MM.
8The Daily Tar HeelThursday. April 1 1. 1985
ale superiority an archaic argument
M
93 rd year of editorial freedom
Arm: Rickert and David Schmidt
Editor Editor
Stuart Tonkinson
Ben Perkowski
Dick Anderson
Janet Olson
Steve Ferguson
Vance Trefethen
Managing Editor
Associate Editor
Associate lidit or
I hit vers it jf Editor
Neirs Editor
State atid National Editor
Leigh Williams
Mark Powell
Lee Roberts
Frank Bruni
Sharon Sheridan
Larry Childress
City Editor
Business Editor
Sports Editor
Arts Editor
Features Editor
Photo Editor
The greatest snow on earth
Where have all the flowers gone? And
what has happened to the youthful
innocence of days gone by like
President Reagan's first term?
Children growing up in America
today are running out of role models
to emulate and things to believe in.
Captain Kangaroo? Bumped for
Phyllis George. Musical Chairs?
Replaced by Music Television. Even
Cap ri Crunch has been revealed of late
as a war-hardened entrepreneur.
Sigh. What's credible institution is left
standing if not that long-running child
hood escapism, the circus?
Nothing, it seems. And if recent
developments in New York City are any
indication, the big top's going down in
flames as well.
The object of much media attention
this week has been the "living unicorn,"
the star attraction of the latest edition
of the Ringling Brothers and Barnum
& Bailey circus. The animal, they claim,
is real. But the American Society for the
Prevention of cruelty to Animals says
it's not.
What they're passing off as a mytho
logical creature come to life is an Angora
goat with a surgically implanted bull's
horn, according to the AS PC A. They're
calling it "cruel and severely unethical"
and they Ve launched an investigation.
Circus vice preisdent Allen J. Bloom
insists the creature is "absolutely" a
unicorn, and that the investigation and
attempted boycott is unwarranted.
Newspaper ads for the circus argue that
millions of Americans who believe in
Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny and the
Wizard of Oz should not be denied a
chance to see this, yet another myth
come alive.
But the argument doesn't wash. In
fact, it is entirely unconscionable. Make
believe is one thing; playing God with
animals and deceiving innocent children
for personal gain is another entirely.
Certainly the circus is enjoying the free
publicity ticket sales are likely to
spiral upward with the controversy. But
Ringling Brothers is losing its long-term
credibility at the same time. Which
returns us to the question of what kids
can believe in. If it's not the "Greatest
Show on Earth," what will it be?
Tricks like this may have worked for
P.T. Barnum years ago, when the
entertainment dollar was less severely
divided and competition was less fero
cious. But if kids want reality distorted
today, they can watch for it on television
or in the movies.
The circus should hearken back to
simpler days of pure family entertain
ment no deception required.
Dictionary or treatise?
Can the United States or anybody else
trust the Russians? Well, after what they
pulled recently, the Oxford University
Press sure won't. The people at Oxford
prepared a dictionary for students
learning English in the Soviet Union and
then gave the Russian publishers per
mission to change some of the defini
tions. In case you haven't already
guessed, the Soviets didn't exactly, how
shall we say, strive for objectivity in their
revisions.
Once they received the dictionary
from England, the Soviets took it upon
themselves to correct Oxford's version
on a few key words two of them begin
with c and the other with s. What were
the words, you ask? "Cheated'? No.
"Surprised" isn't it either, though the
Oxford folks must have been feeling a
little of both when they flipped to the
Soviet definitions of communism,
capitalism and socialism.
The Shorter Oxford Dictionary
defines communism as "a theory of
society according to which all property
should be vested in the community and
labor organized for the the common
benefit." Now that might not be what
McCarthy would have liked, but for a
short definition it's not bad. The Soviets
didn't like it. They changed it to "a
theory revealing the historical necessity
for the revolutionary replacement of
capitalism by communism." First off,
definitions aren't supposed to use the
word being defined in the definition; and
second, somehow that definition sounds
more like a mini-editorial than what
Oxford would call a definition of a word.
Okay, on to the next word. Let's flip
back a little bit to . . . capitalism. This
should be worth a couple of laughs.
Guess what capitalism is based on
"the exploitation of man by man." The
Oxford version says its based on
"dominance of private capital."
Some might argue the definitions are
the same, but the Soviet students
learning English (it's only for sale in the
Soviet Union) won't even get the chance
to make that philosophical decision
seems the Russian publishers want to
make it for them (surprise, surprise).
