by Tia Will
Sunday’s Enterprise had an article that caught my attention. The article, “Second Straight Second Place,“ highlighted our DHS women’s second place finish at the cross country nationals. This is a direct testament to the determination and hard work of the individual women racers and an indirect measure of the willingness of the broader community that supports them. It reflects the support of their parents, their coaches, their school and the society at large that has recognized over a number of years that support for women athletes is as important as it is to men. It is a testament to those who believe that sports should be about excellence and not solely about how much money can be raised by commercial/professional sports.
This has not always been the case. Growing up in a traditional conservative household in the 50’s, it was made clear to me that athletics were not for women. It is true that I was encouraged to practice and excel in a physically demanding discipline, that of ballet. But it was crystal clear that sports were for men. This was reflected not only in my own family, but in how sports were funded and thus who had access to monetary support for their interests.
It was not until 1972 with Title IX that women’s sports gained the beginning of an equal footing with the support of men’s athletics.
https://www.justice.gov/crt/overview-title-ix-education-amendments-1972-20-usc-1681-et-seq
Several posters here on the Vanguard have derided the institution of Title IX. It is my feeling that without it, there are multiple areas of female endeavor that would not have been possible. This is true not only in sports but also in other fields. I have direct experience with the kind of discrimination that Title IX helped to end having been told up front by mentors and program directors that I would not make it into medical school, and certainly not into a surgical field because of my gender. Fortunately, I was not applying until 10 years after the implementation of Title IX and the start of a fundamental societal change in perception of gender roles..
With all the recent controversy over our most recent Chancellor, Linda Katehi, what I believe all can agree on is the effectiveness of her advocacy for the advancement of women on campus in general and in the STEM fields in particular. As Chancellor, Ms. Katehi carried on a proud UCD tradition of being a leader in promoting women in STEM fields. This tradition began before my arrival in 1979, when 50% of our medical class members were women. Women were the majority in the Vet School and were prominent in chemistry, making an entry into soil science, and gradually increasing in other STEM fields.
At another point in our local and national story, the Enterprise article would likely have escaped my attention. But now, with the Republican student group’s invitation to Milo Yiannopoulos to speak on campus seemed an important time to express an appreciation for the accomplishments of our young women and the community that is helping them to succeed. If you are not familiar with the ideas of Mr. Yiannopoulos allow me to set the stage:
http://www.breitbart.com/milo/2016/07/05/solution-online-harassment-simple-women-log-off/
http://www.breitbart.com/milo/2016/07/07/real-war-on-women-chicks-in-combat/
Now there are probably some who will say that this is “just verbal bomb throwing” as a way to gain attention, and that he does not mean any of this. I feel many of his followers would disagree, and the fact that Republican group on campus is certainly taking him seriously enough to issue an invitation to speak. As a firm believer in our First Amendment right to freedom of speech, I welcome Mr. Yiannopoulos to campus. I am eager to hear his remarks on a campus where so many women are engaged in STEM fields of study as they have been for many years. Perhaps in alignment with the advice we have heard on the national level to “wait and see” he will have a different message here and will disavow his previous writings and videos. I would be surprised, but then I have been surprised a lot by recent events.
My advice to those who value the efforts of our young women: Keep an open mind about campus and community speakers who all have the right to express their ideas in public. Accept graciously any movement towards a more rational and equitable approach to education and job opportunities for all. If all you hear are ideas designed to confine women to the home or limit their opportunities in any way, be prepared to stand up publically and privately in opposition to these pernicious ideas.
To the young women themselves, I advise: Do not let the words of those who would put down, trivialize, or limit the endeavors of young women intimidate or demoralize you. You can succeed in attaining your goals and living the full life that you desire for yourself. I am only one woman. But I am one example demonstrating that, regardless of gender, with enough determination, work, and yes, some luck and societal support, you can have the career and life you want – be it in sports, medicine, tech, or the military. Do not ever let anyone set or limit your priorities for you. Only you can define and achieve your best life. And on that note: Go Blue Devils, Go Aggies!
Sorry you grew up so repressed, doc. My mother, born in 1917, was always an athlete, excelling at baseball and croquet. Her older sister was a basketball player. This was all in the rural South, but I would guess such opportunities existed out West. Women like Gertrude Ederle, Helen Wills and Mildred “Babe” Didrikson shattered that glass ceiling a century ago. I wonder how many of you so-called progressives actually look up to see where you’ve been, where you’re going and where the rest of the world is headed?
