Commentary
Thursday, February 16, 1995 Page 5
Spontaneity adds spice to life
A friend of mine said something
to me the other day that set the
gears turning and got me to
thinking. She told me, with great
sincerity in her voice, that sponta
neity is like a dying art form — the
longer it goes unused, the more
obsolete it becomes.
I tried to think back to the last
spontaneous act I committed and
came up empty. I hated to think
that what she had said had the
remotest possibility of being true.
My gut wrenched at the thought
that society had become so ordered
and routine that anything slightly
off from the norm could be seen as
a mortal sin.
What has happened to the
American road trip? Road trips
have always been, at least in my
mind, the epitome of spontaneous
acts. I’ve seen “Thelma and
Louise” and “Boys on the Side,” but
there has to be another reason for
hitting the wild open road than to
escape an abusive husband or a
terminal disease. Why is it no
longer possible just to pick up and
go? Even family outings seem to
follow some kind of secret schedule
or outline. It’s not that order isn’t a
good thing, but some chaos now
and then can’t be all that bad.
Last weekend, my friends and I
attempted to be spontaneous and
take off for Kansas City, Mo., on a
Saturday afternoon, not to return
until the following day. As usual,
logic, reason and order took
precedence over being spontaneous
and Omaha was as far as we got.
The phrase “if we had planned it
earlier” popped up quite a few
times that weekend.
Beth FI nsten
Call me crazy, but I couldn’t
help thinking that if it was planned,
that would have defeated the
purpose of committing a spontane
ous act. I don’t quite know why
human beings need to have a
reason for everything that occurs in
the universe and for every act they
commit. Why can’t I be generous
without reason or get in the car and
drive with no place to go? It could
just be a generation thing, but lately
institutions, order and schedules to
follow are slowly getting on my
nerves.
I long for the day when I can hit
the road with the top rolled down
and the radio turned up. I won’t
have any destination in mind, and
the wind in my hair will be more
important than the money in my
pocket. Being spontaneous has a
certain type of stimulating freedom
and feeling of complete abandon
ment from a world of schedules and
routines.
I’ve often been told that sponta
neity is reserved for the young. If
that’s true, then we have done a
poor job with the gift we have been
given. Today’s generation has
become too serious for its own
good.
I realize that these are serious
and somewhat intense times in
which we live, but we can’t afford
to lose what little sense of humor
and wild reckless abandon we have v
left. To be spontaneous and
unpredictable is to be young in
years and young at heart. God made
different-colored people to add
variety to the world; spontaneity
was created to add variety to life.
The same thing day in and day
out is enough to drive anyone to an
early grave. I wouldn’t be surprised
if I already have one foot in mine.
Spontaneity has yet to become
obsolete. You can still find a small
glimmer of it from time to time in a
child’s laugh or a romantic candle
light dinner for two. The beauty of
spontaneity is that it creeps up on
you when you least expect it. As
long as the young never forget the
power of youth, and the old never
forget to be young at heart, then the
dying art form of spontaneity may
have a chance.
With my 20th birthday right
around the comer and not very
many spontaneous acts in my name,
I have a lot of catching up to do. I
find myself leaving the reckless
teen-age years behind and heading
ever forward into the world of
responsible adulthood — a world of
schedules, routines and never
ending monotony, unless I choose
to spice it up a bit.
Basically, life is what you make
it. It can be an exciting roller
coaster of thrills and surprises, or it
can be as dull and boring as a
chemistry review on a Sunday
afternoon.
Ftnsten Is a sophomore pre-pharmacy
major and a Dally Nebraskan columnist
Ladies, men have it bad, too
you ve come a long way,
baby!” rings the old Virginia Slims
advertisements.
Those cigarette ads, document
ing various highlights in the
women’s liberation movement,
were supposed to appeal to females
by celebrating America’s progress
in the fight for women’s rights.
But apparently some women
believe we have a lot further to go.
As a result, fighting has resumed
on the front lines of that time-old
battle we call the gender war.
Here at home, the shots rang out
with a report, released last week by
the Chancellor’s Commission on
the Status of Women, that ranked
the University of Nebraska-Lincoln
ninth out of 11 peer institutions in
its percentage of faculty comprised
by women. According to the report,
only 18 percent of UNL’s faculty
members are women, as compared
to the 21.2 percent average of the
10 other peer institutions.
The report sparked talk within
the feminist circles.
“That report just goes to show,”
said a feminist classmate of mine,
“men don’t treat women any better
now than our grandfathers treated
the women of my grandmother’s
generation. Hell, we’re lucky we
aren’t chained to the kitchen stove
— and kept barefoot and pregnant.”
Good luck on finding any
shoulders to cry on. The fact is that
women in America have it good
today. And in most instances, they
are better off than men.
Last spring, Forbes magazine
ran an article entitled “Gender
politics,” which talked about “The
Myth of Male Power,” a book by
Warren Farrell. Some of Farrell’s
findings:
# Men are less likely than
women to attend college (46
percent vs. 54 percent) and gradu
ate from college (45 percent vs. 55
percent).
# Men work (inside and outside
the home) an average of 61 hours a
week; women, 56 hours.
# Men make up more than 95
percent of the work force in
Jamie Karl
hazardous occupations like con
struction and trucking. Thus, men
account for 94 percent of occupa
tional fatalities each year.
• In 1920 (back in our grand
mothers’ era), men lived, on
average, one year less than women.
Today, men live seven years less.
• Men are more likely to die
sooner from every one of the 15
leading causes of death.
• Men and their health are the
subject of just one medical journal
article for every 23 written about
women.
• Men and women are equally
likely to initiate domestic violence,
at every level of severity, according
to 14 separate studies.
