A nation without strong men ...

1. 78

   Kathryn L Hillposted 6 years ago

   is doomed.
   
   Why? Because everyone will necessarily become dependent on the government for ... everything!
   
   Consider that becoming a strong and capable Man is becoming more and more difficult in today's politically correct world.
   
   For instance, in California public schools, boys are required to take PE with the girls. Girls take PE with the boys to allow them to develop the same superior athletic skills that boys have, (had.) Little did anyone know that it would not work to the benefit of the boys ...
   at all.
        In the regular PE classes, boys must stifle their energies and their intelligence while playing athletic games with the girls. Their competitive urge is surrendered, striving for excellence abandoned, total involvement and engagement in the sport being played, whether soccer, basketball, baseball, dodgeball fizzles. Instead, the boys' natural instinct comes to fore: The obligation to be polite and courteous in the presence of the girls.
        Furthermore, in Jr. high and High school, girls and boys are very conscious of the opposite sex, therefore they are mostly overwhelmed with self-consciousness. The girls feel the need to be pretty even in their gym clothes. The boys are attracted to them and therefore mostly strive and devise ways keep away from them. Plus they feel stuck with them.
        The superior abilities such as learning the rules, understanding the challenges of the games being played, along with learning the language and behavior of their teachers and appropriately communicating with their team mates is downplayed and impossible for PE teachers, (whether male or female.) to impart.
   (Luckily, students, (the already talented ones,) have the opportunity to sign up for the sport of their choice, which is not coed.)
   
   "Title IX, the famous 'women’s equality' measure passed in 1972 as a federal education amendment. Conventional wisdom is that Title IX enhanced women’s fitness by prohibiting sex discrimination in any sports program receiving federal funding. This presumably applied to virtually all public schools and most private schools that accepted federal scholarships or grants."
   https://fee.org/articles/title-ix-and-t … sequences/
   
   … and when one considers modern society, one can identify many ways in which the development of strength and intelligence is not only down-played, but shut down in boys.
   
   Q. What is causing this phenomenon?
    
   The nature of our "civilized" society?
   Increasing indolence brought about by technology?
   Government welfare programs which reward single mothers and encourage fatherless children?
   
   Wondering

   replyreport
   1. 80

      Credence2posted 6 years agoin reply to this

      Being strong and capable also means  wisdom, having discretion and being prudent, especially in today's tinder box world.
      
      For there to be true equality and not just lip service, DOD for example, had to allow women in the trenches during war, operating in submarines or as fighter pilots. If we are serious about giving women the opportunity to attain to ranks of General Officer or Admiral, they are going to have to carry their side of the log, otherwise to qualify just as men would.
      
      Its got nothing to do with welfare, PC or anything else, KH, this is about modernity. Things are going to change away from "Donna Reed" because they have to.
      
      I am not an expert on Title 9 but after a brief perusal, it did not mandate coed sports in all cases.
      
      I don't think that it is appropriate to have coed teams, especially in contact sports, but that is just me. While men are usually stronger there may well be an Amazon or two that can compete in certain traditionally men sports, they should be given the opportunity to make the cut. Standards should not be lowered to accommodate them. They are evaluated on their ability. To meet the standard, not dismissed out hand due to their gender.

      replyreport
      1. 62

         dianetrotterposted 6 years agoin reply to this

         I believe misinterpretation of Title 9 is the issue.  School districts do it for convenience and financial reasons.
         
         I was totally ticked off to learn that you can't have separate girls and boys choral classes.  Any idiot knows that boys voices change dramatically more than girls and go through multiple stages.  As a vocal music teacher, I had to deal with a) boys' shame/fear of being laughed at, b) not enough time to engag in techniques specific to vocal development, c) mainstreaming kids with varying disabilities that couldn't focus on singing period, d) lack of appreciation for vocal music pedagogy as opposed to karaoke singng along with Drake, e) perception that vocal music teachers don't have a challenging job.
         
         This impact the inner city schools more than others because of school overcrowding and lack of parental support. 
         
         I'm done guys.  I just got upset when I say Title 9.  It should be clarified and appropriate exceptions made to guarantee the best opportunities for all students.

         replyreport
         1. 80

            Credence2posted 6 years agoin reply to this

            Diane, You have been part of the education system, I am sure that you can contribute a lot to this discussion. No need to run away.
            