“I wonder how many of you so-called progressives actually look up to see where you’ve been, where you’re going and where the rest of the world is headed?”
I am surprised that you did not pick up on the “appreciation” that I was expressing for how far women have come. But I would like to point out that the “glass ceiling” did exist, did have to be shattered, and that initiatives like Title IX were part of how that shattering occurred.
I read the beginning of the first article you linked to and I just will not read that kind of hate-filled vitriol. The author is a basket of deplorables all by himself.
It is Breitbart after all and that’s apparently the guy who the young Republicans asked to come speak.
Paul
I agree that this author does indeed qualify as a member of the basket of deplorables. However, my approach is a little different. I feel the need to keep an eye on this kind of vitriolic commentary and call it out wherever it is found. I do not feel that we can afford to have this kind of speech gain widespread acceptance as “mainstream” as is apparently the intent of some who have been emboldened by the recent campaign.
There’s plenty of lefties out there who are equally deplorable.
Tia, are you on the watch for leftist vitriolic commentary that often appears on our campus or do you just “target” right wing speech? Speaking of being emboldened by the recent campaign have you noticed how vitriolic and hateful many on the left have become?
BP
“Speaking of being emboldened by the recent campaign have you noticed how vitriolic and hateful many on the left have become?”
I think that you already know the answer to this question since we have discussed it before. You pointed out some “hate” speech and aggressions coming from the left. I agreed and made the comment that I fully anticipated that we would see more coming from both sides as a result of our president-elects aggressive stance and exhortations to violence during the campaign. I remember quite clearly commenting to you that I felt it would be extremely naive to believe that his casual condoning of violence would not be empowering to those already so inclined on both ends of the political spectrum. I also remember quite clearly stating to you that I do not condone hate speech or violence regardless of the political persuasion of the perpetrator. Do you remember now ?
To be clear, I was not “on the watch” for any vitriolic speech. A friend happened to mention the upcoming talk by Yiannopoulos. If you happen to know of any representatives of the Democratic Party on campus( or anywhere else for that matter ) inviting any such hate monger as Milo Yiannopoulos to campus to speak, please let me know as I am quite sure that I would have some pithy comments about that as well.
Tia wrote:
> To be clear, I was not “on the watch” for any vitriolic speech. A friend
> happened to mention the upcoming talk by Yiannopoulos.
It is obvious that Yiannopoulos is doing the same thing that “Andrew Dice Clay”
Anne Colter” and “2 Live Crew” have done to get attention and make money (keep pushing it and eventually you will offend someone enough to get free press). It is also funny to see so many on the left bashing an openly gay man who writes things like “How Donald Trump Made It Cool To Be Gay Again”
http://www.breitbart.com/milo/2016/08/11/trump-brought-subversion-decadence-back-gay-culture/
Biddlin wrote:
> Sorry you grew up so repressed, doc. My mother, born in 1917,
> was always an athlete, excelling at baseball and croquet.
> This was all in the rural South, but I would guess such opportunities
> existed out West.
My Mom (and all my Aunts) growing up in SF in the 1930’s-1950’s all played sports from first grade through High School (My Mom was the captain of her High School basketball team). My wife’s family lived in Tacoma, WA and her aunts (and great aunts born in the late 1800’s) were swimmers and tennis players.
P.S. Since most “traditional conservative households in the 50’s” didn’t prohibit women from participating in sports it looks like Tia grew up in a “racist” (as she has detailed many times) AND “sexist” household (not a “traditional” one)…
Mom, born in 1924, was a competitive swimmer and diver in her youth. Her sisters participated in sports as well… in an “industrial”, “male-dominated” city in MA…
Interestingly I had to file a Title IX complaint against UCD earlier this year. I received the following email:
“Girls Saving the World through Engineering (Day Camp) by Center for Bio-mediated, Bio-inspired Geotechnics (UC Davis)
“This five day camp will engage girls in sustainable engineering design. Through hands-on activities, design challenges, and discussions, girls will 1) understand how civil engineers help the public through environmentally-friendly, cost-effective solutions; 2) discover emerging areas in civil engineering, including bio-inspired design, and 3) envision different pathways to engineering and for engineers. The camp is funded by the National Science Foundation through the Center for Bio-mediated, Bio-inspired Geotechnics. ”
I was concerned about the blatant discrimination against my son and was familiar enough with NSF policies that I was certain they would not support a discriminatory event. Wendi Delmendo was very helpful.
quielo
You did not finish your story ? Why your son was discriminated ?
