The Arguments Peeves

Many people have many reasons why its acceptable to use the blunt club of Title IX against boys. Of course, as with most if not all forms of discrimination, it comes down to ignorance and/or a lack of logic. They say that boys don't deserve equal rights in the classroom or on the playing fields because they will most probably be rewarded for being boys and have a bazillion dollar bonus when they get older. They toss out numbers from 30% to 20% penis premium. Now, I'm NOT saying any discrimination is acceptable - that would make me a hypocrite. For the sake of argument, I'm not even going to nitpick that they can't handle simple sixth grade scientific method classes.

Instead, I'll just ask for a guarantee.

I want a guarantee from whomever makes the idiotic statement defending the proactive discrimination of the young and innocent is guaranteed a 20% premium in pay through life.

It's that simple. Put your money where your mouth is. Put up or shut up.

You see, they say that premium will even out the discrimination boys feel in schools - but then they try their best to remove that premium. They've just punished an innocent child for a crime they did not commit, then told the child their mother will give them a reward all the while telling the mother the child doesn't deserve the reward.

Which is more far fetched? Punishing boys for a reward they have not and aren't allowed to receive or punishing the girls for receiving the benefits they did receive? Why is it more acceptable to discriminate against a young boy forced to be in the situation but not against an adult woman who's free to change jobs at will?

Not only that, but for anyone that says boys deserve to be punished because of the penis premium, why don't they mention that black males make less than white women? If they were truly using that as a reason, then they would call for MORE support for the young African Americans, instead they push for a Title IX system which negatively affects those very boys the most....

Everyone deserves equal rights...

EVERYONE

It's not an ax, it's a saw

I want to play a game.

You have spent the early part of your history discriminating against girls in academics and athletics. Now, in order to survive, you must limit boys' athletics and academic opportunities. They're innocent and have done nothing wrong, but if you don't, we'll fine you or even drive you completely out of business. It's your choice

The game begins now.

I've been thinking about the arguments of Modern Title IX proponents. One they make is that Title IX does not require discrimination, that it's the schools that decide to cut men's sports. First, that makes the fundamental assumption that the other prongs are more fair. Beyond that, I always found it annoying that those groups just didn't take responsibility or even admit that Title IX had SOMETHING to do with the men's cuts. Ohhh it's because they spend too much on football. Oohhhh it's because too many boys are allowed to play football.




Then came the revelation. It's like Jigsaw from the Saw movies. In the movies, Jigsaw doesn't actually kill anyone. He just offers them a choice. For instance, in the most recent, one person accused of domestic violence lays tethered to a table. Above him swings a guillotine shaped pendulum. The only way to stop it is to put his hands into a vice, smashing his hands but saving his life. In another test, a doctor must cut off his own leg to escape certain death. In this method, Jigsaw can walk away and claim that he did not kill anyone, it was the person's own decision. One of the few that succeeded in 'passing' the test mearly had to cut into a live person's intestines and retrieve a key that would unlock a bomb from her neck. She herself would not be injured in the process of getting the key out.





That's the test the schools face. They must cut men's opportunities or there entire program will be affected. Either they cut spending on football or positions on football, often leading to more losses and intern less income, or Title IX simply fines them and again less income.





No matter what though, Modern Title IX proponents simply say that it is the schools choice - the men's non-rev sports or the whole program. It's the school's choice.

It's time to end this "game"

Obamandering

In the middle of the Democratic primaries, the debate came out as to who was better for women, Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama. Now, in the interest of full disclosure, I think Obama is much in the vein of Ronald Reagan - a great salesman. He can sell anything and rally the troops behind him. He is the best reason for knowing who would be the cabinet before you November.



The major difference between Obama and Reagan is that Reagan didn't pander. He relied on wit and one liners to build a concensous. Obama had that for a while, but as time drags on, he's decided that good old fasioned pandering built ontop of gender strife would be a handy way to garner votes.



First, Carrie Lukas calls out Obama for pandering to women in the NY Times. "Women still earn only 77 cents for every dollar earned by men" Sure... too bad that just compared secretaries to engineers, teacher aides to scientists. Too bad he just compared women's choices to men's choices. Even our firends at AAUW call this a flawed study. How bad do you have to be that an organization like that says, 'whoa, that's just stupid'?

Then he gets worse. He decided that Title IX hasn't gone far enough. He even admits that 60% of the undergrads are female and his solution is that women need MORE help from preeschool to grad school. What?? MORE descrimination? It's hard enough for affluent white boys to get a fair chance in education - what is he doing to the underclass boys?

Well they don't vote do they Barack. Who cares about them?

Now suburban white moms- they vote.

Bad Math

A few weeks ago, a writer for the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Valerie Schremp Hahn, penned an article explaining the need for more engineers in the states. While this is true, Ms Shremp-Hahn abandoned any sembleance of balance in reporting and actually supplied information that seemingly would worsen the problem.

