All I'm saying is that differences in plumbing and differences in paintwork are two separate issues.
wfrazerjr: Maybe I was wrong about the "ideal world" part. I still don't think so, because you directly used the phrase and implied that having a 12-year-old be the one to step up and make the change was part of it. If so, my apologies. To clarify, I used the phrase in reply to your comment: I also don't think a 12-year-old kid should be the one enlisted to break down societal norms. ...and said that I didn't think so either, in an ideal world. The implication is certainly not that I believe we live in an ideal world, or that I expect an ideal world -- quite the opposite. The point is that, as we do not live in an ideal world, sometimes it does fall upon 12-year-old kids to break down societal norms -- because we adults aren't stepping up and dispensing with such "norms" when they create unnecessary restrictions. It's quite likely that always, or anyway in the forseeable future, only a minority of girls would be able to compete against boys in wrestling. The "norm", therefore, is that girls don't -- but there are a few who can and want to, and when such a situation exists, we need perhaps to be reminded that "norm" doesn't really mean "unquestionable universal rule". BTW, this hasn't been addressed in this thread IIRC, but I very much doubt that the girls' objective is to wrestle with boys. I suspect that they just want to wrestle, period, and not having a league of their own, this is the only way that they can do so. Also, mea culpa on the individual choice vs. forced by the district, although you saying you'd try to talk to a 12-year-old away from his or her parents/coaches is a bit ... odd. That doesn't make it sound like you'd think their choice was valid, does it? It means that I don't want to put the kid on the spot, and that I'd like to know the truth. Asking in front of the coach or parents would put the kid on the spot. The choice may indeed be one that the kid would have made himself, but possibly for different reasons, or possibly for the same reasons -- but I've interviewed a lot of teenage athletes about a lot of subjects, and even for ones much less volatile than this, I'll try to do it away from the parents, whose presence seems to make the kids a lot more self-conscious. I'm a woman, wfrazerjr, and I suspect you are not. If I am correct, then please, don't condescend to me by "enlightening" me about the world's imperfections. As a woman, I've had it amply demonstrated to me in my life just how un-ideal the world is, sometimes in ways that a man will never experience -- and not a few of those were in the world of sports. I understand about the world's un-idealness, but I reject the notion that anyone -- and most particularly those of a, shall we say, more-advantaged gender -- has the right to tell me that I should curtail my beliefs and efforts about rectifying inequities. You know, I'm pretty sure my mother, grandmother, wife and my female friends have told me they occasionally have had to face some sexism. They just don't lean on it like Tiny Tim's crutch, and they don't believe I have to have a vagina to understand and sympathize with it. You told me that we don't live in an ideal world. I told you, thanks, I got that clue a long time ago; life as a woman will do that to you. And now you're accusing me of "lean[ing] on it like Tiny Tim's crutch"? God bless us every one! The point was a simple one: you don't have to tell women that we don't live in an ideal world, we already know. That's a statement of fact, and there's no crutch-leaning in it. ...but when someone suggests that wanting things to change for the better = wanting an "ideal world", that misstatement calls for correction. Again, your version of "better", perhaps not mine or everyone else's. Hence, your "ideal" and perhaps not everyone else's. I'd take your horse in to get the legs shortened before the both of you start getting nosebleeds. I think I'd rather deal with the occasional nosebleed than engage in a fight for the basement. As for "my version of 'better'", just whose version of "better" am I suppose to champion, if not my own? You're in a real hunt here to find fault with something. First you accuse me of expecting an ideal world, and when I say no, I just want a better world, you say, "Your version of 'better'!" like that's some kind of original crime against humanity. I'm just doing what everyone else does -- everyone who's not to lazy to be engaged in issues that they care about, that is. Some people see boys wrestling with girls as a sign of the coming apocalypse. I look instead at the reasons why it's happening, and see it as an example of expanding opportunities, which -- as always -- is something of a rocky road. Some people are fixated on the bumps and can't see the road signs, that's all.
It's not the same thing - never has been, never will be - there are similarities at times, granted, but to swipe a big broad brush over both topics [discrimination by skin colour vs discrimination by gender] is being too simplistic about it. In this example, it's not the same. discrimination n. 1. The act of discriminating. 2. The ability or power to see or make fine distinctions; discernment. 3. Treatment or consideration based on class or category rather than individual merit; partiality or prejudice It's discrimination. You can dance around the gender != race concept all you want, but in the end, it's still just discrimination. It would be discrimination if the school said it wouldn't allow their athletes to compete against female athletes. It would be discrimination if the school said it wouldn't allow their athletes to compete against black athletes. It would be discrimination if the school said it wouldn't allow their athletes to compete against Protestant athletes. It would be discrimination if the school said it wouldn't allow their athletes to compete against Republican athletes. Are you trying to tell me that certain forms of discrimination are acceptable? Is this the kind of message you want to be telling kids during their (intellectually) formative years?
Please don't tell me you don't see the parallel. Of course I see the parallel. Please don't tell me you think they're the same thing.
Please don't tell me you think they're the same thing. Well, considering the post I made immediately before your last one, I guess I do think they are the same thing: discrimination. You keep saying "It's different!", but you don't really tell me why it's different. What is the compelling argument why discrimination based on gender is different than discrimination based on race?