My thanks to those of you for sharing your stories of the female athletes in your families. It is heartening to hear that many women were able to pursue their interests in sports despite the fact that societal preference in terms of funding was indeed given to men. Swimming and some track and field events are low cost and so there was never such a large differential between needed funding for men’s and women’s sports. However, I think that if you were to go back and look into the details of your female relatives experiences, you would probably find that just as at my high school in Long Beach, preference was given to supplying the male athletes with their necessary equipment first and women frequently had to use less expensive or used equipment for their teams. Another thing that might not be obvious with digging further is that men’s teams were frequently assigned more or better hours for practice at the gym ( basketball and volleyball), on the track and in the pool.
In any event, this does not detract from the point that while some women have great support, they are not the focus of my article. It is those that need more support either because this is not within the traditions of their family, or because their family cannot afford the gear, as in club sports that I was hoping to highlight. Once again, I recommend supporting those for whom support is lacking regardless of their gender, race or economic status. I only focused on women’s sports for two reasons: 1) the article was about our women’s long distance team 2) the invited speaker, Milo Yiannopoulos spouts the kind of defamatory comments about women that used to be used to keep women such as myself out of our fields of interest.
Tia
You must forgot your mean-spirited , deliberately hurtful and malicious attacks against Linda Katehi to help stalinist Napolitano in her attempts to criminally prosecute Chancellor. I don’t believe that you have guts to mention Katehi’s name .
Here are some good articles from a respected news source of the left:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/martha-c-nussbaum/why-some-men-are-above-the-law_b_8992754.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/the-undeniable-rape-culture-of-donald-trump_us_57ee5879e4b0c2407cdd4c92
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/zaron-burnett/guide-to-rape-culture_b_5440553.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/how-society-is-raising-rapistsa-mans-perspective_us_57e4b061e4b09f67131e4012
And let’s celebrate Title-IX: http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2012/06/22/title-ixs-dark-legacy
And let’s also complain about how this country is so biased against women and then blame men when the data don’t support the claim: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/storyline/wp/2014/12/11/women-are-dominating-men-at-college-blame-sexism/?utm_term=.6d1a160ad615
One thing for sure. Not all women and their girly-men cohort believe this narrative (crap) and made it be known this election.
Looks like the man-hating culture has been pretty sternly rejected… yet some apparently did not get the notice yet.
Frankly
I do not see anything “man hating” about a desire for equality. So let me point out to you how I see it on a very basic level. Let suppose that my male partner ( who happens to be roughly the same height and weight as me, with roughly the same caloric needs ) always gets more food than I do. He is served more at family gatherings because he is a “man” and needs more. He serves himself more when we are cooking dinner because he is a “man” and needs more. Let’s suppose that I point out after a few days of this that I am going hungry. If there is only a fixed amount of food, should he continue to help himself to more just because of his gender, or would it be more equitable for him to say “Oh I’m sorry, I didn’t realize that you weren’t getting enough” and share equally ?
I do not see equitable distribution as a punishment for men, but rather a long overdue empowerment of women.
Most men that I know would starve themselves and go to battle to feed and protect their family.
But I live in a world where gender differences are understood, valued and accepted.
it’s like a trip back in time to hobbe’s state of nature. your world is dead and it’s not coming back.
His world isn’t dead, there are still men that are gallant and chivalrous.
They mostly happen to be conservatives.
Interesting comment DP given the election. I would say your world never really existing except in your own community bubble as it was being aggressively shoved down the throats of the rest of the country as part of the coastal liberal progressive agenda.
Men can be men and women can be women. If you want to blur your own lines for what you consider masculine and feminine, go for it. I would fight to protect your right to do so.
But where you and yours have gone astray is to force others to have to adopt your definitions.
I know many secure and happy women that are just happy to be female. They tend to be conservative. Most women that I know who are liberal tend to have a chip on their shoulder for some reason. Again, I don’t care except for those with the chip bullying others into adopting THEIR values.
I think the worst thing that has happened to the women’s movement in this country is the women’s movement over the last 30 years.
A majority of the voters chose a center-left female.
