posted
I'm not sure about being pro title IX myself. It is one of the things that has been more gender divisive at the true social level than abortion.
Especially in the sports that have men's and women's divisions like swimming, that are non-money makers. In a very real way it hurts the women's program if the men's is cut. This happened at UCLA because of title IX, one of the most storied men's swimming programs in the country. The alumni volunteered to fund men's swimming out of their own pockets, but it upset the male-female balance for title nine so it couldn't be brought back. This was bad for the sport of swimming whether you were male or female.
posted
I would believe equal numbers of girls are beaten as boys, but I'd have trouble believe equal numbers of boys are raped as girls.
When I was younger, there seemed to be a bigger move toward cultural feminism, where women were to define success by their own values rather than compete with men. Men who excelled in such values would be honored and not just women (the way -I think- Kennedy and Lincoln are admired by most Blacks). So, for instance, it would be okay to admire Gandhi, even though he's a man. Or Heirich Ibsen, because they pioneered a new view of things. Even though they are men.
I think the word Feminism came into use long after women go the vote. So I don't consider that if I don't like feminism, that I'm want women to not vote.
I'm reading the early part of the thread in chunks, and I'm disturbed by the "Matrix" like thinking, that women who don't want to be liberated are still part of the machine and are expendable to the cause.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I played golf in high school. Of course, there was no girls' team, I played with the guys. I know that's not an option in a lot of sports, but it sure was nice to be part of the foundation of building that particular athletic program without costing the male counterpart anything.
Our school had the same thing with soccer. The girls played on the guys's team until my senior year, when they finally had enough interest to support a girls team.
What was I trying to say...oh, that that equilibration process doesn't have to cost other people (read men). I don't know that I agree with the implimentation of title nine simply because it tends to have that cost to existing programs. I want women to have that same opportunity, but do the ends justify the means?
Posts: 3956 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Tres, saying that more boys want to play sports than girls, when the opportunity for the girls to play sports has not been there, is a circular argument. It takes time to build a sports program. You know that.
It's like saying that dropping enrollments in college for guys isn't something to worry about because obviously the girls want to go more.
When schools are FORCED to take equal number of male and female students even when fewer males are interested in going, then I will accept that analogy. But I think neither should be the case. I think it would be unfair to females to deny them college just because you want to "build interest" in college among males, just as much as it's unfair to favor a few girls over many guys in sport teams.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Why is it few girls versus many guys? It isn't like three men's sports have to be cut for every women's sport added.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
In my example it was 30 guys wanting a team and 5 girls wanting a team. It could just as easily be the reverse, although I think it usually isn't.
quote:quote: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ i mean, if you willingly *cough* opened your legs, its time for you to take the consequences of your actions. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ I hope I'm not the only one who finds this sexist.
Ok, first of fall, I said if you WILLINGLY did it. In other words, if you were thinking like a whore. Not if it was rape, or any other situtation in which you unvoluntarily had sexual intercourse. Please read my posts carefully so don''t that you don't misunderstand them .
Posts: 3389 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I just have point up the difference I see in girls now from when I was in school. In the 80's and early 90's, most girls did not play sports much. Only a few of my friends were on sports teams. More got into cheerleading. It never occurred to me to play sports (another bookish, unathletic family here).
And now I work in the Young Women at church, and only a few girls don't play at least one sport. They all do swimming, basketball, field hockey, and...uh, stuff.
That's a direct result of Title IX and the encouragement of girls to play sports, and it's a good thing. I agree that it's been unfair to the boys--but how many schools would have instituted any girls' sports at all without Title IX to browbeat them into it?
Posts: 335 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
I have a friend here in Dallas who is on SMU's rowing team, on a scholarship. It only exists because of Title IX. She loves it, and the team doesn't take up the resources of, well, a stadium in order to play.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tres, the article you cited suggests pretty strongly that the reason for the gap in admissions is that there are less men applying. Not that women are getting preference, but that women are the majority of people actually applying for admission.
quote: Some private liberal arts colleges are making it easier for men to get in. At Dickinson College in Carlisle, Pa., this year's freshman class is 43% male up from 36% last year in part because the school gave preference to "qualified male candidates on the margin," says Robert Massa, vice president for enrollment and student life.
While I don't agree with kat's title IX arguement, I think the analogy is perfectly valid.
Posts: 3956 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:That's a direct result of Title IX and the encouragement of girls to play sports, and it's a good thing. I agree that it's been unfair to the boys--but how many schools would have instituted any girls' sports at all without Title IX to browbeat them into it?
