SPOR);
J “ly ) l }|
Opinion
angers
- Cliff J
-levelaj
WickJ
st time
s as
three-gafft
over
1 TuesdjJ
)lems
’s best
ball's
ad. i(j
scored 4S
unner
lenth
red.
iits, stri
id to 7-1 i
me-out
i to
ed one
The Battalion
laaill
>a ge 5 * Wednesday, July 7, 2004
Role models in need of reform
thletes, celebrities should be expected to abide by same ethic codes as others
Aug, I
'ndergoii
irgery
iy sett
'eceived i
tie ran ■
i start!
njoyed
he wal
rsjot
if. (it
ski o
jars
lim
actio
manaj
dn't ml
tele 1
thili
anotti
the tear
i euvw
as |
t, accoid
ed
18, i
I Jacks:
season,
'emain i
iccept I
i, reporti
ore and more often, Americans are
taking magnifying glasses to the
lives of public figures — meting out
ustice through detailed expose, harsh public
pinion and national ignominy. It may spell
isaster, however, almost like a mischievous
hild espying a line of marching ants, because
he unfortunate downside of magnifying
lasses is always shortsightedness.
It’s a case of missing the forest on account
f the trees. Holding politicians to a standard
f flawless perfection can be good, but there
ay be something greater at risk than electing an official who
ailed to pay a parking ticket 21 years ago. While this picking apart
is done for the good of the country, the country’s children watch,
opy and idolize another group of public figures that somehow lead
[lives spattered by drug abuse, sexual proliferation, immorality and
indecency that sit unnoticed by preoccupied scrutiny.
Here’s an example: Regardless of political party or affilia
tion, most agree that former President Clinton’s illicit White
House roguery deserved publication and rebuke for the dishon
or it brought to the nation’s highest position. It was certainly
such an expose that cut short the hopes of former Senate
candidate Jack Ryan.
This is how it should be, but here’s something that is not:
The lewd and promiscuous lifestyles of Hollywood’s rich
and famous put Clinton’s and even Ryan’s deviance to shame
with apparent impunity.
If the actions of Jack Ryan are inexcusable and an utter
embarrassment to the testament of America’s standards for
public office, what does this say about our standards for this
other group of public figures? Americans may impeach lying
presidents, but how do they deal with drug-abusing actors?
They go watch their latest movie. Drug-abusing singers? They
buy their CDs.
The actions of politicians like Jack Ryan are wrong, but how
many teens look up to these men? How many fifth graders round
up the other kids to play a rousing, neighborhood-wide game of
“U.S. Senate?” Presidents certainly win the admiration of children,
but children don’t understand politics or C-SPAN coverage of an
impeachment like they do an athlete being arrested and put on
trial. Politicians do not become posters, and they scarcely can be
said to develop the pop idol, superstar appeal that celebrities and
athletes receive from all ages.
Here is the problem: America holds its public figures — all of its
“performers,” in a sense of the word — to entirely different stan
dard, and that’s costing the country more than anyone seems to
know. The moral ruler is altered, its units changed; as a result, the
two most potent cultural groups in society simply don’t measure up.
Each alteration yields a new measuring device. For celebrities,
it becomes the “It’s OK, we love you” standard. Anything and
everything they do short of murder is celebrated — hence, the
name celebrity. Again, the infidelity example suffices. When Ben
Affleck’s romp to the strip club caused the sad fission of Bennifer
into two separate individuals again, the American people did not
share Jennifer Lopez’s enmity or the burn-him-at-the-stake fervor
recently held toward Jack Ryan. They pitied him and let him know
it was OK: “It’s all right, Ben. We love you anyway!” Because of
this loving support, no doubt, he found the courage to deal with
J.Lo’s revenge wedding, and to even reciprocate by marrying
someone of his own.