Women supported Clinton over Trump by 54% to 42%… materially the same as Obama vs Romney… even after all the DNC-Hillary-Liberal Media (all the same institution) chased away how many of those votes with the millions of Soros money spent trying to convince us all that he was a mean woman-hating SOB.
Like I wrote… the rest of the country rejected the top-down force-feeding of coastal liberal values. Elites really screwed it up. They opened up the door for DONALD TRUMP to be our next President.
And this “Hillary won the popular” vote track is a waste… you are clinging to lost hope that your agenda to force-feed your coastal liberal values down the throats of the rest of the country. It is over. Note the rest of the breathtaking losses suffered by the Democrats. What if the GOP candidate had been Rubio or even Cruz? She lost to TRUMP, for God sake. But this wasn’t just an election of Trump, it was an outright rejection of what Democrats AND Republicans have been selling for the last 16 years… and more so the last eight years.
And don’t get stuck thinking that Latinos and Millennials are going to rise up again. Talk to the generation following and they are disgusted with the behavior of the political left. They are disgusted with Baby Boomers. They are the most disgusted with Millennials. And Latinos are going to like the help to the middle class.
The group-victim-bating strategy is dead. It is dead and dying in most of the Democratic western civilization (seems Austria is the only country that barely escaped it). Democrats better get it together otherwise we will have Trump for eight years.
Chew on this fact.
Hillary Clinton turned Orange County blue.
http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-me-oc-clinton-20161109-story.html
How do you think things are going to look after the 2020 census?
Frankly
Most women that I know would do the same. But then I live in a world in which it is recognized that all humans have a unique mix of traits that are considered masculine and those that are considered feminine and that each individual should be honored for their own unique blend of interests and talents, not only those which fit some stereotypical view of how a “man” or a “woman” must behave. And I speak as the single individual here whose career itself has been based on a keen appreciation and understanding of true gender differences, not those made up according to the dominant group.
Frankly
I do not see anything “man hating” about a desire for equality. So let me point out to you how I see it on a very basic level. Let suppose that my male partner ( who happens to be roughly the same height and weight as me, with roughly the same caloric needs ) always gets more food than I do. He is served more at family gatherings because he is a “man” and needs more. He serves himself more when we are cooking dinner because he is a “man” and needs more. Let’s suppose that I point out after a few days of this that I am going hungry. If there is only a fixed amount of food, should he continue to help himself to more just because of his gender, or would it be more equitable for him to say “Oh I’m sorry, I didn’t realize that you weren’t getting enough” and share equally ?
I do not see equitable distribution as a punishment for men, but rather a long overdue empowerment of women.
BP
“His world isn’t dead, there are still men that are gallant and chivalrous”
The problem is that he fails to acknowledge that there are women who also display these traits.
As for most of them being conservatives…..don’t make me laugh.
Sure there are women that display these traits. Why would you think that I would think otherwise?
I have had relationships with men and women consistently for my 50+ years on this planet, and I can tell you without any hesitation or reservation… they are different.
That does not mean less, or more, or bad or good… just different.
I do generally find that conservative women are more accepting of traditional gender roles and more seemingly at east with and around what I would characterize as manly men… and generally find that liberal women are more angry at manly men and more apt to want to pick a fight over gender roles… and are more apt to stay single.
“I know many secure and happy women that are just happy to be female. They tend to be conservative. ”
And I know many secure and happy women who are also happy to be female. Most of them tend to be liberal. But I recognize this for what it is. I know more liberals than I do conservatives although I know many conservative women who also are happy ……and a number of both who are miserable, and a number who are somewhere in between. I do not pretend that because I am personally close to more liberal women that this means I am an expert in female happiness.
“I can tell you without any hesitation or reservation… they are different.”
And I can tell you without any hesitation or reservation that there is a broad spectrum of human traits and behaviors with men tending to cluster towards one predominant set of traits, and women towards the other. But I guarantee you also that there is a broad overlap in characteristics with many cases of both men and women whose gender identity would not be determinable if they were to be characterized by their preferences, actions, choices and emotional responses if one were blinded to their physical appearance and voice. Just because you do not want to see it, does not mean that this overlap does not exist.
Jerry
“You must forgot your mean-spirited , deliberately hurtful and malicious attacks against Linda Katehi to help stalinist Napolitano in her attempts to criminally prosecute Chancellor. I don’t believe that you have guts to mention Katehi’s name .”