I suspect it has more to do with encouraging girls than Title IX, and more to do with people starting up girls youth leagues than anything else.
quote:Tres, didn't you make up your example?
Yes, it was the hypothetical we were talking about.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Stargate, Michelle Wie comes to mind immediately. And I personally had a lot of fun beating up guys in co-ed water polo cause I was better than they were.
posted
Dear Stargate, I hate to disgree with you because there is a thing called condom which men practise putting on in a banana while they are still in high school. As for girls, there are pills and vaccines, and the ever powerful way to coerce their husbands into wearing those things I told you about called, once again, a CONDOM.
Posts: 3389 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Tres, the article you cited suggests pretty strongly that the reason for the gap in admissions is that there are less men applying. Not that women are getting preference, but that women are the majority of people actually applying for admission.
Isn't this what feminists would call "institutional" discrimination?
Anyways, yes, fewer men are applying. This is why I say feminist ideology is impacting the expectations placed upon men, and ultimately the way they see themselves.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
Do you know how much female birth control costs? Do you know that it ISN'T included in at least the State of Illinois health care package when Viagra is?
And if there is a vaccine against pregnancy please sign me up!
posted
I wasn't talking about the scenario you made up. I was talking about the actual effects of Title IX.
Are you really saying that equal pay for equal work is causing men to not apply to college? I'm not sure what you mean.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:If a woman refuses to cook for her husband or forces him into abstinence, and nags and criticizes and belittles him (lack of respect), can't expect him to be nice and kind to her.
This is what feminism has done to women, making them believe they can be that way and then blame men if they are not nice towards them. And women keep feeling dissatisfied and never stop and think they (themselves) are the reason for their own unhappiness.
It's so sad, to think that people in the US still think this way.
Posts: 2220 | Registered: Jun 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Stargate he calls me "female" on a regular basis, and no I'm not offended in the least. He has also told me that I think more like a guy than most guys he knows and I wasn't offended by that either.
posted
And Stargate if a relationship doesn't have MUTUAL respect it is doomed to begin with, regardless of what functional roles in maintaining a household each participates in.
AJ
(well at least I haven't been accused of mysogyny yet on this thread)
Posts: 11265 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: It's nice that you refer to him as a "male" and not a "man", if he would refer to you as a "female" you would get very upset about it.
This is typical of the lack of respect towards men in general.
Talk about trying to get us to see fences that aren't there.
Tres, that is a symptom of continued inequality. A continued emphasis on the difference of genders that leads to progress for one causing harm to the other. It isn't a necessity and it's something that a feminist who truely wants equality is disturbed by. Is the solution to continue to emphasis equality until people actually start to believe it, or to put women back in thier place?
Posts: 3956 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Okay, maybe I need to be hit with The Subtlety Stick but is this person for real?
quote: I hate to disgree with you because there is a thing called condom which men practise putting on in a banana while they are still in high school. As for girls, there are pills and vaccines, and the ever powerful way to coerce their husbands into wearing those things I told you about called, once again, a CONDOM.
I don't like abortion in most cases, but I understand how pro-choice people get so angry at insane statements like that.
I'm with you AJ, pregnancy vaccines? Pfft.
Posts: 1735 | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Banna, really. Your using the word obviously shows both your misogynistic and misandric tendencies. And we all know how you beat him up. The truth is out. Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Maybe Alt means Depo Provera? Not a vaccine, but it is administered with a needle.
It's shouldn't matter, Alt of D, but are you a male or a female yourself? I'm female, in the spirit of fairness.
P.S. As a recovering Dr. Lauraholic, I can tell you that Dr. Laura is NOT considered required reading for this board. Unless there was something I missed in the "required reading" thread which I've skipped to be contrary.
posted
Bravo Stargate, and these days it is taken to a entirely political extreme, the original moral basis of it are lost. These days things like lowering the admittance physical requirements for police, fire, and military units so that more women get in is insane! The whole point of the physical testing is that only the strongest most powerfully built people will be doing those jobs, thats the whole point!
BTW Stargate, you missed the Stargate SG-1 thread, best show ever!
Posts: 1900 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
Oh, please. Are you deliberatly misunderstanding me, or am I just doing that bad a job. Obviously there are differences (I don't see too many men out there giving birth), but in the cases of opportunity (specifically educational, as that's what I was talking about), there needn't be. Home ec used to be the girly class, apparenlty we're reaching a point where math will be the girly class because we keep emphasising a gender association where there shouldn't be one.
posted
Rhaegar, most the cops I know are not in the top percentile for strength and fitness. I agree that a firefighter should be able to carry a person. But I reject the idea that it is the minority of men and the no women who are strong enough to do these jobs. I submit that two women can write a traffic ticket as well as two men. That said, I'm still not in the economic feminist boat.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rhegar I would argue that any woman that CAN pass the physical tests (which should not be lowered) should be allowed the same positions as the men. And take a look at some of the female firefighters around. I'm positive they could haul me out of a burning building.