Finally, let's turn to a definition that's
been in the news here at Carolina of
late. The word that launched a thousand
stories: socialism. The Soviets define it
as "a social and economic system which
is replacing capitalism." Hold it, doesn't
history, at least in the Soviet version,
say communism replaces capitalism. Oh
well, the Soviets are bound to get the
idea capitalism is no good.
Whether one agrees with that assess
ment or not, this redefinition business,
though humorous in a way, certainly
doesn't reflect well on the Soviet system.
It is, unfortunately, a political system
that fears placing trust in its public.
Therefore it resorts to conscious, con
certed efforts, intended to influence the
citizens.
The Daily Tar Heel
Assistant News Editors: Cindy Parker and Amy Styers
Editorial Writers: Marshall Mills and Cathy Hughes
Assistant Managing Editor: Jim Greenhill and Kathy Hopper
News: Crystal Baity, Lisa Brantley, Dawn Brazell, Tim Brown, Darlene Campbell, Matt
Campbell, Joan Clifford, Tom Conlort, Randy Farmer, Kay Flanagan, Loretta Grantham, Wayne
Grimsley, Mike Gunzenhauser, Heather Hay, Befh Houk, Robert Keefe, Scott Larsen, Genie
Lindberg, Guy Lucas, Jeanie Mamo, Georgia Ann Martin, Dora McAlpin, Yvette Denise Moltrie,
Linda Montanari, Marjorie Morris, Kathy Nanney, Beth Ownley, Grant Parsons, Ruthie Pipkin,
John Shields, Rachel Stiffler, Rachel Stroud, Kevin Sullivan, Joy Thompson, Jennifer Trotter,
Laura Van Sant, Kevin Washington, Kim Weaver, Scott Wharton, Lorry Williams, Laurie
Willis, Katherine Wood and Karen Youngblood. Andy Trincia, assistant state and national
editor.
Sports: Scott Fowler and Scott Canterberry, assistant sports editors. Tim Brown, Tim Crothers,
Mark Davis Paris Goodnight, Frank Kennedy, Keith Lyall, David McCullough, Tom Morris,
Mike Persinger, Kurt Rosenberg, Mike Scoor, Mike Schoor, Jim Suroweicki, Beth Velliquette,
Mike Waters and Bob Young.
Features: Marymelda Hall, assistant features editor. Mike Altieri, Nancy Atkinson, Vicki
Daughtry, Elizabeth Huth, Jane Mintz,.Mary Mulvihill, Tom Rose, Liz Saylor, Sonya Terrell
and Lori Thomas.
Arts: Elizabeth Ellen, assistant arts editor. Martha Bourne, Steve Carr, Mark Davis, Ivy Hilliard,
Alexandra Mann, Alan Mason, Sally Pont, Deanna Ruddock and Virginia Smith.
Photography: Elizabeth Lamm, Charles Ledford, Jamie Moncrief, Jeff Neuville, Jonathan
Serenius and Robin Wilson.
Copy Editors: Roy Greene and Anjetta McQueen.
Interior Decorator: Lynn Davis.
Artists: Bill Cokas, Deborah Kelly, Kelly Mclntyrc and David Sumner.
Business and Advertising: Anne Fulcher, general manager; Paula Brewer, advertising director;
Tammy Martin, student business manager; Angela Booze, accounts receivable clerk; Terry Lee,
student advertising manager; Alicia Susan D'Anna, Greg Goosmann, Patricia Gorry, Kellie
McElhaney, Melanie Parlier, Stacey Ramirez, Doug Robinson, Rose Shacklett and Scott
Whitaker, ad representatives; Patti Pittman, classified advertising manager, Laura Bowen,
assistant; Jim Greenhill, office manager; and Cathy Davis, secretary.
Distributioncirculation: William Austin, manager.
Production: Brenda Moore and Stacy Wynn. Rita Galloway, assistant.
Printing: Hinton Press Inc. of Mebane
By GRA NT PA RSONS
In today s society one attitude permeates most
modern thought that man has the dominant
role over woman. Most of the arguments for
this view seem to be archaic, dragged out to do
battle whenever male dominance is threatened.
Since these views have yet to be examined in
the light of our modern lifestyles, they need to
be dusted off and considered again. Keep an open
mind while reading the three arguments that
follow. If these male dominance views do not
make sense in light of new facts, perhaps other
arguments used to prove male dominance should
be re-evaluated also.
Males have higher levels of androgens, a
hormone that contributes to aggressivity, and
therefore are naturally superior to women. This
could only be true if our society is based on
aggression. Our '80s lifestyle is based on
achievement, not aggression; one can achieve
without being in a state of combat readiness.