I have forgotten none of the things that I wrote about Linda Katehi. I disagree that I wrote anything mean-spirited, deliberately hurtful, or malicious about her although I know that some did. I did not make any claims that she did anything that was not subsequently born out by the investigation. Where I disagreed with her actions, as in her handling of the pepper spray incident, her attempts to white wash that episode and subsequent denial of her knowledge of those efforts, and her involvement in the 3 boards with varying degrees of inappropriateness, I said so. In those areas in which I think she has had remarkable accomplishments as in the academic and teaching portions of her career, I also said so. It should be no surprise that I would mention her name in conjunction with her furthering the cause of women in STEM at UCD since I pointed that out as a positive impact of hers previously. It took no “guts” at all for me to mention it again as I see it as one of her strongest contributions to the campus as I have stated repeatedly.
This feels a little like a replay of an exchange that we had earlier in the day about our country. You seem to have adopted” love it or hate it” as the only two possibilities. You now seem to be implying that because I was as vocal in my belief that Linda Katehi was not a good fit for the position of Chancellor at a public institution as you were in support of her, that I must hate her or have nothing good to say about her. This is incorrect. My views are much more nuanced and I can see her strengths as well as her weaknesses and have no difficulty writing about both.
Tia
Katehi resignation is nothing to do with her alleged missteps . As you remember Katehi requested hearing with regents in August 2016 and hearing should take place in San Diego. Suddenly just before the scheduled hearing something happened and Katehi resigned. When Napolitano arrived in UC she had all information about every regent and every chancellor in UC system . The regents did not take chance to go against Neapolitan with her knowledge about them and to have meeting and hearing with Katehi .
Katehi only signed the deal with Napolitano (which was basically black mail deal )because Katehi’s family is still working in UC Davis . Napolitano never resigned her position as the Homeland Security chief but she was dispatched to UC by Obama to protect Senator Feinstein an, her husband and few others . The UC Davis Campus Counsel did not resign his position as Chief Deputy in Gov. Brown office but was dispatched by Governor Brown to UC Davis at the same time as Napolitano. If Hillary Clinton would won election then Napolitano today would be held the US Attorney General position and Katehi most likely would comeback to campus . Now I have a doubt if it ever will happen especially after the World Food Project was canceled. Katehi was working so hard non stop to raise $ 1,000,000, 000 in very short time . The WFC primary was set to be build in Sacramento because of the cheap electrical energy source for WFC which would worth millions of dollars in annual saving for the UCD in comparison with Davis campus location. Of course the Katehi name attached to WFC was a factor as well .
Long story .
I have doubt that Katehi will ever comeback to campus as a professor by being placed on the Sabbatical leave for one year with Chancellor Emerita title .
Frankly
“But where you and yours have gone astray is to force others to have to adopt your definitions.”
Are you including like deciding what exact definitions a doctor has to use when counseling a patient even when there is no medical necessity ? Or maybe you were thinking of forcing someone to adopt your definition of abortifacient when considering the use of an IUD proven to not work by that mechanism. Or maybe you are referring to forcing your idea of when human life actually begins onto someone else in order to dictate what medical procedure that they can and cannot have ?
Somehow these things don’t seem to have made your definition for “forcing others to adopt your definition”.
“I know many secure and happy women that are just happy to be female. They tend to be conservative. ”
And I know many secure and happy women who are also happy to be female. Most of them tend to be liberal. But I recognize this for what it is. I know more liberals than I do conservatives although I know many conservative women who also are happy ……and a number of both who are miserable, and a number who are somewhere in between. I do not pretend that because I am personally close to more liberal women that this means I am an expert in female happiness.
http://freakonomics.com/2008/04/23/conservatives-are-happier-than-liberals-discuss/
Yes Frankly, I know, you have posted this article frequently and I have read it. It is one article. I am sure that it has some merit. However, I am also sure that you would not want me deciding your medical course of action based on a single article that I had read.
It brings to mind a radio conversation I heard recently about the Danes and their level of “happiness” which is apparently extremely high. Sounds great until you heard from a guest Dane with a different point of view. After reviewing the questionnaire on which this conclusion was based, he felt that what was actually being measured was not “happiness” but “contemned”. It was his hypothesis that Danes as a group are very content with their lives although they tend, also as a group, to be quite dour.
