to them in three months. That’s a stressful situation. Put a weak-willed person in that situ- mt#? ation and the results may not be too good. A weak-willed person who is n’t put in that situation is called “the public.” As in, the public wants to know. Well, the public needs to get a life. One that isn’t so inadequate that pleasure has to be (can be) derived from the mistakes of others — especially those who have it better. The prevailing motto seems to be — “I must not be that bad, if I can find people who screw up more than I do.” This is an at titude fostered by daytime talk- shows which insist on parading out the stupid, the defective and the inbred, in front of an audi ence that isn’t much better. The purveyors of what pass es for news (newspapers as well as television stations) aren’t helping matters by spreading gossip. But doesn’t the public have a right to know? Yes, to an extent, but no matter what someone’s pro fession, they shouldn’t have to give up their privacy entirely. Instead of their right to know, people should be exercising their right to know when not to care. Is there any way for some one famous to keep their pri vate life from becoming public property? No. Lawsuits are only effective in situations in volving blatant slander. Be sides, as I have expressed on several occasions, censorship is not the answer to anything. The only desirable way to bring about a change would be for the spreading of dirty laun dry to become unprofitable. This means to greatly lessen the demand for it, and that doesn’t appear likely to hap pen. There’s always going to be a market for making people feel good about themselves, no matter how twisted the means. I rf ! ' Mail Christian writers offend other faiths In response to Alex Walters and Joshua Hill’s Mar. 24 columns The last time I checked, A&M was a public school and such a one sided endorsement of a particular religious faith in the school paper would be in appropriate. I guess I was wrong. For these two writers to be given an entire page to espouse their reli gious beliefs without any equal time is bigoted at worst and narrow minded at best. Furthermore, Mr. Walters’ asser tion that “non-Christians” want to disprove the existence or possibility of God is an insult to the Jews and Mus lims who attend A&M as well as any other religion that does not subscribe to the alleged existence/sanctity of Je sus. The implication is that only Christians believe in God and the re mainder of humanity is simply fodder for the “lake of fire.” As an atheist I would appreciate it if The Battalion would keep the Bible thumping to a minimum in accor dance with the nature of a public in stitution. Resurrection Week is a great opportunity for Christians to cele brate their faith but there is absolutely no need to make it the sole focus of the opinion page or use it as an a op portunity to cram a particular mythology down the throats of others. William Reeves Graduate Student Hill encouraged those ignorant of Christianity to learn from Resurrec tion Week, claiming their scant knowl edge from secondary sources is not adequate. However, his own igno rance is evident three paragraphs later in his statement, “they (the ignorant) think Judaism and Christianity are separate faiths...”. Judaism and Christianity are very different faiths. They may have similar origins but have evolved into two very separate entities. There are many rea sons why Judaism and Christianity are different including: Judaism’s reluc tance to proselytize, a completely dif ferent interpretation of “sin,” and a lack of a defined Heaven and Hell. Above all else is this: acceptance of Je sus as one’s Lord and Savior is contra dictory to the Jewish faith. Jews do not believe Jesus is the son or prophet of God, which is a corner stone of Christianity. This does not make Jews atheists. A belief and wor ship of one Almighty God is central to the Jewish faith. Resurrection Week always makes me apprehensive because of these types of misunderstandings, and a lack of sensitivity towards faiths other than Christianity. All over campus stu dents are encouraged to find religion. I and many other non-Christian Aggies, already did. It just doesn’t happen to be Christianity. It disturbs me that others fail to respect these differences. It disturbs me even more that my faith has been falsely represented. Chris D. Bodley Class of’98 K Rochelle Goldman Graduate Student