Then, athletes get the “It’s OK, we don’t care” standard. Most
people don’t expect much from these guys — their job is to
bounce, throw and kick balls. As long as they don’t rape 19-year
olds or hurl racial slurs in the subway, the limelight only shines
field or court. Occasionally,
when it casts its searching beam into the nasty
dark corners of private life, everyone is surprised: “What? Kobe
Bryant did what?” But, it subsides: “Oh well, if he did, it won’t
hurt his game. So I don’t care.” With the exception of religious
“MTV Cribs” watchers, most Americans don’t know, or care, what
goes on inside the homes of the stars whose every move is copied
and memorized by their children and the nation’s youth.
Even the soured curds of the athletic cream have no need for
alarm. If Barry Bonds can rank, maybe garnering a weekly slap or
two on the wrist from sports commentators admonishing his poor
player-fan relationships or field etiquette, why shouldn’t he act as
he pleases. By his standard, this is success; he’s doing what he
wants, and most people are saying, “I don’t care.” Some are actu
ally rooting for him.
If one believes fans actually allow poor choices off court to
affect their perception, look at merchandise sales. Allen Iverson’s
merchandise sales went through the roof after he was arrested for
assault and criminal trespass in 2002. A fluke? No, sales of Kobe
Bryant merchandise nearly doubled after charges were brought .
against him. And, guess who’s buying Bryant’s stuff? Women.
A sports store owner interviewed in the Houston Chronicle
after the allegations surfaced said he couldn’t keep enough
children’s sizes in stock to feed the frenzy of women filing
in to be outfitted in No. 8 paraphernalia.
Mark Cuban may have been a bit too bold for the
NBA’s liking when he said it, but it looks like the trial
has done wonders for sales. Too bad the same can’t be
said for the nation and its youth.
Misuse of alcohol, drugs or medicine by politicians
and pundits costs jobs, elections and sometimes years in
prison. Talk-radio commentator Rush Limbaugh was
deep fried for his pill popping, but steroid use by MLB
players has stayed hushed for years. Only in the recent
months, with the doping accusations circulating
against Bonds, Jason Giambi and Gary Sheffield, has
a crackdown come. For the big sluggers, the cost has
been little, but the pay has been huge: new homerun
records and supra-,500 batting averages. And now,
Lance Armstrong. With celerity, the public and the
media came to his defense — and this was before he
even issued a statement denying the allegations that he
shot up with EPO. It’s the standard: Fry politicians, but
1 defend athletes because they’re “one of us.”
It is a valid point that politicians are entrusted with
the welfare of the country, while the duties of celebrities
and athletes matter little beyond the court or studio. But
what is the welfare of the country? Ask the youth which is
more important, who they look up to more, and the answer
may be different than those who are upheld to high stan
dards. See who sells more merchandise, or who gets more
airtime on national television, coverage on the cable stations or
articles in magazines and the answer may be alarming.
Politicians should be grilled—they have a degree of probity to
uphold — but so do basketball players and so do movie stars and
every citizen in the country. In combing the bark of these trees, the
forest is going to burn down. The celebrity ruler and the athlete
ruler need a swift exchange, or else the damage done to the coun
try will remain immeasurable.
Clint Rainey is a sophomore
general studies major.
Graphic by Will Lloyd
Women’s moral dilemma can be solved by men
r*’
Irzyzet'
t Pat If
:oacli
B
Tour
idvant
iln’s i
low to ^
efore World War II
the woman’s place
was in the home,
j But today, women are
encouraged to earn degrees
and be whatever they want
| to be. Yet, by the natural
order of things, they some
how end up living a life
serving people other than
I themselves.
This leads women to
face one of the biggest moral dilemmas of all
time: choosing between a life of career and self-
improvement or a life of wife and motherhood.
The hypocritical view of women in society
I today encourages them to seek self-fulfillment
[ as well as to be great mothers and wives.
Achieving gender equality lies in the hands
of men. Men must overcome gender-role atti
tudes and help their wives to fulfill their
quests of becoming successful in more than
just the household.
After the second wave of the feminist
movement took place in the late 1970s,
women emerged from the kitchens in hopes of
gaining equal ground with men and seeking
more self-satisfying lives. What they didn’t
realize was that they were going to be in way
over their heads.