So I believe that one has to interpret any measurement of “happiness”, the pursuit of which is enshrined in our constitution, very carefully. Does that “happiness” actually represent fulfillment, does it represent contentment, does it reflect perceived freedom, does it reflect a biologic predisposition to higher levels of prolactin or endorphins ? Very hard to sort all this out. Very easy to quote when it supports one’s ideologic preconception.
“pursuit of happiness” is not enshrined in the constitution… wrong document…
Another thought… instead of the head-line, should we not celebrate men supporting men, women supporting women, men supporting women, women supporting men? People supporting people?
Have been in a monogamous relationship for nearly 42 years… neither I nor my spouse is perfect… but we love and support each other, even when we are ‘weak’, hurting, or dealing with difficulties. We have “issues” from time to time, but they get worked out (so far, crossing fingers for more luck)…
Not many women were able to compete at the same level of men so Title IX created a “separate but equal” system where woman can compete in sports at a lower level.
I’m wondering if Tia thinks we should also do this for for academics and have easier classes where woman could compete at a lower level in order to get more women in to math, science and engineering classes?
How about forcing the colleges to create “separate but equal” basketball teams to get more Asian men and “separate by equal” sailing teams that would have more African Americans?
SOD
“Not many women were able to compete at the same level of men so Title IX created a “separate but equal” system where woman can compete in sports at a lower level.”
You left one important fact out of your statement. It is true that not many women were able to compete at the same level as men. It is equally true that those who were able to compete at the same level, even those who were better than some of the male participants were not allowed to compete with the men. This would have been an acceptable alternative to me since it would have been entirely merit based…..however I am sure that it would not have been acceptable to the men involved since as it was explained to me when I questioned this as a child, if a woman beat a man, his ego would be damaged. I kid you not.
And despite your snark, I believe that you know the answer to your hypothetical questions, since I have addressed this issue many times on threads in which you have participated.
My impression was that Title IX was intended to equalize funding, which had been a clearly and massively inequitable situation. All kinds of excuses were given as to why XY sports needed much more money than XX sports. But they were just that: excuses. Federal rules tend to be a little unwieldy and implementation by different schools led to resentment. But that doesn’t negate the underlying reasons for Title IX.
Don wrote:
> My impression was that Title IX was intended to equalize funding,
Title IX was set up to make a “separate but equal” system where women would have sports teams paid for by the colleges. If it was about funding schools like UT that make over $100 MILLION a year in PROFIT from sports like football would not have to pay a penny for woman’s sports, but they still do:
“Last season Texas generated an unprecedented $121 million in revenue; the Longhorns remain the only college football team to ever break the $100 million revenue mark, which they’ve done for four straight years. Even more staggering: The team booked $92 million in profit. Alabama, arguably the most popular team in the nation, only managed revenue of $97 million.”
http://www.forbes.com/sites/chrissmith/2015/12/22/college-footballs-most-valuable-teams-2015-texas-notre-dame-and-tennessee/#9042ff513001
Tia wrote:
> I believe that you know the answer to your hypothetical questions,
> since I have addressed this issue many times on threads in which
> you have participated.
I wonder why Tia does not want to come out and say if she supports either ending the current system where we have having less competitive “separate but equal” sports leagues for women and supports starting a new system of easier “separate but equal” math and science classes for women.
SOD
“I wonder why Tia does not want to come out and say if she supports…..”
Simple. I see the way that you are framing this question as a false equivalency. I do not agree with the basic premise that this is a “separate but equal” issue. It should be. But as Don pointed out, that is not how it evolved. There are other ways in which equality and a merit based system ( which is my only goal ) could have been devised. One example already exists in sports in this country. In boxing and wrestling, division is done on the basis of weight thus preventing a massively larger opponent from winning on the basis of size alone. Other sports could choose a similar objective measure to decide who can compete against whom. However, I would hold that there is no objective reason other than money for designating more money for men’s sports than there is for women’s and this, not individual or team excellence, is the basis for the previous inequality in funding of men’s and women’s sports.
Tia writes another 150+ words without answering the (simple) questions.
I’ll try and make it easier:
Do you support ending the current system where we have having less competitive sports leagues for women (Yes or No).
Do you support starting a new system of easier math and science classes for women (Yes or No).
