The J-TAC (Stephenville, Tex.), Ed. 1 Thursday, January 28, 1993 Page: 2 of 4
four pages : b&w ; page 23 x 14 in. Digitized from 35 mm. microfilm.View a full description of this newspaper.
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
rage 2/Tliursday, January 2 , iyyj/ ine j-ial
3'
)j
f;'"
Gays in the armed forces, think about it
l i"f j—lilt | ■nP*^f**T'^^Tw~f^T"i
1 •' i' •' i' (' •' ' i' •' i! •' i' i' •' t' i' •1 i' <
• . '«: : * i *«: *: * ? i: i * ? > *_i *«: * i . 5
Jordan Cannaay
Around the Bend
l i l l t i l l l f l l i
In an editorial that appeared
Saturday November 14, the Dallas
Morning News took the stance that
"sexual orientation alone should
not should not disqualify someone
from military." Tossed out so
neatly it sounds almost reasonable -
- almost. Tell me why sexual
orientation shoui-.l not disqualify
someone from serving in the
military. Could it be that in our
attempt to smooth and plane off the
irregularities that distinguish us as
unique and different from each other
in order to make life fair, we've had
to relinquish out common sense?
There are people who, upon
reading the third sentence I've writ-
ten, pulled out a magic marker and
angrily slashed the world
"Homophobic" across it. Sorry to
disappoint some of you but I truly
don't care whether someone falls
under His, Hers, or Undecided. As
long as you keep your sexual orien-
tation to yourself you can do as
you wish --1 don't care. So, then
what is the problem with gays in
uniform? The best way I know to
answer that is to insert myself into
a hypothetical situation.
I am planning on joining the
military and would like to be
assigned to an all-female platoon.
Furthermore, I would like to share
their sleeping quarters and shower
facilities. I admit to having a
sexual preference - women. Now,
what in the damn hell reason do
THE £y
Tm
$
© by
ordan Cannady
you have for keeping me out?
Could it be that the women would
feel uncomfortable knowing that I
may be staring at them and perhaps
become aroused? I promise not to
look, and if I do look, I promise
not to enjoy myself. Besides
which, how dare you imply that I
have no self-control and would ever
do more than look ~ which I've
promised not to do anyway!
There, that ought to take care of
any objections the women might
have. If they still object they are
being heterophobic and should be
counseled post haste. Obviously,
the flaw in my agument is that it
relies upon the suspension of what
sexual orientation is all about. If
this truly was a gender-unspecific
world people by androgynous
capons it really wouldn't matter
what someone's sexual orientation
is. But it isn't.
Demonstrating his "fresh off the
rack" appreciation of military
service Clinton said on Veteran's
Day "We need everybody in
America who has a contribution to
make and who is willing to work
hard and play by the rules." How's
that foe inspiring rhetoric? In an
equally hollow display of largesse,
the News editorial staff admits that
"acknowledging their presence in
the packs probably will make some
people uncomfortable.'' A truly
neat bit'ofunders'tatement. Perhaps
the editors who wrote this need to
he reminded that we are not talking
about some casual get together in
which, if someone comes along and
makes you "uncomfortable" you
merely leave.
We also forget one crucial
difference between a career in the
military and one in the private
sector. In essence, a job in the
military is a 24 hour commitment.
Although there is more freedom in
the upper echelon of officers, an
ordinary enlisted man or woman
has virtually no choice where he or
she will work, eat, sleep, shower,
or go to school. The social
engineers can tinker all they wish
with what they suppose the ideal
society should be, but until they
eliminate sexuality from the
formulae, they are working with a
flawed premise. We know that
men and women are attracted to
each other. We know that in close
proximity, with greater access to
each other, men and women will be
more sexually active. We readily
admit that women have a right to
privacy by giving them sleeping
and bathing facilities separate from
the men. We accord the men the
same privilege. In these times of
increased awareness and concern
with sexual harassment as
witnessed in the infamous
"Operation Tail Hook" scandal, the
military has become increasingly
vigilant to sexual harassment, in
any form.
My presence in the women's
shower would certainly be consid-
ered sexual harassment by the
women, regardless of how innocent
my actions. At best, I would be
perceived a voyeur and undoubtedly
some women might feel harassed
not by what I was doing, but by
what I might do.
To discount those same fears
when it involves same genders is,
to say the least, a peculiar brand of
chauvinism,
Jordan Cannady is the
Editoral Catoonist 'for,-the*, J-
T.AC. " -•-—
Editor in Chief
Christy Moore
Opinions 'Editor
Kgith Ordemau?c_
(Photo Editor
'Marc Tar^s.
Sports 'Editor
%dericf0$icfiardson
'EditoriaC Cartoonist
/T
Jordan Cannady
Ad Safes
Utac^fyCaxwelC
features 'Editor
tyrig Lopez III
Advertising
Coordinator
Scott S(pne
Coptf 'Editor
Hot Candfer
Staff Writers
'Jacque Utygers
/ James■
Advisor
Chartie fyynoCds
The J-TAC is published on Thursdays during the
regular^ semester with the exception of university
holidays and examination periods. Articles in the
Opinion section of the publication do not necessarily
express the views of this uni versity or this newspaper.
Letters to the Editor must contain a name and phone
number. However, the name may be withheld by
request if the previous information is given. The
deadline for letters is noon on the Tuesday of the week
you wish to have it published. Advertising in this
publication is handled by Student Activitiestheir phone
number is 968-9490.