It is possible to climb to the top of the corporate
ladder without stepping on everybody on the way
up. Therefore, male dominance cannot be based
on the male's ability to be more aggressive than
females.
Since the male has established our society,
he is naturally the dominant sex. While it may
be true that males were primarily responsible for
the taming of the West and the buildup of
Western (as opposed to Eastern) society, it does
not follow that males are dominant. Like it or
not, our society has changed so both men and
women are gaining equal access to jobs and social
status. Since both sexes have equal access, they
are equal. Just because we have come to this
point in our cultural revolution due to previous
male dominance does not mean that females must
pay homage to the males for doing this. As an
analogy, just because John Smith proposes a law
making theft illegal does not mean that because
he made the law he is exempt from it. In light
of this, male dominance cannot be justified
because the male established our society.
Male dominance is evolution-based in all
species; since males are larger and stronger than
females, they are naturally dominant. While the
larger and stronger sex will usually hold the
dominant role in a community, males are not
the stronger in all species. Therefore, male
dominance cannot be evolution-based. Consider
the female black widow; stronger than her male
counterpart, she will often kill him for what
appears to be no reason at all. Which is the
dominant sex here? Considering apes, larger
females sometimes lead the group, often after
fighting the males for the position. Simply stated,
larger male-size traits are not universal and
cannot be used as a basis for male superiority.
Regardless of how well male dominance
theories can be refuted, many will still believe
the male to be the dominant sex, citing the failure
of the Equal Rights Amendment and the
women's liberation movement. This can be
explained, as any first-year sociology text will
show, that it is common for dominant groups
to keep alive beliefs that aggrandize themselves,
and it is equally common for the non-dominant
group to accept these beliefs. The male dominant
READER FORUM
f
view of society is slowly fading into the wake
of "if-you-are-a-woman-it-is-your-duty-to-go-out-and-get-a-job"
ideal of the 'SOs, but attitudes
are difficult to change.
Our society is operating under a set of beliefs
that may or may not be true, and this is not
a safe way to go plunging into the future. Each
person should take the time to rethink the ideals
of male dominance. Attitudes are not likely to
change overnight, but by questioning the
principles of male dominance, all of us can begin
to enjoy an unbiased, equality-oriented future.
Grant Parsons, a sophomore journalism major
and staff writer for The Daily Tar Heel, is
dismayed by the rise of yuppieism, among other
things.
Commencement an end only to formal education
To the editors:
As May 12 draws near, many
UNC seniors are getting ready for
graduation. While many seniors
make preparations for the conclu
sion of their college career, the
general public has thought of the
word commencement in a new and
different manner. Here in Chapel
Hill, the upcoming commencement
exercise puts pressure on graduating
students to fulfill all the University's
requirements and have 120 hours of
credit. Most of us define commence
ment as being the end of our
education.
Commencement, however,
should not be thought of as the end
of anything. Instead, graduating
seniors should view commencement
as the first day of celebrating a new
beginning, certainly not the last day
of the past. When the class of 1985
strolls across the manicured football
field in Kenan Stadium, they will
be walking to a new genesis
together to obtain degrees and
diplomas long sought after.
Although seniors may have been
waiting four years for this special
day, it is only so that they may move
forward and progress to their next
stage of life.
The tears of saying goodbye to
campus life, friends and partying
masks the excitement of the new life
that lies ahead of many graduating
Tar Heels. The commencement
activities are only the beginning of
many diverse options available to
graduates. For the class of 1985,
commencement means new oppor
tunities such as a job, graduate or
professional school, or a return to
home.
For many, commencement will
mean a first-time job, more new
faces and a new approach to life.
It is true that after commencement
has taken place, you may not see
some of your friends as often, but
think of all the new people you will
meet and learn to know in your first
time job that you otherwise might
not have met had commencement
not taken place. To some graduat
ing seniors, the start of a life-long
career, brought on by commence
ment, is appealing and greatly
desired.
The 1985 commencement may
not bring a profession so quickly
to other of our fellow Tar Heels.
Some will choose to continue their
schooling in graduate or profes
sional school. Commencement, in
this case, means a new beginning
of more late-night studying. For
these graduating students, com
mencement is a break in their
studies to receive praise and encour
agement to proceed further in their
studies.
And finally, for those who decide
not to pursue an occupation or
graduate or professional school,
commencement may mean a new
start at home where the demands
of a job or the pressures of school
may not exist. An undergraduate
degree or degrees, in this case, does
not constitute a waste. No one can
take your education away from you.