Tia may not be aware of this but just about every boxing, wrestling, martial arts group and MMA have less competitive groups for women (with some VERY rare exceptions). Sugar Ray Leonard was under 147 pounds (lighter than the average American woman) when he fought as a welterweight and he never had to fight women…
hpierce
“Another thought… instead of the head-line, should we not celebrate men supporting men, women supporting women, men supporting women, women supporting men? People supporting people?”
Sure. And if you read carefully, I explained exactly why I was writing about “women” specifically in my piece. The Enterprise article that prompted the piece was about one particular women ‘s track and field event and Yiannnopoulos speaks in derogatory terms about women specifically ( proof offered in the article). Thus the emphasis on women.
And if you read the article carefully, there is a line about opportunity “for all” which would include men. If you have read my previous comments on this belief, as I know you have since you have commented on them, you will know that I have been a staunch defender of equal opportunity for men in what have become female dominant jobs, namely Ob/Gyn and male nurses.
So yes, I believe in equal opportunity for both genders. But then it is not me inviting an openly misogynist writer for Briebart to campus to speak. As I pointed out to ( BP ?) , if a female detractor of men with a resume like that of Milo Yiannopoulos is invited by Democrats, or any other group for that matter, when made aware, I will be happy to speak out on that issue too.
Frankly
I think that I clearly hit a very hypersensitive nerve. Much like those you so detest in liberals. I write a piece regarding the issue of equal opportunity in athletics and its local manifestation tying it in to a local and very timely and topical speech that is going to occur on UCD given that women in STEM was a major focus of our local Chancellor. And you post attempting to make a connection to the details of the national election, which by the way, your candidate won.
Apparently the phrase “magnanimous in victory, gracious in defeat” does not resonate with you. Hardly surprising since our leadership-elect adopts the same attitude that you are displaying.
“But where you and yours have gone astray is to force others to have to adopt your definitions.”
You are completely ignoring the fact that for virtually all of human history, and in most of the world today women have been “forced” into subordinate positions in society regardless of their intelligence, skills, talents, interests and preferences. We did not choose to be held in subordinate positions, we were forced there by a male dominant point of view that had some utility when purely physical strength was needed for food acquisition and hand to hand defense but which now has no relevance whatsoever.
I do not believe that women should be in a position of superiority to compensate. What I believe is that the most qualified individual should advance, whether that is in a class, as a job applicant, in promotions….regardless of gender. I have stated this frequently, given the example of screened orchestra auditions so that gender and race are unknown to the persons responsible for hiring and have personally advocated strongly for it in my own department. You know all this from interactions on previous posts, and yet you persist in portraying me as some “male hating” ( Robert is actually quite surprised to find himself portrayed as a “girly-man”) woman trying to force something on …..well …..anyone.
Apparantly neither does that resonate with you.
I don’t believe I have characterized you specifically as a man-hater; although your writing on the topic of gender equality certainly gives some indication that you have some bias against men in general.
I don’t know Robert so I don’t know if he is a girly-man or manly-man. And I would not think less or more of him if he were either… only less or more of him based on his character as a human being.
My experience in this is pretty comprehensive as I have a career working as a manager and executive in large corporations and have a pretty big community of business and personal relationships where I see this played out. My liberal female acquaintances tend to be single and or in a compromise relationship where they confide (usually after consuming a drink or two) that they are not satisfied and are actually unhappy that the males they are really attracted to are not compatible. Many of them are divorced after their careers took off and conflicts developed with their original spouse.
I was thinking about this and our new President Elect. Obviously he is accomplished and his wife is attractive, feminine, elegant and smart… and significantly younger (46 compared to his 70). She is also conservative.
Now reverse this and say Melania is 70 and accomplished. What type of man would she attract as a partner? What if she was attracted to a manly man type? I suppose if she had enough money she could attract someone that she could take care of financially… but then would she actually respect that man? I doubt it.
I see women in this situation that have grown pissed at men in general because they won’t conform to the dominant woman model.
The way I see this is that conservative women are more likely to adopt more traditional gender roles being a wife and mother. And then they tend to have fulfilling lives. Liberal women tend to be less accepting of traditional gender roles and basically pursue what is more a traditional male role; but then grow pissed that there are no compatible men that they are attracted to or that are attracted to them.
I’m not saying one is more right than the other, but there is definitely a tendency in my experience for conservative women to be happier and more satisfied with their personal life with respect to their relationship with a man or men in general.
Of course there are exceptions to everything, but on the averages I think my assessment of this is accurate.
