|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I yearn for the days when equality was actually equal.
Now we have people pushing girls into sports and math and science, even if they're not their strong areas, to fight the "patriarchy". Hoo, boy. (When I was in junior high, I was involved with a female-only math/science program, and they always told us that ALL girls thought math and science were hard. I didn't; I was just interested in math and science, and junior-high boys were...well...junior-high boys, and I wanted away from them.) I was told not to squander my talent in other areas besides math, science, or engineering; BUT I found out in high school that I couldn't write a lab to save my life (and it was WORSE in college- that's why I switched majors from chemistry to Spanish)!
Take PEOPLE into consideration for once, and NOT gender!!
"Female men's activist" is not an oxymoron.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I sincerely think this is because modern women are expected to work for a living and contribute an equal financial share to a household. I know a lot of men will say this isn't true, but I can say it was certainly true where I grew up. Even now I don't know anyone, not even one woman, who is a SAHM. Everyone I know works full-time, whether or not they have children.
Obviously you can't contribute equally to a household if your husband works in a technical field and earns $100,000/year, while you're a minimum-wage data entry clerk.
I do not think it's wrong for people to encourage their kids to aim high. If I had a child, I would not want to envision them living paycheck to paycheck, hand-to-mouth, constantly having to decide between paying the electric bill and having heat, or buying groceries and eating. And forget about ever retiring; you just hope you don't live long enough to become too old to stop working. Maybe some people enjoy living this way, but some people enjoy being tied up and peed on too.
It is not wrong to encourage your child to study hard and get a good-paying job that will allow them to be, if not rich, at least financially secure. The problem is when parents push their kids to enter a profession they despise, often in an attempt to live vicariously through their offspring. There is a difference between encouragement and force.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I agree with you, Claire, but there are a lot of girls who are going into fields they aren't good at simply because they're male-dominated. I was almost one of them. Yes, I know a lot of scientific facts and mathematical formulas; my problem is that I have a really hard time putting them on paper/applying them. As for foreign languages, I'm good at learning and understanding them, just can't do written essays in Spanish. (My prof lets me do assignments orally.)
I plan to earn my Ph.D. in Spanish [to teach at the university level] and will probably earn more than my husband.
"Female men's activist" is not an oxymoron.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday January 24, @11:45PM EST (#9)
|
|
|
|
|
I plan to earn my Ph.D. in Spanish [to teach at the university level] and will probably earn more than my husband.
You have a husband?!!! WAAAAAAAAAAAHH!!!
Shattered Remo
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If there are any well-heeled alumni of prestigious universities who are simply toeing the DoEd line, I would urge you to threaten to withold your annual endowment to the university pending THEIR pro-active campaign to the DoEd to right this wrong. If the threat is real enough, and the amount witheld is large enough, you can bet your sweet bippy that the administration will be calling the DoEd to protest and try to have the model changed. One play that might work here is the recent outcry by the universities themselves about how few men are applying and how that negatively effects the applications they get from women who seek diversity in the academic setting.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
No, a 19 y/o doesn't usually have a husband. I meant any FUTURE husband. Right now I have a steady boyfriend, so sorry Remo. :)
"Female men's activist" is not an oxymoron.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday January 23, @09:32PM EST (#2)
|
|
|
|
|
Those interested in learning more about Title IX's devastation of male athletics might want to go to http://www.glennjsacks.com and look at two articles:
"Title IX Lawsuits are Endangering Men's College Sports" (Los Angeles Daily News, 9/7/01)
and
"California Men's College Sports Under Assault from NOW"
(Los Angeles Daily Journal, 10/29/01
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Two things come to mind after visiting that GD web site (little pun there).
So I respond to : "Editorial on Title IX" as well.
The tail is wagging the dog, and the administrative/managerial costs would be significant.
If the US Administration wants to get something done they put money into it.
There doesn't seem to be much interest on the part of the administration to get involved with this whole idea.
The 60's and its famous scenes of braw burning, introduction of THE BIRTH CONTROL PILL, and free love are long gone (great Don, now I feel old), and two complete generations of women have hit their athletic prime and moved on.
If this is such a fantastic concept, where is the women's sports industry that came madly exploding into existence after being freed from the tyranny of male oppression?
YAWN!!
Drive into AnyTown USA and Canada and you have to dodge the hockey nets and screaming slapshot tennis balls from off-season-road-hockey games in suburbia.
What is more classic Americana than a group of guys surrounded by a chain-link fence playing basket ball? From ghetto to Graceland guys play sports without any help from anyone and without anything more than coming across the neighborhood boys engaged in a game. Presidents and congress and men's groups don't tell little boys to drop their toys and get with the game; they just do it!
Title IX was a great idea in 1972, bravo, brave new world, courageous supportive government.
But guess what? It's 2002 - 30 years later people, and several hundred million citizens have voted with their entertainment dollars (several hundred million citizens just can't be wrong). We have discovered in all these years, in general, for the masses of the people and the VAST legal majority - Competitive Sports? Surprise!!! IT'S A GUY THING.