The article can be seen here :Nation needs more engineers, scientists and the second paragraph points out "But [Sputnik and Kennedy's emphasis on science and math were] 50 years ago, and now, those engineers and scientists are retiring in droves. The nation now faces what Shirley Ann Jackson calls a "quiet crisis" in filling those positions, though more are starting to listen and act."

So does Ms Shremp-Hawn seek out those that want to increase the number of engineers to get the best or even just unbiassed opinions on the situation? Well of course not, if not I wouldn't be fearing/seathing right now. She picked two women who's main goal is to get more female engineers. That's it. No men, not even women who just teach. They are specifically women who want more women in the field.

The first is Shirley Ann Jackson. Now whereas I respect Ms. Jackson for her accomplishments - the first African-American and woman to chair the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission - it's her politics I can do with out. Ms. Shremp-Hawn reports that Ms. Jackson believes, "women and minorities in this country [are] an untapped talent pool, " Really? We've spent hundreds of millions of dollars to get girls to succeed in STEM subjects, but they're still "untapped??" How much more money do we need to throw at the girls to bribe them into being engineers?? Now I do agree that the minorities have been untapped, it's not necessarily because of their race, but rather because unfortunately african americans and hispanics tend to fall to the lower end of the socio-economic spectrum. They just don't have the opportunities or educational momentum whites and other minorities have.

Instead of calling Ms. Jackson out on the 'untapped females' and center on the minorities, she actually goes to ANOTHER women to back her up. Yes, because white suburban princesses are soooo persecuted. Next up in the yes line is Cecilia Elmore,the director of the Women's Leadership Institute at the Missouri University of Science and Technology in Rolla. Ms Elmore main point is that the university is trying to move the proportion of females from 23% up to 30% and hosts all sorts of outreach for the girls.

Think about that as a moment - changing the proportion, NOT changing the amount or quality. If you compare 23% of 1000 total engineers to 30% of 1000 total engineers, you STILL have 1000 total engineers. Not only that, you just spent a lot of money to fund that difference; deprving other students, especially lower socio-economic minorities their opportunties.

Then she doesn't seem to point out that women leave the engineering and science preffessions at an alarming rate because they don't like the long hours and realize that they might be expected to extend knowledge or they just don't like the field. So in fact, we're paying more to get girls to graduate and then leave the profession (She also forgot to mention since the focus shifted from educating the best engineers to attracting females, the aggregate science scores in comparison to industrialized countries have dropped)

This is analogous to if the US had 100 oil leases, and then decided to relocate some. Let's say they decided to close some in Alaska and the gulf and award more in the upper Midwest and the rust belt. What better place to develop oil than where they need jobs? We could spend (hundred of) millions of dollars, get the process started and wait for.... well not as much return. We still have our 100 leases, we've change the demographics to make everyone feel better, and we've tried tapping new locations, all as you have suggested, but when we start losing ground, you'll understand why. Maybe instead, we should allow resources for the best places, whether it be in Alaska or Ohio.

The piece was did not offer solutions to the problem stated and in fact offered ones to exacerbate the shortage of qualified engineers in the long run.

Now, I am NOT saying women do not make good engineers, I'm married to one. When I cross a bridge, I don't care if the civil engineer that designed it was male or female, just that they were competent.

In short, the piece was heavily and obviously sexist, and thus was lacking journalistic integrity while serving as a hindrance to equal opportunities for minorities and boys, and combined with mathematical errors and was irresponsible to engineers, their profession, and the country that needs them.

Sadness of Ransom

Wrestling is back at Arizona State University.

http://asunews.asu.edu/20080523_wrestling

It's not a good thing. Don't get me wrong, it's great for the wrestlers. For every other non-revenue male, it feels analogous (albeit on a much smaller scale) to seeing parents of one kidnapped child paying a ransom to the kidnapper without ever trying to stop it.

Lisa Love, the AD of ASU held three male sports hostage. You want to play? Fine. Pay for it. Pay for it through your teeth. We have a women's water polo team to support. We can't expect them to bring in fans, they can't even get enough girls to play in the state so pay up boys. Pay up. Work boys work. Support the girls. Pay up.

And they did. The wrestling program rallied behind their team.... they paid the ransom

"It is with great pleasure that I announce the reinstatement of the varsity sport of wrestling at ASU," says Love. "The wrestling community, both locally and nationally, accepted this as a challenge to do something wonderful for the sport. ASU is forever grateful for that passion and unwavering support. Something special is happening on our campus thanks to civic leadership that cares deeply about ASU wrestling."

SHE WAS THE ONE THAT CUT THE TEAM. She doesn't give a damn about the team. She wanted the money and she got it. If she didn't' want to cut wrestling she didn't have to. If she can add it back and not skew Title IX participation numbers, she didn't have to. Or she could have cut 1 male team and 1 female team. This was a money grab using the wrestlers, swimmers, and tennis players hopes, dreams, and rights as hostages. Forever grateful? Get that in writing.

