About this time last year, a group of us from the community college I transferred to NIU from, were sitting around the newspaper office discussing our next moves after graduation.

As discussion rounded the room, one voice said “I’m going to pay my way through college by joining the army.” All heads spun in the direction of the voice. It was almost the crossing between the TV Twilight Zone of commercial land and reality.

Just like the commercial—you know the one—where a group of students is seen sitting around a table in a diner discussing college plans. Then one guy tells his friends his plans to earn his way through school by joining the Army—sound familiar?

Like the friends in the commercial, we, too, laughed and said, “come on, be serious.” And as in the commercial, the reply was, “I am serious.”

Except this time, the he was a she.

She did it, too. Why shouldn’t she? That is what she wanted to do.

Despite all the people who told her the choice wasn’t lady-like. Despite all the people who said she was making a mistake. And even in spite of the fact her boyfriend—who had served four years in the army—told her it was a choice between the army and a relationship. She did it.

She’s still doing it and she loves it.

I thought about her Tuesday night when the channel 9 movie was Private Benjamin, and I honestly don’t believe there are really any Private Judy Benjamins out there who confuse a four-year army stint with a retreat to a health spa resort.

As a matter of fact, I believe, like my friend, that the women who comprise 10 percent of the 1.2 million-member armed forces are truly serious about the jobs they have chosen. But I’m not so sure the Pentagon or some other members of the armed forces are.

Last week the Pentagon, based on the recommendation of a high-level task force, decided to expand the roles available for women in the armed forces. The Armor task force was created in response to complaints about sexual harassment and, in part, by last year’s “infamous case” involving a Navy skipper who chose to fraternize with enlisted females and joke about “selling” them on shore.

The result from this task force was a Pentagon decision to open nearly 4,000 posts—13,000 jobs altogether—that were previously unavailable to women. The catch was not to violate the armed forces exclusionary rule, designed to prevent female soldiers from being killed in action or captured as prisoners of war.

Instead, women are limited to “combat support roles.” Gee, does this mean they are responsible for supplying the men with the “non-lethal weapons” President Reagan has referred to?

Oh no. Women’s “combat support roles” in the past have included piloting the KC-135 tankers that refuel the fighters they can’t fly. Surely the enemy would never think of sending a few missiles over there, now would they? And though women are banned from Navy destroyers, it’s quite all right for them to supply and support vessels that steam in enemy waters.

But wait, now with the Pentagon’s latest decisions, the list of “combat support roles” has grown to include a place on Air Force high-altitude reconnaissance aircraft such as the SR-71 Blackbird and the U-2. Will they be allowed to fly them—or just dust the insides?

The Marine Corps says women now can serve as security guards at U.S embassies. Well, no need to worry about action there—just ask the boys in Lebanon.

I find it ironic that in the United States, Home of the American Dream, women who honestly are interested in actively serving their country are told they just don’t have what it takes to be “one of the boys” even before they are given the chance to prove themselves.

I guess that means even though the Pentagon has taken its stand against sexism, the Marines will still be looking for a few good men.