Equal opportunity? Yeah right! Girls need equal opportunity sports laws like I need equal opportunity access laws to the maternity ward.
Equal opportunity does not mean identical opportunity.
Do your hear that drumming sound?
It's the sound of million of testicles dropping to floor.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I had a look at the website and read a scattering of its pages. Girls raised on this kind of intellectual diet are going to be the most damn conceited and self-centred people ever to walk the face of God's green Earth! But there were actually a few noteworthy points made. One can be found in an item entitled "Don't Blame Title IX" at the following URL:
http://www.womenssportsfoundation.org/cgi-bin/iowa /issues/rights/article.html?record=137
(remove any spaces that may have crept in)
It's interesting in a number of ways. On the downside - but very predictably - it plays to those feelings of resentment so necessary to the identity of the 'oppressed' (you should check out Nietzsche's ideas on master and slave morality to get a better understanding of this). On the other hand it makes a variety of suggestions for positive ways of meeting the requirements of Title IX, without cutting programmes for men and boys. I don't know how practical any of these suggestions are, though.
For more of the above you should also check out the following URL on the same site:
http://www.womenssportsfoundation.org/cgi-bin/iowa /issues/rights/article.html?record=109
The main problem with Title IX is its blind assumption that the percentage paticipation of the sexes in sports must be the same, or nearly the same, as the percentage of males and females at the institution. In other words, it's not about about satisfying the needs of the students, it's about creating them and shaping them. Males are not to be allowed to be more interested in sport than females. This is social engineering.
I came accross this interesting paragraph, briefly summing up Title IX, on another page:
"No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any educational program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance."
(URL: http://www.womenssportsfoundation.org/cgi-bin/iowa /issues/geena/record.html?record=829)
I wonder if there are any ways in which this law can be used to the advantage of men and boys within the education sysytem.
********************
One thing that's becoming increasingly clear from just about everything that appears on mensactivism.org and other men's rights websites is that there is no morality other than the morality of force. Organisations and institutions get away with manhating and anti-male policies because they are allowed to. Nothing inside them, inside their minds, acts as a brake on their behaviour, so the force must come from outside, from the men's movements and the ideas and attitudes it promotes. It's a sad state of affairs, but it is clear that people cannot be trusted to police their own thoughts and attitudes. I really hate to say that because I'm starting to sound like people I despise, but I think it's true. People get away with anti-male crap because they are allowed to, period. Unless they are forcibly stopped they will continue to do it - they won't be able to help themselves.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"discrimination under any educational program or activity"
See? they do this with union contracts as well.
or do they mean?
"any educational program or any educational activity"
do they mean?
"any educational program or any activity"
educational?
educational (čj´e-kâ´she-nel) adjective
Abbr. educ.
1.Of or relating to education.
2.Serving to educate; instructive: an educational film.
- ed´uca´tionally adverb
Excerpted from The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Third Edition © 1996 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Electronic version licensed from INSO Corporation; further reproduction and distribution in accordance with the Copyright Law of the United States. All rights reserved.
ANYWAY
AND
Notwithstanding the above …
I say if the universities had any BALLS they would let any girl who wants to play football join the boy's football team.
When the feminists scream bloody murder, the universities merely have to point their finger to the fire department, the police department, the air force, the navy, army, medicine engineering and any other coed activity and say when they have two separate men's and women's units, so will we.
The act doesn't say that the women have to have a separate league does it?
Let em scream!!!!
Either they can compete or they can't.
Are they equal or not?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
or are the reports of violent women abusing and beating up their spouses just a myth.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Quoting from Title IX:
"No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any educational program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance."
The way Title IX is currently enforced, men ARE in fact being prevented from participating in collegiate sports. I was, like many males now at universities, a pretty good athlete coming out of high school. My desire and ability to participate in college sports was well above that of most females at the university.
But at my school (University of Wisconsin-Madison), men's sports were cut and women's sports were created. Becuase the interest wasn't high for many of the women's sports, they had to actively recruited to fill out the teams. So while the Badgers had to struggle to fill out a rugby team, all the freshman who came to Wisconsin with the intention to play baseball had to transfer, since their no longer was a baseball team. That IS discrimination on the basis of gender.
>>People get away with anti-male crap because they are allowed to, period. Unless they are forcibly stopped they will continue to do it - they won't be able to help themselves.
The problem is NOT with people voicing their opinions. The problem is with universities making misguided decisions based on their opinions, and the courts making absurd decisions that are clearly inconsistent with the intents of the regulations.
Title IX could just as easilly be applied, for example, to the recruitment of men into the nursing field. Now that I have graduated college and work in the health care field, I can see that their is a prejudice against men entering nursing. And as patients get sicker, the additional strength of men is an incredibly important assett in areas such as critical care. So there is an actual need (as opposed to an artifical one in the case of sports) to promote gender equity in nursing. The fact that Title IX has arbitrarilly applied to benefit women in sports but not men in nursing is a reflection that the courts intent is NOT to adhere to the intent of Title IX, but rather to use it as a tool for women's advocacy.
Dr. Gary P. Chimes
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