Frankly
“Obviously he is accomplished and his wife is attractive…..”
Beauty, as well as most of the other traits that you enumerated are clearly in the eye of the beholder. I have found the current first lady to be much more attractive than Melania Trump, but I recognize that this is purely a matter of personal taste. As for your flipping the genders analogy, I have several thoughts about that.
1) From his own taped words and actions, I sincerely doubt that the president-elect respects his wife, or any other woman for that matter.
2) I also doubt that Melania is a true “conservative”. My evidence. She stated that she did not have any help in raising her son Baron. This was unmistakably contradicted by her husband’s statement that they had a live in nanny for Baron. Now I have nothing at all against nannies. I hired a number of nannies over time. I do have a problem with lying in order to portray one’s self so as to look as though you are behaving in one way, when you are in fact doing something completely different.
3) ‘I’m not saying one is more right than the other, but there is definitely a tendency in my experience”
The good thing about this comment is that you are honest about the fact that this is your experience. Mine has been quite different. I was strongly interested in having a career in medicine and in having a family. This would have worked out very well had my purportedly very “conservative” husband not decided that his goals were to have a career in medicine, a family, and a string of mistresses. So much for the virtue of the self designated “conservative” in our family who saw the problem with this behavior in Bill Clinton, but sees no problem with it in the life of the president-elect who he supported nor in his own life.
I only point this out to demonstrate how being a “conservative” does not make one more virtuous, more honest, or necessarily to have stronger family values although you have repeatedly stated that you believe this to be true.
BP
What have I said that was not “gracious”? I have not made any personal attacks or derogatory comments about anyone who posts here. I had not turned this into a national issue.
If you consider calling out Milo Yiannopoulos for the sexist that he is, as clearly demonstrated in his own words which I posted for proof, then I guess I am guilty as charged. If you consider a satirical piece less than “gracious” then I also stand guilty as charged. But then I would counter that I think that you are showing a degree of hypersensitivity that you have derided repeatedly in others.
So in the interests of “graciousness”, I am truly sorry if I have hurt anyone’s feelings to the degree where they feel the need to retort with snark, defense of our administration – elect, retributive attack on me or any other person, group or entity. ( Part satire, part truth).
Tia, in my opinion you’ve been everything but “gracious in defeat” when it comes to the recent national election.
BP
I don’t have a problem with your subjective feeling, but I would like to see the quotes of my comments that lead you to this interpretation.
Tia wrote:
> You are completely ignoring the fact that for virtually all of human history,
> and in most of the world today women have been “forced” into subordinate
> positions in society regardless of their intelligence, skills, talents, interests
> and preferences.
Anyone that reads a lot of history can tell you that “for virtually all of human history” EVERYONE was ““forced” into subordinate positions in society (the Kings and Emperors did not allow the “male” serfs to stop buy the palace just because they were men). I don’t know about Tia but if I was living in medieval Europe I would rather stay home with the kids than be forced by the King to run in to a field at 1,000 guys (forced by their king) to run at me with swords and spears…
> What I believe is that the most qualified individual should advance,
> whether that is in a class, as a job applicant, in promotions….regardless of gender.
So would you be in favor of one tennis, swimming and track team at UCD where the “most qualified individual should advance” and make the team?
P.S. As recently at the early 1970’s men (not women) in America were “”forced” into subordinate positions” where they had to say “yes sir I’ll run in to the rice paddies and get shot at by VC troops”…
SOD
“for virtually all of human history” EVERYONE was ““forced” into subordinate positions in society (the Kings and Emperors did not allow the “male” serfs to stop buy the palace just because they were men).”
I agree that humans tend to arrange themselves in hierarchical structures that often are not merit based. This does not alter that fact that in all except a very few matriarchal /matrilineal societies, women are always the lowest of the low, and are always lower than the males within their own social strata. In almost all social groupings, within the family, regardless of who is better equipped to fulfill the role the man, when present, is almost always considered to be the “head of the household” for no better reason than that men have declared it to be so.
I do not and have never disputed that men have a definite tendency to be larger,more heavily muscled and physically stronger than women as a group. This gives them advantages in some ( but not all ) physical endeavors . It is this, in my opinion, not the false equivalency of “separate but equal” that has led to the need for separate competitions in the physical realm.
And as for who was and was not allowed to fight in Viet Nam, for better or worse, that was also decided by men.