Real men realize football isn’t life
I hope Bryan Wideman simply was playing the male stereotype role in his column “Football versus women” on Friday. I laughed to myself a bit upon reading things such as “Men, this is a great day [of 10 hours of football] as well,” and “As working men return to their homes … ” and “KEEP HER.” However, I become concerned when I read the thing more objectively, because the type of man personified in this article is NOT every man.
No. 1 — Not every man watches 10 hours of football in one day; those who do I can’t imagine sitting or standing and observing a game for that long. No. 2 — One cannot rationally view women as the “downfall of reason and rational thought.” For one thing this has no support. Also, I know plenty of men (as well as women) who at times are very irrational, myself included, and from the tone of this article, Bryan, too. When was reason destroyed anyway?
No. 3. — Many men care to listen to their girlfriends talk to them (no matter the subject); it’s important you listen to anyone, not just sportscasters.
No. 4 — However sadly I admit it, I personally believe a fair amount of men consider it entertaining that coaches punch opposing teams’ fans, but not every man does. Regardless, in the light of reason, can a face-smashing rampage ever be considered virtuous?
Bryan Wideman does not “speak for all males in this country.” He’s speaking, if for anyone, most clearly for himself. Maybe it’s ok to laugh for a second at the male stereotype presented in his article, but I’d feign from even slightly becoming the “man” who lives and breathes only football from September to January and then allows himself “[to be manipulated by women from February to August].” Don’t be a stereotype; be a real man.
Steven Brazzell
Junior — Management
Student shouldn’t trivialize war, death
I am writing in response to Jeremy Watson’s letter in Friday’s Reveille regarding the mess with Iraq. I am not interested in arguing the meticulous facts and figures of this mess. I am not interested in picking apart his letter to expose all of its lapses in judgment. I am a bit perturbed, however, by his perception of war as harmless and commonplace.
In his letter, he said “looks like we could see some fireworks around Christmas and New Year’s break.” How dare you? How dare you describe and trivialize the thousands (if not millions) of innocent deaths that will occur as a result of “fireworks?” War isn’t as harmless as a video game. Real people die.
In Iraq, over the past 10 years, under the United States’ sanctions, 500,000 extra children have died. That’s enough to fill our precious Tiger Stadium six times. When our esteemed representative Madeline Albright was asked about it, she retorted, “They are worth it.” These aren’t soldiers and weapons mongers; these are innocent children. Imagine the backlash if Osama or whomever had said the 4,000 deaths on Sept. 11 were “worth it,” let alone 500,000. How dare you trivialize these deaths and the millions more that will be added to them as “fireworks”?
I’m not trying to say we are doing the right thing or the wrong thing. I am trying to say war is a horribly evil thing with immeasurable consequences. Consequences from which a country or family may never recover. I’m not sure what religion you are, Mr. Watson, but my religion (along with many others, I’d imagine) respects the sanctity of life a little more than the “fun and games” you referred to in your letter.
Nathan Ryan
LSU Graduate