I haven't yet told my wife about this new article by Todd Gallagher on the clear physical superiority of males over females as athletes. She will look at me and say, "Yeah. Let 'em try to give birth sometime and then they can tell us about how physically superior they are."
I think I'll just keep quiet about it.
Friday, August 22, 2008
3 comments:
You are welcome to post at this blog. You are asked, however, to refrain from the following:
1. Name-calling;
2. Questioning the motives or integrity of people you have never met just because you disagree with them;
3. Using obscenities or other expressions not appropriate or necessary to civilized discussion;
4. Taking disagreement personally;
5. Demeaning or insulting remarks.
The host will attempt to abide by the same rules and only asks that you not provide him with the temptation to do so in return by violating them.
Failure to comply with these rules can result (depending solely on the arbitrary and inscrutable will of the host) in the deletion of offending posts and suspension of posting privileges. Such measures are more likely if you post anonymously.
The fact no one will acknowledge is that sports are sexually segregated not to protect men from women, but the other way around. "Why can't a woman compete with men if she is able?" is what you hear, but what it means in practice is that any woman capable of beating the lowest-ranking men is touted to the hills as the proof of gender equality; all the while, if men were allowed to compete in women's leagues, there wouldn't be any women's leagues.
ReplyDeleteBut feminists have been denying the obvious for so long, they're not going to start seeing it now. As the late James Burnham wrote, when ideology and reality clash, something has to give, and usually it's reality.
BTW, it's Todd Gallagher, I think, not Maggie.
ReplyDeleteLee,
ReplyDeleteRight, thanks. I changed it.