If the phsyical tests aren't necessary for the job (as in many military combat positions these days since they are more about computer interfaces than physical strength) then the women should be allowed to have them too. I am for women in combat, if they can perform their job to the standards specified regardless of gender. I understand that many women will not be able to meet the physical standards. That doesn't bother me. Some can. I could. So if they want to fight why not let them?
posted
Tres, it was a response to the last post of yours I saw before I started typing:
quote: Anyways, yes, fewer men are applying. This is why I say feminist ideology is impacting the expectations placed upon men, and ultimately the way they see themselves.
I certainly didn't mistake what I quoted in my previous post as yours.
*is obviously still new at this serious discussion stuff*
posted
Bannana Im not argueing that they shouldnt be allowed to do it, I'm simply saying that lowering the standards for politcal reasons is insane.
Posts: 1900 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
OK, well I'm going to jump out of my previous statement for sec and post an actual brain-thought I'm having here.
A serious problem that could be inhibiting this discussion is not just the definition of feminism, but what are we talking about when referring to feminism? A group specifically designed to further feminist goals or just the general ideas and principles behind feminism? I'd be against 1 and for 2. I'm not sure what people mean when they're saying "feminism has done more/less good than it has done bad." or "feminism is (not) still needed today." Do you mean feminist groups or just general emphasis on it in our culture or what
posted
Stargate the required reading in this forum is the previous pages of the thread, which you clearly haven't read.
Re: Dr. Laura. I find it very hard to respect anyone whose basic representation of themself is other than truthful. As Dan Raven once said, her actual qualifications make her nothing more than a glorified gym teacher. Her doctorate is in physiology which has very little to actually do with psychology (other than the similarity in the way they are spelled) and she passes herself of as a expert psychologist.
And her job as a radio personality is to be an entertainer which requires no actual qualifications whatsoever. Truth does not actually come into play unless it is truth in advertising.
posted
Sorry Sun, my roomates sleeping so all the lights are off and I've been spending the last hour and half either trying to read Stranger in a Strange Land in the dark or trying really hard not to doze of reading Stranger in a Strange Land in the dark.
Anyways, if it bother you that much I'll edit it for typos but I hate editing content after it's been responded to.
posted
I HAVE READ HER BOOKS, several of them. And I think they are mostly rubbish.
I also listened to Dr. Laura regularly for several years due to being in a household with an avid listener, my mother. Though my mother listened because she mostly enjoyed disagreeing with her, though on a few subjects they happened to agree for entirely different reasons.
posted
No, I think most of her advice is hogwash that takes advantage of desperate people to promote her personal agenda. (I would use stronger language but it isn't allowed on the forum) She and Jerry Springer live on the same ethical plane, making their fortunes from the misfortunes of others. And I think Springer actually probably does more good for the participants than Dr. Laura does. Actually Dr. Laura is worse than Springer because she is hypocritical about why she does it.
posted
Dr. Laura's dissertation was on diabetes. Do you know the difference between physiology and phys ed? Anyway... :counts to 10:
I think I can see at least one unintended effect where feminism is undermining itself. Earlier it was stated that girls get better grades and represent a higher proportion of college students. And yet they are still dwarfed in the engineering profession. We've discussed before some engineering society's goal of 50% women by 2010 or something, and much laughter ensued.
The trouble is that the feminization of education is just leading to a higher quality of woman in already feminized fields like education, nursing, and - within medicine - gynecology. Meh, I don't know if this is a trouble, really, as I was saying on the last page that Feminists should embrace a different standard of worth than dollars earned.
I do agree in equal pay for equal work/qualification. And I don't see anything unfeminine about engineering. What fields do I see as unfeminine...? Can really think of any a woman shouldn't be able to do if she chooses.
On ERA and women in combat, I have some vague memory (keep in mind I was 7 at the time) of a feminist on the radio saying "without ERA we can never force a female soldier to have an abortion." Last I knew (as a 23 year old) women can opt out of their enlistment entirely if they become pregnant. If half your fighting force was female and being pregnant allowed them to leave the front... well, you see the logistical nightmare if not the compromise to actual readiness.
Of course, this was before Norplant and depo-provera.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
.
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
Not a vaccine, but it is administered with a needle. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Angst]](graemlins/angst.gif)