            As a formal educator, is Kathryn's take on this issue the correct one?

            replyreport
            1. 78

               Kathryn L Hillposted 6 years agoin reply to this

               Yes. I have seen it with my own eyes. I work with the formal educators as a Sub. I take PE assignments all the time, some long-term.

               replyreport
            2. 78

               Kathryn L Hillposted 6 years agoin reply to this

               She might be busy rolling on the floor.

               replyreport
            3. 62

               dianetrotterposted 6 years agoin reply to this

               As long as it is not political, I can hang.  I get frustrated with stereotypes and name calling.

               replyreport
      2. 95

         wildernessposted 6 years agoin reply to this

         "While men are usually stronger there may well be an Amazon or two that can compete in certain traditionally men sports, they should be given the opportunity to make the cut. "
         
         While I agree in principle, is it right to force a boy in a contact sport to engage in pretty intimate contact with a girl?  I've read of high school boys that forfeit a wrestling match because they refuse to roll around on the floor grappling with (and being grappled by) a girl. 
         
         I think it's rather simplistic to say that girls are owed a chance while ignoring what it might do to the other sex.

         replyreport
         1. 80

            Credence2posted 6 years agoin reply to this

            I said that I had difficulty seeing this in the realm of contact sports because of niceties to be observed between two different genders. But I make that exception ONLY in this specific area of athletic competition.

            replyreport
            1. 88

               MizBejabbersposted 6 years agoin reply to this

               I agree with you when it comes to contact sports or that which requires brute strength. In cases such as these, separate but equal should fulfill the law. However, "separate but equal" became a dirty phrase many years ago. Equality should apply to opportunity and funding, not gender competition. There are different classes within the same sport, such as weight classes in wrestling. Why should there not be separate classes according to, and within genders, according to age, size, weight, etc.?

               replyreport
               1. 80

                  Credence2posted 6 years agoin reply to this

                  I would go beyond you in saying that I see no reason why there has to be gender separation in weight lifting. There may be a handful of woman who have incredible physical strength. Men are generally stronger, but generally is not absolute and there are always exceptions. Football, I get a little nervous about, because of tackle and the issue of muscle mass and such, competitive wrestling is out. For me, for the most part I draw the line at contact sport's only because of the problems associated with sexual groping and injury. Why can't a woman qualify to play for the New York Yankees, if she happens to be among the very few who can physically compete with men? Maybe being the "best" means having to compete with all comers.
                  
                  What concerns I have is only for sports where physical contact between opponents of opposite gender would be a required part of the sport.
                  
                  I guess I really don't have a problem with the coed system, it is just that many female atheletes are open to the challenge of seeing just how good they are in a universal sense.

                  replyreport
                  1. 83

                     GA Andersonposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                     Hey there Cred, You are beginning to sound a bit like me - in the respect that you appear to want to have your cake, and eat it too.
                     
                     Consider the gist of the points in your responses here; our society is, or should be, understanding that equality in all matters is only right. Females deserve the equity to compete with males. The old norms were discriminatory. And I agree.
                     
                     You mention instances of reality - the very real biological differences, like; stature, strength, and mass - as a general rule. (of course there will be exceptions, but they do not disprove the norm of biological reality). And again I agree.
                     
                     But ... you are not willing to carry your point through. Whose norms are the concerns of sexual contact, immature arousal or phobias? Surely not the younger generation that is demanding the equality you are supporting. On this I disagree.
                     
                     GA

                     replyreport
                     1. 80

                        Credence2posted 6 years agoin reply to this

                        Hi, back at you
                        
                        You're right, I have resisted going the full distance with my perspective, so I will now. I will take my chances, hurtle into and embrace a future which is pointing to sexual distinctions having less and less significance, implying a more uni-sex society than reverting to the whalebone corset culture which has been fought in the past  and overcame at a high cost. I can't give conservatives any daylight here. I have to remove the last of my quaint visions of relations between the sexes and embrace the new reality.
                        
                        So, now why can the girl get a chance to make the boys softball team?

                        replyreport
                        1. 83

                           GA Andersonposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                           Well Hell Cred, I was hoping you would stick to your guns. Even though I can't justify my exceptions, I do believe there are areas that should be sex-determined - like the Boy Scouts. It's just that my exceptions aren't for phobia reasons. I don't ever want to see a uni-sex society, (ugh), and I would have loved coed wrestling.
                           
                           GA

                           replyreport
                           1. 80

                              Credence2posted 6 years agoin reply to this

                              Yeah, but you put me in a position of all or nothing. I gotta put you there, too. If you want to make any concession to gender difference, then would you become a whalebone corset brontosaurus as a result? Since, there is no room  for moderation from either direction? The all or nothing position for either side probably would not be the best solution. But, if there has to be a choice made I clearly state the side that I would take, that I must take.