If they don't, then they won't
Dear Editor;
4
This letter is written in response
to the article "Moral: Don't Label
Others" by Eric Lang,
Mr. Lang mentioned that people
tend .to put other people into
categories simply because of their
appearance. Although that is some-
times true, there is one thing I dis-
agree with. He says, "a lot of girls
won't talk to a guy unless he has a
truck, a cowboy hat and wears
Wranglers."
Not all girls (or even people in
general) base friendships or rela-
tionships on appearances. In fact,
they judge a person on personality.
If a person likes your personality
then they'll associate with you. If
they don't, they won't.
Oveja Satana
Are women at Tarleton open minded
Wmmmm
In response to Eric Lang's
article, "Moral: Don't label
others", about girls at Tarleton
judging people solely by thier
appearance, I would just like to
say one word~"Wrong!".
First of all, Tarleton State
University has a reputation for
having one of the friendliest
campuses in Texas,
Students speak to each other
whenever they pass by, try to
help each other wheneiver
possible and have an all around
positive, eontag.'ous spirit. If
you doubt this, just think about
the Poo.
Secondly, a lot of students do
not fit into just one category.
Many like to dress country
and preppy. It just depends on
their mood and where they are
going.
I know quite a few cowboys
who listen to Metallica, Tesla
and Skid Row in addition to
George Strait and Chris LeDoux.
Many students dress so many
different ways, they really don't
fit into one definite categor;-. To
this, you say in your article,
"Those people who cannot be
labeled in any other way are
labeled drug users or dealers".
Wrong again, Eric.
In your article you say, "a lot
of girls here will not even talk to
a guy unless he has a truck, a
cowboy hat and wears
Wranglers."
This is a pretty broad
statement and I would like to
know what gave you such a
negative opinion.
Personality and personal
hygiene play key roles in how
people feel about you and how
they react around you. If you
obviously do not tare about your
appearance, thil says something
about your character.
I think the majority of girls at
this school are open-minded and
intelligent enough to base their
opinions on how a guy makes
them feel rather than on what
brand of jeans he wears.
Jacque Rogers is a Staff
Writer for the J-TAC.
A little bit of a different look at weddings
-■ «■-A'V'
Warning: This contains material
that mothers-of-brides will find
offensive. Ladies, do not read this:
You will not be amused.
Do you like weddings? Do your
eyes mist and does your throat
tighten as the groom and groomette
exchange bands of gold, kiss like a
pair of Puritans, turn and run the
gauntlet of forced smiles, pawing
hands and flying rice? Do you
cheer as the couple pulls away from
the curd in their chariot with its
shoe-polish war paint and
cacophonous trail of cans and
shoes?
Or - like me - do you hate
weddings?
Not everything about a wedding
is hateful, just certain aspects.
Wedding dresses, for example.
In Dear Abby's column a letter
writer mentioned a wedding dress
with a $14,000 price tag. Taking
into account the financial condition
of the world, $14,000 seems a tad
excessive.
That kind of money, after all,
will buy a nice car, put a child
through college, support an entire
village in Bora Bora or pay my
yearly veterinarian's bill.
Perhaps we should change the
standard. How about the top-of-
the-line wedding dress in Georgia-
Pacific's paper wedding dress line:
"The Scarlett O'Hara" at only
$59.95.
Not only is the dress lovely, it's
functional. Imagine the joy the
couple will feel on each anniversary
as they sift it out (folded and
pressed!) from the inside of the
wedding aldum and gaze upon it
fondly.
On their SO1*1 wedding
anniversary, it could be unfolded
and used as a drop-cloth under the
punch bowl. At a little over a
dollar a year, it would be the finest
investment in their lives together.
The mother of the bride (MOB)
can spend more energy tracking
down nail polish in just the right
shade of avacado blush to match the
bride's shoes, than the Center for
Disease Control in Atlanta does
finding a cure for the latest flu bug.
Are we to believe that the
groom cares? His darling bride
could be barefoot and he wouldn't
notice!
This brings us to the cold, hard
truth about weddings: Like kelp
that drifts in the tide, the groom is
really a non-essential participant in
THE WEDDING.
True, he must be there; society
is not yet ready to accept proxy
grooms of the world (which it isn't
and never will be), weddings would
be come-as-you-are, three minute
rituals held in auto part stores.
Face it: Down deep, most men
are shallow. It's for our own
benefit, it would seem, that the
MOB is there to steer our
romances. Were it not for the1
MOB, where would all those
dressmakers, cakemakers, rice
farmers, photographers, garter
manufacturers and florists go?
, iThere are those, of course, who
will insist that any criticism of the
wedding ceremony is only a thin
veil over over a bad attitude
concerning the institution of
marriage.
Nothing could be further from
the truth. Wasn't it Plato who
once said, "He that laughs at the
ceremonial trappings that guide our
lives will live to be a wise man?"
I don't know if he said it, but
incorporating a little Greek wisdom
on my side may keep me out of the
dog house another week.
Jordan Cannady Is the
Editoral Catoonist for the J-
TAC.
1
The J-TAC is looking for letters about the football game of the year, the Superbowl.
Upcoming Pages
Here’s what’s next.
Search Inside
This issue can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Newspaper.
The J-TAC (Stephenville, Tex.), Ed. 1 Thursday, January 28, 1993, newspaper, January 28, 1993; (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth141793/m1/2/: accessed July 17, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, https://texashistory.unt.edu; crediting Tarleton State University.