I semi recall the case, however wanted to look at specifics to see what actually happened - as we recall, memories of articles read some time ago can be very faulty. We’ll chaulk this up to “no cite found”.
and quite different again from the proof of your repeated assertions, which you have yet again failed to submit.
You have deeply held beliefs, it is true. However, from this experience and others with you, it seems these deeply held beliefs seemed to be based on stuff that you ‘recall’ but can’t find to examine today.
When I was a little girl, I seemed to recall that the drive to Grandma and Grandpas house was really, really long. And the coat hooks at my elementary school were way up high. Ya know what? when I examine the actual facts today, my assesment is different.
Since once again, you cannot seem to locate the source of the basis for your opinions, we cannot continue a reasonable debate. You make your opinion known, you’ve based it on (a book you’ve read, something you remember reading in the paper, whatever), but cannot find substantiation for the structure. You’re entitled to your opinions. However, if you wish to continue to debate them, you’ll have to come up with evidence vs. anecdotes.
Wring – I am tempted to go get a copy of “Kinder, Gentler Military,” which doubtless has detailed answers to many of your questions. Or, either of us could at least read the reviews on Amazon.com, which are conveniently here on the web. Unfortunately I’m pretty busy at the moment, so Ciao for now. I look forward to our next cosmic debate of Good vs. Evil.
The only structures this feminist wants revised are those that put men and women on different footing (or those which put gays on different footing than straights).
Please stop tarring all feminists with the same brush.
According to this quote from Time, the next four women at the Citidel didn’t have to shave their heads, either.
I consider haircuts unimportant, but the issue illustrates two common themes:
The women demanded and received preferential treatment, by law.
The final decision was not simply made by The Citidel in the best inerest of their students. “Lawyers for both sides were still wrangling,” meaning feminists got some say and a judge probably had the final decision. This sort of battling is destructive of an organization’s effectiveness.
According to your link, the Citadel was attempting to demand even stronger ‘preferential treatment’ by housing her in the infirmary.
So, after all this wrangling, you found five female cadets who had to cut her hair short, but not shave it, I found 20 who shaved their heads. And, it seems we both agree that the requirement to shave the head in the first place has nothing to do with the training anyhow. I would contend that the Citadel female should have shaved her head or better yet, all the cadets have really short haircuts (the whole shave the head thing seems more of a ‘team building’/ we had to do it so you should to/initiation hazing type of thing to me vs. a rational policy).
Your characterization of “both sides still wrangling” means “feminists got some say and a judge has the final decision” is offensive and apparently inaccurate as well, since ‘both sides’ means ‘both sides’. Judges always will have the final say. The battling may be detrimental, however, the battle was waged on both ends. when you’re in the wrong (as the Citadel apparently was in this case) battling to prevent the inevitable is not the other sides fault, wouldn’t you say?
AND least you think your prior distraction worked, I’m still looking for your evidence re: women firefighters =more deaths in fires, women in military =deaths/loosing the war. or perhaps after all this time, you’d be willing to agree that you pulled those statements out of thin air without data to support it?
*Originally posted by wring * Your characterization of “both sides still wrangling” means “feminists got some say and a judge has the final decision” is offensive and apparently inaccurate as well, since ‘both sides’ means ‘both sides’. Judges always will have the final say. The battling may be detrimental, however, the battle was waged on both ends. when you’re in the wrong (as the Citadel apparently was in this case) battling to prevent the inevitable is not the other sides fault, wouldn’t you say?
Wring – you make some good points. However, I want to follow up on your comment, “Judges always will have the final say.” Of course they will, once the courts take over. But, when the NY Philharmonic started accepting women, no judge was involed in deciding who should sit 1st chair or whether music by female composers had to be played, or any other aspect, which was fortunate.
You correctly say the battle was waged on “both ends.” But, the two ends weren’t quite symmetric. Faulkner’s end was working for her own good, and perhaps for the good of other women. The Citidel’s end was working for the good of all present and future students at The Citidel. The judge was working for proper legal interpretation, assuming she had no axe to grind. The judge and Faulkner did not have as their primary goal that The Citidel remain the best possible military academy. That’s why I’m unhappy about their involvement, even though it was legally appropriate.
Thinking about my cello teacher reminds me of how a judge destroyed her city, Yonkers, NY. This judge didn’t live in Yonkers, but in a more upscale town. He virtually took over the city government of Yonkers, because of a case involving past racial discrimination. I don’t know what the legal merits were. I do know that after 20 years under his control, a nice, middle-class suburb had been turned into an ugly slum.
I’m still looking for your evidence re: women firefighters =more deaths in fires, women in military =deaths/loosing the war
I admitted that I don’t have direct evidence on the fire fighters, just logic. On the military, you can read Stephanie Gutmann’s book, The Kinder, Gentler Military, yourself, if you feel like it.
** and when the Citadel refused to admit women because ‘we’ve never done it before’, what was Ms. Faulkner’s alternative, other than court? You decry the admission of female cadets, claiming, once again that doing so has did not ‘have the Citadel’s remaining the best possible military academy’. But apparently the only changes they made were to allow a couple of cadets to not completely shave their heads the first year, and to install female dorms. How did this diminish the school? and if the answer is ‘all the legal wrangling’ etc - it was their decision that ‘no one can tell us what to do, even tho we receive federal funding’ that got them there. So hopefully, you’ll forgive me if I’m less than sympathetic to their plight.
and once again, you go off on a tangental, unresponsive, anectdotal ‘this is what I saw once’ but have no link for story. While I cannot speak for everyone else, I certainly am more than tired of them. They prove nothing. Especially since we’ve already demonstrated your less than stellar memory for events, less than stellar analysis of stories you’ve read. Ok?
**
In other words, you don’t have evidence but feel we should act as though you do. Won’t cut it with me or anyone else here, as far as I can tell. The book you’ve cited (once again), apparently is not a scientific study, but yet another reporting of anectodotes. Not persuasive. You may as well refer to the episode of Law & Order with the Naval aviator murdering her married boyfriend. And your skills in logical analysis have been less than persuasive as well. I suggest that you refrain from making unsubstantiated comments. It does you no good, nor your argument.