I didn't know this thread was still going. I've sort of lost track of the issue here. I think everyone agrees that making a school policy of forfeiting to female wrestler is fucked. Right? Almost all of us agree on that. A male wrestler making a choice to forfeit against a female and whether or not that's discrimination is the issue now, right? If I'm wrong, I apologize, and you can ignore the rest of this. Forfeiting to a girl might be discrimination, but I don't think it's the same kind of discrimination as forfeiting against a black person. I'm having trouble formulating exactly WHY it isn't the same, though. Even though the league is nominally co-ed, it's not a real co-ed sport. It's a Title IX co-ed sport, simply because there aren't enough female wrestlers to make up their own leagues. You can expect to wrestle black kids, but how many female wrestlers are there? Not a lot. Maybe 2% of the wrestling population is female, tops. I think boys just don't expect to have to wrestle girls, and if they're faced with female opposition, they don't know what to think about it. To be honest, most of the time it's the coaches and parents that make the decision for the kids, anyway. Societal norms tell us that girls are not to be beat up. You don't hit girls. Don't be mean to girls. We all heard that growing up. Wrestling is a mean, mean sport. Then there's the whole sexual weirdness that's going on with adolescents. I wrestled girls in junior high, but I have no issues with anyone who wants to forfeit this kind of match. In a perfect world, males and females would have no problem wrestling each other. One of the biggest problems is that girls don't win co-ed wrestling matches. I've never seen it happen, anyway. I'm sure there are exceptions out there, but for the most part, girls aren't as physically well-suited to the sport as boys are - and as a result, they're going to get beat up by boys on the mat. Maybe someday these gender boundaries will be broken down, and we'll view all genders equally. I doubt it, though. Until we have co-ed bathrooms (like JJ says above), I don't see any of this changing. Anyone who doesn't want to wrestle a black person is a bigot and an asshole, according to how most of us view race today. But anyone who doens't want to wrestle a girl might have other issues, because we aren't taught to view both genders as physically equal, and in fact, they aren't. Here's the deal: If you can piss next to them, you can wrestle them. (And yes, I wrestled girls when I was in middle school, and I also went to Connecticut College, a school with co-ed bathrooms. It doens't prove anything, I know, but I'm just saying is all)
Forfeiting to a girl might be discrimination, but I don't think it's the same kind of discrimination as forfeiting against a black person. I'm having trouble formulating exactly WHY it isn't the same, though. To confuse the issue further, a lot of historical discrimination against nonwhite people was based on the idea that their differences were deeper than just skin color -- for example, the notion that black people are "made differently" and therefore can't swim. That's kind of an aside, though.
Tell you what, LBB, we'll wrestle to see who's right. I'd add a smiley to indicate that I'm kidding here, but I don't hold with that sort of thing. I kind of understand your point, though. It does confuse the issue. Still, there are differences in the physical makeup of different races, when taken as a whole. Back in the British Colonial days, Physical Anthopology (which is pretty much a dead study now) was based on the idea that white people were superior to the "negroes from darkest Africa." Scholars went out of their way to point out how different "primitive negroes" were in comparison to the cultured Europeans. A lot of this bigoted bullshit was discredited, and with good cause. But now we find that there are indeed physical differences in people that come from various areas of the world. Google for the difference in fast-twitch and slow-twitch muscle fibers in Caucasians and Blacks. Look at the average difference in height between Asians and Africans. And check out the strength-to-weight ratio for males to females. These are all generalizations, but there's some truth to them. People of different races and genders are made differently. Whether it be our height, our strength, our epicanthal folds, our breasts or lack thereof, these differences are a matter of fact. I realize that in this world, we don't have any "pure races" (thankfully), but the fact remains that people from different backgrounds have different phenotypes.
Curiously, I'm not able to use the "paste" function on my computer. Odd. grum, all I meant to say was that: Woman does not equal black. Black does not equal female. I guess I do keep saying "they're different!" (second time, now), and that's the only point I have to make. When a school orders its (male) students to forfeit matches against women, that's not right. Something should be done. What that is, I don't know. Sorry I have nothing that's more insightful than that, but I just got back from my Jiu-Jitsu class, and I'm exhausted from being choked by a woman's strong, shapely legs.
When a school orders its (male) students to forfeit matches against women, that's not right. Oh. So...um...we agree about that. *scratches head* Right then. Huh. *wanders off to look for another windmill*
Forfeiting to a girl might be discrimination, but I don't think it's the same kind of discrimination as forfeiting against a black person. I'm having trouble formulating exactly WHY it isn't the same, though both are definitely discrimination, but im having trouble discriminating a difference as well. gender/sexual bias vs. racial bias - similarities : both are socialized, learned behaviors. both are based on inaccurate perceptions and slivers of fact. differences: racial biases address segmented portions of the global populace. sexual/gender biases encompass half of humankind. please add to the list.... and does anyone else feel there is a need to define terms in these types of discussions? maybe its just an undergrad tendency, but it would help reduce the cross-talking. maybe its something I can add to the discussion, apart from inadvertently fabricating circumstances.
Forfeiting to a girl might be discrimination, but I don't think it's the same kind of discrimination as forfeiting against a black person. I'm having trouble formulating exactly WHY it isn't the same, though It's not the same. Girls wear t-shirts that have the slogan "Boys Are Stupid" on the front and people barely raise an eyebrow. Can you imagine if that T-shirt had a "[Insert Race Here] Are Stupid" slogan? Even better, can you imagine the uproar if there was a "Girls are Stupid" t-shirt?
Girls wrestling Boys. It's ok if the boys wants to. If he feels uncomfortable for any reason, it falls under sexual harassment. This is the rule that women use to measure men. The boy should not be forced to lose the match. Certain girls may like to wrestle boys but that is not the boy's problem. Boys may feel uncomfortable about touching a girl in a combative manner. Girls are free to start their own teams.