'A liberal arts education will, we
hope, make some of the graduates
better citizens. Whether or not you
get a job that pertains to your
specified area, your education from
UNC will be invaluable for the rest
of your life.
In whichever direction you
choose to direct your life, remember
it is an initiation, not the final
episode. The true meaning of com
mencement will be felt in the air
under the Carolina blue sky as the
spectators (proud Moms and Dads)
watch the 1985 class embark to
fulfill their goals. Commencement
does not mean a task has been done;
it only means one has begun.
R.A.
Mcintosh
Avery
Protest for protest's sake
To the editors:
Regarding the article "Art pro
testors decide to camp out on work"
(April 3), I would just like to say
that my friends and I were not
protesting the art at all. The sculp
ture, along with the television and
other appliances, provided us with
a comfortable place to sit and drink
for 24 hours. We were not protesting
the piece; we were using it. We like
it. It was home. An exterior space
became an interior space, and
passers-by felt odd about walking
through the space because it was
ours. It was our astroturf
showplace.
. Also, the article made it sound
like the girls who let us use their
extension cords were the ones that
said I was "dependent on televi
sion." They were not the ones I was
referring to. They were great com
pany and they were very nice to let
us use their cords, and I thank them.
Sorry about the misunderstanding.
However, I want to thank the
DTH for its coverage and interest.
I also want to thank the cops who
were totally cool to us and for not
kicking us off or arresting us for
"consuming malt beverages in
public." Thanks.
Keith Emory DeLancey
Chapel Hill
Mental health costs out of sight, out of mind
To the editors:
Let the consumer beware. In
addition to the public education
aspect, the Health Vote (financed
by the health insurance and service
givers) is asking you a loaded
question, "Do you want to have
lower health costs?" Of course you
do. It is a loaded question, and once
they have your "yes" answers, and
your choice on how to do it, they
will have a mandate from you to
continue cutting your family mental
health protection right down to the
bone.
Who will pay the price for these
cuts in coverage? You will! Note
that none of their literature reveals
to you that they are lowering their
costs by quietly cutting their mental
health benefits or services to you by
verv strict limitations on what they
Arne ya
gonna dance?
To the editors:
On Friday, April 5, Arne Rickert
made a special appearance as an
audience member at the Rick Rock
Dixon & Me concert. While most
of the audience danced or at least
swayed to the music, Arne remained
motionless, with feet firmly planted
and arms across his chest.
Does Arne dance?
Although the answer to this
question is not of national impor
tance, and indeed may have only
limited appeal, we believe the
Chapel Hill community has the
right to know.
Lauren Johnson
Meredith Amdur
Chapel Hill
Editor's note;
Yes, this true. Rick and Don
promised that 1 would get a chance
to play a riff or two, hut they backed
out on me. So that's the last time
I go to see Me & Dixon.
will provide. In strong competition
with each other to win large con
tracts from industry or employee
groups, or offer lower premiums to
individuals, these providers and
insurers are cutting their costs by
putting the consumer or employer
at higher risk. Perhaps they are
counting on the hope that most
people don't know that over 50
percent of the illness risk that
families or employees face is from
emotional and other mental health
problems.
Bare bones mental health cover
age leaves that one family in five
with someone ill or disabled by a
nervous breakdown or an emotional
tension problem without the protec
tion they need. What can happen?
After that family member has
exhausted the meager 20 out-patient
visits or 30 days in-patient care per
year that they provide, the family
will have to turn to free or low fee
public clinics or state hospital care.
Unfortunately, these public facilities
are now severely underfinanced due
to state and federal cuts of their
funds. After all, more than 90
percent of American families, with
out their insurance aid, can not
afford mental health care on their
own.
Some of these providers have
developed another "cute trick."
They plan to give a general prac
titioner that serves you a lump sum
each year to take care of all your
health needs. If a family member
needs to be referred to a specialist,
that practitioner must pay that
specialist out of that lump sum. Will
he choose to take that money out
of his pocket? Perhaps yes, but the
pressure will be upon him or her
to cover up your distress with pills
rather than refer you to someone
specially prepared to deal with the
fundamental cause of your distress.
The "Health Vote" is a fine public
educational effort, but it isn't telling
you the mental health risks you face.
The lower premiums will be a false
economy if they leave your family
more completely exposed to the
more than 50 percent chance that
their next illness will require pro
fessional mental health care.
When you make your "Health
Vote," write in "Restore, Don't Cut,
Our Mental Health Coverage."
Legislative Committee
Orange County
Mental Health Association
i