                              replyreport
                              1. 83

                                 GA Andersonposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                                 Cred, It looks like like I confused the point I was making. If you look back, with the intend of finding a different inference, I think you will see that is wasn't an all-or-nothing push I gave.  It was a push to show the contradiction in your reasoning.
                                 
                                 You could accept coed participation in some sports/activities, but not in others. You gave the examples of football and wrestling - leaving the impression that soccer and baseball were okay. That seems like a half-step to me. To carve out any exceptions under that premise seems to contradict the whole premise. Hence the "cake" reference.
                                 
                                 My exceptions, (ie. the Boy Scouts), however, aren't a carve-out, they are  philosophical exceptions that apply across the board to similar concepts.
                                 
                                 We both know the world is too gray for all-or-nothing positions.
                                 
                                 I am going to have to get back to your on your closing point. I haven't decided if your readiness to toss away one conviction - to feel legitimate in holding another, is as telling as it appears.
                                 
                                 GA

                                 replyreport
                                 1. 80

                                    Credence2posted 6 years agoin reply to this

                                    OK, I gave the impression that soccer and baseball were ok because of the lack of physical contact as part of participating in the sport. So, the only factor in her being able to make the cut is 'are you good enough to compete with the men on the team'.
                                    
                                    Your exception, Boy Scouts, for example would be subject to attack by women who say that these exclusive male clubs is where experience and information are exchanged giving men or boys the advantage in later life activities. Most of us guys were scouts at one time, would girls find value in many of the precepts and skills taught there? Many exclusively 'men's  clubs' have been forced to admit women for just that reason. I don't see your 'philosophical exceptions' as necessarily valid ones for the non-coed approach.
                                    
                                    I am old fashioned in many ways and struggle to get away from the concept of chivalry and female protection as concepts of an earlier age.

                                    replyreport
                                    1. 83

                                       GA Andersonposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                                       My perspective is that I hope you and I never "get away" from "...the concept of chivalry and female protection..." Cred. For me, it symbolizes a character value that I think is good and that I value as an indicator of my character. And yes, I also think the only criteria - relative to the "sports" part of the discussion, should be "are you good enough."
                                       
                                       I was a bit cowardly only mentioning the Boy Scouts, and not men's clubs also, but it was because I think the two can be rationalized as different. Plus, the Boy Scout example is easier to explain.
                                       
                                       Consider the life phase encompassed by most Boy Scouts. An age before networking, power connections, and such are a serious consideration. My perspective is that girls wanted the experiences that Boy Scouting provides, (more in-depth outdoors and community involvement stuff),  and Girl Scouting doesn't. I can see that. But my thought is why not use the effort made to change the Boy Scouts, to change the Girl Scouts instead? What does the Boy Scouts have that couldn't be duplicated by a changed Girl Scouts? I don't think this is a "separate but equal" argument, it's more like a "different but equal" realization.
                                       
                                       GA

                                       report
                                       1. 62

                                          dianetrotterposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                                          GA I agree with you.  We must remember that Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts often meet a need that kids are not experiencing in their home lives.  Adults can make choices.  Many kids are victims of their environment.
                                          
                                          Has anyone heard of the daughter-father dances?  Girls have the opportunity for their fathers to show them how they should be treated on a date.
                                          
                                          When girls are learning about menstrual cycles, they don't need boys around giggling.
                                          
                                          All of this impacts inner city kids more than others because there are fewer dads in the home.  If the parents don't have morals, they can't teach their kids morals.  They teach them what they know.  That's scary.
                                          
                                          All of this impacts how equipped kids are to learn when they come to school.  I have some war stories folks.  It's one thing to talk about it in general.  But when one is overwhelmed with anecdotal nightmares and tragedies, this shiz gets real.

                                          report
                     2. 55

                        The0NatureBoyposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                        And GA, you should have elaborated more on the "sexual contact, immature arousal or phobias." So long as the children are prepubescent there should not be any sexual arousal but as soon as they become boys and girls a sweating ovulating girl is sure to cause arousals in the boys. I know because it happened in my 8th or 9th grade because of a girl's rushing to school during her ovulation caused all of the boys to become aroused. That is why I would only agree with genderless sports only during childhood and prepubescence but any other type of classes could be.

                        replyreport
                        1. 83

                           GA Andersonposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                           That is a rationalization. It is also similar to Credence2's logic. I still disagree.
                           
