Earlier this evening, we played a game of football at our church, as a SNAC (sunday night after church). Dan, our youth minister, was the (only) referree. The game started out semi-normally, no tackling, no handoffs, etc. just the basic “gym rules” for nerf football. Then Dan started changing/adding on rules. for every play, 2 guys had to stay out for the play. Girls could “tackle” us using only one hand-touch, we had to use two. Several other biased rules followed, with the girls winning, 18-12, only because Dan declared “next score wins”.
This is not the only transgression with sexual equality affirmative action. Women in war, for one, get somewhat different treatment, ie longer hair, not immediate front-line action, etc.
What are your views on this topic?
I believe that scince they opted for equality, no more pulled out chairs, opened doors, helping w/ packages, etc. but that is just me.
I don’t really understand exactly what the debate is, but I’ll give my opinion on the army situation:
Treat women just like you would treat men. Do not focus on them being women, but rather consider every person as an individual. If a person can perform a certain task (regardless of whether it is a man or woman), that person should get the job. Frankly, I don’t see what the big deal is.
Sexual equality doesn’t necessarily mean that everyone gets (or should get) exactly the same treatment. There are a number of distinct differences between men and women; to treat men as women and women as men is pointless.
What I suppose I’m trying to say is that something like installing tampon dispensers in the men’s toilets and urinals in the ladies, in the name of absolute equality, is pointless.
Well, IIRC a couple of companies are in fact developing urinals for women, so pointless is not necessarily correct. Equally, one can imagine a situation where a man needs to buy some tampons.
In either case that has nothing at all to do with sexual equality, it’s a commercial decision about providing services and infrastructure where it’ll do the most good, and where they’re wanted.
Equality doesn’t mean you have to treat everyone identically just for the sake of it.
Which is not to say that the OP shouldn’t feel hard done by, but really, get over it man.
**Well, possibly - perhaps those off-the-cuff examples were poor ones, but the fact is that men and women are, generally speaking, physiologically and (gulp)psychologically different, not in every way and not every difference is significant, but the differences are there and catering for them is not unfair.
FYI, women are not equal to men, at least not in the United States. The ERA failed to pass so far, too many people against giving equality to women.
I think eventually women will get equal rights, but that is not the case today. I think there is a problem if you try to take away the old time courtesies and privileges which were given to women in the past in exchange for being lesser than equal, while at the same time continuing to deny women equality.
The old perks of alimony, spousal support payments, custody of the children, possession of the house, exemption from the draft and forced combat, ladies nite prices, affirmative action, wearing shorts in the office on hot days, lower car insurance, holding open doors, not paying the costs for dates, etc. cannot be taken away until legal constitutional equality for women is finally achieved.
If you want men and women to share equally in opportunities and responsibilies, then give women equality under the Constitution.
I think having men vs women game is often a bad idea, as people can get a bit heated about it. But assuming you do have two unequal teams playing a game for fun or excercise, it certainly can make sense to fiddle the rules to try to make it fun and winnable for both teams. Or if some players on both teams are different you could have rules that take this into account (eg. mixed wheelchair/upright basketball, don’t run over people’s feet or something)
If you had played with symmetrical rules do you think the teams would have been evenly balanced? If so, it’s stupid. If not, then yes, I can see it might have been unwise, and both sides would find it unfair, but having unequal teams would have been too.
Personally, I think it’s hypocritical for a minister to be referreeing a game of football on Sunday (what ever happened to keeping the Sabbath day holy?) But hey, that’s just me.
What companies, exactly? I hope someone lets them know that women’s urinals were brought to the US in the 1930s and just never really trook off. Understandably, especially asmore and more women began wearing pants.
The master speaks
Tampons were created FOR WOMEN. Come on, folks. However, I’m sure if men demanded them, bathrooms would actually be required to have dispensers and actually keep them stocked (neither of which is the case right now, not even in high schools or restaurants), and perhaps they would stop being taxed as "luxury items,"maybe even require some sort of safety standards, all that boring stuff.
But why on earth would you not open the door for a woman? Or a man? If the person is right behind you or carrying packages, it’s plain human decency.
A pre-op female-to-male transsexual might need one.
It used to be assumed that a man would never need a changing table - until they heard from guys who were taking care of kids.
But if we’re discussing gender equality, we have to distinguish between equality **under the law ** and **civil **equality, which has to remain an individual choice. I hardly think the U.S. Constitution should be concerned with who pays the check, or who opens a door for whom.
The ERA was about equal rights for both men and women and would have benefited both. For example, there could have been no discrimination in custody disputes just because women have traditionally been considered the more nurturing parent. As mnay of you know, that isn’t necessarily so.
But you are right. Many people were mislead about what non-discrimination would mean.
It is usually women who have been pushing for equal rights with men in the military and men, generally, who have been denying them the right to front line action. (I don’t know what the laws are currently.)
I don’t want to be misunderstood. I don’t want any standards lowered because of women. I just want women to be allowed the opportunity to meet the standards that are in place.
MSUBulldog, I think that Dan was wrong to lower the standards because of the women. But notice that it was a guy who did that – not a woman.
I don’t get all tangled up over perks. Whoever gets there first is the one who holds the door. I don’t make an issue out of it one way or the other. I would gladly sacrifice having my chair held or packages carried in order to earn a full dollar as he does instead of the seventy cents that women get for the same work.
Affirmative action has been extremely helpful to women. When I was a senior in high school, I took the Air Force entrance exam and scored the highest in the county. But I didn’t get appointed to the Air Force Academy. That honor went to two other incredible guys who well deserved it. Women couldn’t go to service academies. Or Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Dartmouth, Columbia, and I assume Cornell and Brown too.
Now women make up 50% of law and medical school classes. That seems so unreal to me – and wonderful!
BTW, speaking of affirmative action: 70-75% of the most qualified applicants to Harvard are female. Only 50% of those admitted are female. I don’t mind the affirmative action in support of the men if it helps them to keep up with us – and for the sake of diversity. (Source: Sixty Minutes)