• Men are twice as likely as
women to be the victims of violent
crime and three times as likely to be
victims of murder.
• Men are the victims of only 9
percent of reported rapes outside
prison annually. But inside the
American prison system, men are
the object of up to 1 million rapes a
year. (Rape in female prisons is
virtually non-existent.)
• Men convicted of murder are
20 times more likely to receive the
death penalty than women con
victed of murder.
Now, if men are this much worse
off than women, why are men still
getting blamed and tabbed as
chauvinist pigs?
Perhaps the interesting thing
about the book’s findings is that
author Farrell is a longtime
feminist fellow-traveler and former
male board member of the National
Organization for Women in New
York City.
Farrell says the key to better
relations between the sexes is
finding a language that both can
understand; that is, a language that
allows both sexes to realize the
difficulty the other faces in its
social roles.
Such a language already exists.
But the feminists complaining
about how bad women have it
nowadays are not bilingual.
It is easy to point out one study,
such as this most recent report from
the chancellor’s office, and say
women are at a disadvantage. Men
could say the same if there were a
Commission on the Status of Male
Elementary School Teachers or a
Commission on the Status of Male
Nurses. Men could cry victimiza
tion just using the figures above.
But the human race, centuries
ago, came to understand, respect
and accommodate the inherent
biological differences between the
sexes. Thus, it is wrong to expect
men and women to compete on the
same level at every matter.
A recent example: The issue of
women in combat.
There are reasons why women
are not on the battlefield, just as
there are reasons why women have
never engaged in contact sports
with men. Nor do they compete in
contact sports.
And just as most people learn
and accept the fact that, just as war
is a man’s business, we learn that
the nurturing of infant children is
the work of women, mainly.
Perhaps this reasoning — that one
sex can do a particular job better
than another — is, to some extent,
the reasoning for the number of
males in university classrooms.
Regardless of what is being done
about placing women in previously
male-dominated roles, you cannot
alter human nature with either a
university administrative order or
an act of Congress.
Indeed, baby, you have come a
long way. But now it’s time you
take a rest.
Karl Is a Junior news-editorial major and
a Dally Nebraskan night news editor and
columnist
PC police arbitrarily
enforce their rules
Remember when the thought
and-speech police declared that
remarks made by House Majority
Leader Dick Armey were
offensive, bigoted and inappro
priate? That was Armey’s
“Barney Fag” slip of the tongue,
in reference to Rep. Barney
Frank (D-Mass.).
Now we have the case of
Charles Barkley, a professional
basketball player for the Phoenix
Suns. Before last Sunday’s NBA
All-Star Game, Barkley made a
“joking” remark to a white
reporter friend. “That’s why I
hate white people,” said Barkley,
who is black. Reporters who
heard about the remark invaded
the locker room and surrounded
Barkley, seeking elaboration.
Barkley later held a news
conference and hurled some
expletives at those present, and
journalists in general, telling
them to leave town.
Reaction to Barkley’s com
ments is a study in political
correctness. NBA President
David Stem was asked whether
the same standard should be
applied to Barkley as some did to
Armey. Said Stem: “It depends. I
think in this case Charles was
doing his routine, and that’s part
comedian — the same as Billy
Crystal or Bill Cosby.” So, in
addition to being an outstanding
basketball player, Barkley’s
“joking” remarks can be excused
because he is an amateur come
dian, is that it?
Barkley also said to a Japa
nese journalist, “By the way, did
I tell you I hate Asians?” TTie
reporter laughed. But Barkley
wasn’t through. He managed to
convey his “hatred” to a reporter
of Polish descent and even
lambasted a black reporter whose
skin was lighter than his: “You
know, I hate light-skinned black
people, too.”
Is Barkley an equal-opportu
nity bigot? Of course not. He was
having fun and tweaking
reporters he knows. But why did
he largely get a free pass — not
only from the NBA commis
sioner, but from much of the
media when they learned they
couldn’t fan the small flame into
a bonfire?
There seems to be a double
standard in speech, as there is for
most everything these days, from
capital punishment to Capitol
ethics. It isn’t the content of a
Cal Thomas
racial slur that offends, nor is it
always the intent. Rather, the
judgment is leveled at the person
saying it, based on his or her
political worldview. Imagine the
response had these same words
come not from the mouth of
Charles Barkley but from Rush
Limbaugh. Because there are
those who believe Limbaugh to
be a racist-sexist-homophobe, the
cries of outrage would break the
decibel meter.
As for Barkley’s uncouth slur
of the media, it might be difficult*
to find a critic — because many
share his feelings about reporters
who constantly search for the
next flap to sensationalize to get
their faces on camera or their
bylines on the front page.
That words play differently
when they come from different
mouths is evident when one
recalls the “Nightline” remarks
of A1 Campanis, late of the Los
Angeles Dodgers. Campanis
responded to a question as to
why there were not more black
managers by citing their alleged
genetic shortcomings. Never
mind that the Dodgers led the
way in the integration of base
ball. For Campanis, it was one
strike and he was out.
Or how about similar remarks
about genes and blacks by Jimmy
the Greek? Same thing. Jimmy
was pulled from his CBS
broadcast job.
Yes, Campanis and" Jimmy
were serious, while, we’re
assured, Barkley is auditioning
for a post-basketball career on
The Comedy Channel.
And so Charles Barkley plays
on. And so he should. We have
finally found one person who
stands up to the thought police
and Maces them. Maybe he
should run for governor of
Alabama, as he’s said he might
do. Wouldn’t that keep the press
and the selective enforcers of the
First Amendment busy?
© 1995 Los Angeles Times Syndicate
1
wizardry, qiy late fathers
tomb has been relocate
to a sleek, classed and
elevated display area-.
__ y
. .
Mike Luckovich