Many women think they can juggle both
career and family by becoming the ultimate
multi-tasker, but with little help
from husbands, many women
resign to letting their success fall
to the wayside.
It begins as a child- girls are
taught to play with baby dolls,
plastic food and Easy-Bake-
Ovens that mold them into “little
mommies.” Then females are
enlightened on gender equality
and how they can do anything
they want to do. So, they head off
to college.
Women flock to universities to
receive an education so that they
can get good jobs in the future.
But for what? Unless they
choose to stay single and child
less, their education will only be good for the
sake of having it. Once their “baby factory” is
in production, back to the home they go. This
leads to time outside of work taking care of
“tu u
The hypocritical
view of women in
society today en
courages them to
seek self-fillfillment
as well as to be
great mothers and
wives.
children. Men take advantage of women’s time
off to climb up the career ladder.
Michelle Budig, a professor from the
University of Arizona, found there to be a 7 per
cent wage penalty per child in a study called,
“The Wage Penalty for
Motherhood.”
After having children, many
women hope to balance work
and family by sharing the
responsibilities with their
spouses. Keep dreaming.
Today’s women have grown up
watching their mothers come
home from work and head
straight to the housework,
while they watched their
fathers come home and head
for the television.
An article in “Family
Relations” by David Demo, said
women do two to three times as
much housework regardless of
their employment status. This doesn’t mean that
the women’s feet are less tired than the men’s
feet are. It just means that women have
remained stuck in the airtight role of the female
gender.
These women have fallen victim to gender
stereotypes, which are fixed, conventional ideas
about how men and women ought to behave.
Feminist Gloria Steinem said, “The first prob
lem for all of us, men and women, is not to
learn, but to unlearn.”
Many women have watched this and said
that they are not going to live this way.
Unfortunately, they can rebel as much as they
want and the only thing that will be accom
plished is a dirty house. Demo’s argument is
not in favor of bra-burning, man-eating femi
nists, it is just an attempt to bring attention to
the problem at hand.
Gender equality lies in the hands of men.
Men must overcome these gender-role attitudes
and help their wives to fulfill their quests of
becoming successful in more than just the
household.
Tori Foster is a junior
journalism major.
^ the algorithm for evil
erall C'ln response to a July 5 mail call:
' Mr. Kemp's recent letter was an excellent
still ci example of the secular/materialist/social-
:0 n(j le< 1st calculus for determining the source of
■he world's ills. The formula goes some
thing like this:
Only matter and energy exist and man is
nerely an organic machine. Economics as
material enterprise is then the sole moti-
jteting factor in human affairs. Ideas and
riorality are irrelevant - unless they affect
economics. All evils are then the result of
|ome form of oppression by those with the
money. The rich oppressor is then epito
mized by the American, white,, protestant,
male stereotype. Given two conflicting par-
MAIL CALL
ties, the one furthest from this stereotype is
then automatically the victim while the
other is the aggressor.
It is little wonder why Western secularists
like Mr. Kemp, so knowledgeable of Muslim
theology, bend over backwards trying to
convince everyone that Islam is a religion
of peace and distance terrorists from it
where precious few Muslims say such
things. After all, their situations must some
how be the fault of their oppressors -
Christianity to their Islam in this case -
because that's the closest to the WASP
stereotype. It’s certainly not that ideas of
Muslim theology have consequences.
Daniel Hirmas
Class of 1998
Executions are deserved
In response to Cody Sain’s July 5 column:
1 wonder if one thinks about the victims
of these crimes by those on death row. Was
their pain and suffering thought about
before hand, did the person who murdered
try to make his victim’s passing easier?
Before we consider how those on death row
are put to death in a more "humane" way,
we must consider the methods they used to
take the lives of their victims. Perhaps, we
could begin by making death row a little
more painful. Maybe they should leave this
earth in the same manner as their victims
left. Then perhaps, there may be a reason
to talk about "an inhumane death."
Kimberly Carter
Department of Philosophy & Humanities
ItCh 0 Ax.tffn
.-ciipffwuit