                           It is not that I disagree with your example, or your point, it is that I disagree that one can insist on the "rightness" of the equality premise - and then rationalize carve-outs using the very physical essence of the argument.
                           
                           GA

                           replyreport
               2. 95

                  wildernessposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                  Funding - would equal funding per participant be satisfactory?  It would mean no inter-school girls football team, but they could still play football in their own stadium (if there were enough participants to hire a coach).
                  
                  Or must each sport have equal funding for males and female "teams" regardless of participation?  If there are only 6 females wanting to play college baseball must the college spend as much for those 6 as for the 50 male athletes?  If only 6 males wish to play softball, must the college fund them at the same total cost as 50 women?

                  replyreport
         2. 78

            Kathryn L Hillposted 6 years agoin reply to this

            +1

            replyreport
   2. 55

      The0NatureBoyposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      I agree that all shops should be open to both genders until graduation but for physical education it should only last through "adolescents" and not until becoming boys and girls at puberty. My reason is because just as I was entering puberty a girl who had been rushing to prevent being tardy walked into the classroom and immediately almost every boy in the room became erected and, not knowing why, began to disrupt class until the girl teacher sent her to the physical Education department to shower.
      
      With man, as in all animated life types, the genders are not a concern except once they become adults at puberty as Genesis 2:24) reveals. Following co-ed participation in the different shops until graduation and in physical education until puberty allows both genders to develop their feminine and their masculine attributes and eliminate "internal nature attractions" man call "falling in love". However, during physical education after a girl has entered puberty for her 3 days of ovulation sweating cause the above obvious distractions for the boys. As for the other shops for both and girl both genders would be required to participate in them.

      replyreport
   3. 62

      dianetrotterposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      Many, many miiddle schoolers and high schoolers have heightened sex drive.  You see couples walking, guys rubbing girls in sensitive places, couples rubbing up against each other, French kissing, etc.  Studies have shown that single sex classes learn more.  They don't have th distraction of adolescent crushes, self consciousness about inadequacies, bullying, etc.
      
      Do boys and girls learn better separately?
      http://www.startribune.com/do-boys-and- … 129596013/
      
      Title 9 should be administered in a logical way that allows all to reach their maximum potential.

      replyreport
      1. 95

         wildernessposted 6 years agoin reply to this

         I think you understate the numbers of teens with hieghtened sex drive.  I would have said "every normal" rather than "many many".
         
         I suspect that the kids will learn more in single sex classes...about the subject.  Not about how to dampen that sex drive or control their emotions when necessary or advisable.

         replyreport
2. 78

   Kathryn L Hillposted 6 years ago

   What happens to a nation where everyone is dependent on the government for everything?
   Is it not doomed?

   replyreport
3. 69

   Aime Fposted 6 years ago

   You are so weird.

   replyreport
   1. 62

      dianetrotterposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      You are killing me.  I will chuckle throughout the night.  ROFLMAO

      replyreport
4. 78

   Kathryn L Hillposted 6 years ago

   I've never been afraid of being weird. You should try it sometime, Aime. Its freeing!

   replyreport
5. 78

   Kathryn L Hillposted 6 years ago

   Cosby was one of the first people to talk about the importance of fathers.  He talked about how welfare destroyed traditional family structures since fatherless families are essentially rewarded.

   replyreport
   1. 88

      MizBejabbersposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      True, Kathryn. What I see today is that fatherless families are becoming the norm. Just listening to the talk among my young co-workers in a large government agency, it seems like a number of them, or their grown daughters, were choosing to have children out of wedlock. It seemed to be a badge of honor among a segment of them. These young women weren't eligible for welfare because they had incomes. Not as much as a two income household, of course, but adequate. Now whether these women were drawing child support for their child or children, I don't know and I certainly didn't ask.

      replyreport
   2. 55

      The0NatureBoyposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      Yes, Kathryn, there is some truth in the need for fathers in the civilization's families when the boys were the provider for the family but those days are almost gone.
      
      MizBejabber, since we are now entering the last few years before man returns to ecological living the instinctive nature of only the mother is responsible for raising the child - only one unless it was a multiple birth - in preparing them to know what to expect once civ illation is no longer. That is the real badge of being a mother, to provide for the child alone.
      
      How that relates to this thread's topic goes back to what Diane Trotter said 22 hours ago, children are being educated better in single gender classes. One of my girl friends has a six-year-old son who demand his alone time even at home. All of that is because civilization is about to terminate itself.

      replyreport