Don't bother with OCR cops, they don't care, you're not a girl. The courts might, but don't count it. They only get involved if the girls want them, or if it doesn't disturb the girls.

Shut up, pay the ransom, and hope it doesn't happen again.

AD's lie

The Title IX ax is sharp.

If they don't pay up.. kill them.

They're just boys

Who cares.

NWLC Part 2

After the hypocrisy of the science classes, National Women's Law Center is doing its best to prevent anyone from questioning the great and powerful Title IX.

http://nwlc.blogs.com/womenstake/2008/03/a-stealth-attac.html?cid=116648272#comment-116648272

Even though no school has found the guts to use the email survey approved, they're still complaining about it. The schools see no point in it, it's much cheaper to cut non-rev boys' sports than pay for the attorneys that would be used in the ensuing court battle (and you know the NWLC will sue, charging exorbitant rates if they win)

For a background, in 2005, the Department of Education introduced an email survey to allow schools to meet the interest prong of Title IX compliance. Now the interest prong just asks girls if they want to play. Any girl that wants to play would get the opportunity.

Well, the NWLC isn't that good with math, and so they try to convince people that the DoE : Weakened Title IX's requirement that schools provide women and girls with equal opportunities to play sports." Actually, the DoE strengthened that mandate! Of course, the NWLC doesn't want equal opportunities, just like with everything else, they want superior opportunities.

In order to shoot down the men's right to equal opportunity, the NWLC proposes that

"The notion that schools can decide whether women are interested in additional sports opportunities by sending a mass email is ridiculous. What if the email gets stuck in a female student’s spam filter or the student just doesn’t read it (hard to believe, I know)? The Department of Education thinks, in another Orwellian maneuver, that a failure to respond, even under these circumstances, shows that the student is not interested in playing sports. If that’s such a good idea, maybe the Department should propose using this method to decide whether schools should field men’s football and basketball teams"

That would be FINE!!! Apply it to all students. The problem is the NWLC went to court to battle that the women have all of the power. Look at that interest prong. Any girl that wants to play would get the right. It doesn't matter how many guys want to play. The NWLC and WSF fought to make sure guys interest doesn't matter. If a school has enough interest to from 200 guys field 5 new guys teams in various sports, but there are enough girls to make one equestrian team, no matter the cost the cost, EVERY SINGLE girl gets her opportunity before ANY of extra guys. So yes, those girls are more important than the guys according to Title IX

The only time the interest prong comes into play is when all of the girls' interests are taken care of, then, and only then, the school can allow boys to play.

Well, the NWLC is so vindictive, they can't just sit by and watch boys play sports just because the girls don't want to! So they portray answering an email as the most herculean task. OMG! I dont no how 2 hit repli on mi email! tehe!!

Give me a break, if a girl doesn't have the capacity to read and respond to an email, she probably should be spending more time in the classroom than playing sports and definitely shouldn't be given the ability to limit a boy's right to participate vis a vis the proportion/quota prong.

You wanted the girls to have power to control boys' opportunity, now you say they are incapable of handling just a little responsibility? How much faith should I put in hiring a girl when you tell me she's to stupid to reply to an email??

These are your rules, these our OURS

The National Women's Law Center is hot. Ok, it's more of the panties in a bunch hot than an attractive hot. They recently offered two opinions on year old Title IX interpretations - gender specific education and interest based athletic compliance. I'll deal with one at a time - first the most important - Education.

Womenstake: ACLU Shakes Things Up in Kentucky

In the blog, they point out all of the "problems" with gender specific education. They can be distilled down to two things: the techniques used to teach girls may reinforce certain stereotypes and this might set up a separate but unequal situation . The problem is.. it's how we were told to teach to girls by these people! We were told soft and quiet, don't push them to make mistakes. Give essays more because girls don't deal in absolute, but rather they like to explain their answers. Avoid questions with unknown answers. Avoid calling on a girl to give a spec. answer. So they push science teachers to incorporate these practices in the classroom, up to and including many districts that evaluate science teachers based on these. Problem is... boys don't learn science as well like this. So, if they insist that we must cater to the girl's learning styles, why subject the boys to the same style? They want the girls to be front and center and the boys as a peripheral audience.

Secondly, why are they complaining about THAT, NOW? Did they miss that for years before many colleges and universities have offered "No boys allowed" STEM camps and programs? How is it that offering separate but equal programs is newly offensive compared to the outright discrimination practiced for a decade? Could it be that they just don't care what happens to the boys? They will not take a chance there is even a perception that the girls are getting slightly less than the boys, but when the boys aren't even getting the opportunities the girls are, that's perfectly fine with them.

Although the history of science can be quiet and soft, Science itself is neither quiet nor soft. Science is about conjecture and experiments, mistakes and discoveries. The key is teaching girls it's ok to make mistakes. It makes them better. If they feel more confident doing it without boys then that's fine. Just make sure the boys are given the same opportunties to do so.

The greatest sin in science is not being wrong; it's not even trying to get it right.