July 17th 2004

  Buy Issue 2686

Articles from this issue:

COVER STORY: Indonesian elections ... and Australia

CANBERRA OBSERVED: Latham affair lifts election temperature

AGRICULTURE: Rural unrest spreads

QUARANTINE BREACH: Exotic disease outbreak threatens Qld citrus industry

INDUSTRY: Singapore recovers on back of manufacturing

FAMILY: Child care - in whose interests?

ARTS & MEDIA: 'The next program contains...'

FILM: AFA calls for ban on 'arthouse smut'

MIDDLE EAST: Can Iraq's interim government end the insurgency?

NUCLEAR WEAPONS: Terrorism marks the end of deterrence

UNITED STATES: Curtains on Camelot

STRAWS IN THE WIND: Skimming administrative fat / What about Uganda? / 17 years of war

Premier Beattie's ethanol 'mania' (letter)

Sugar Package (letter)

Mondragon (letter)

Journalists and Iraq (letter)

BOOKS: George Santayana, by Noël O'Sullivan

BOOKS: Tilting the Playing Field, by Jessica Gavora

OPINION: Time to act on North Korean tyranny

Books promotion page

Tilting the Playing Field, by Jessica Gavora

by Bill Muehlenberg

News Weekly, July 17, 2004
Compulsory androgyny

by Jessica Gavora

Encounter Books, Rec. price: $33.00

A good example of the law of unintended consequences can be seen in the US law, Title IX, passed by Congress in 1972. Born of humble beginnings with a laudable aim, it soon mushroomed into a powerful tool of feminists and gender-benders to remake the world in their own image.

Title IX had as its purpose the simple prevention of discrimination based on sex, when it comes to participation in any education program or activity.

It soon came to bear heavily on the area of sports participation, and it soon went from a simple plea for equity to an affirmative action program, complete with preferences and quotas.

And with many affirmative action programs, it demanded not just equality of opportunity, but equality of outcome as well. And when unequals are treated equally, or are mandated to have equal outcomes, then real inequality results.

New discrimination and inequality came into play. Boys and men, and boys' and men's programs, especially in sports, were the real casualty. Many male sports programs and activities were axed or cut back in funding, in order to get the 50-50 mix.

But it went even further, and Gavora documents the many heartbreaking cases. For example, one university was not content with the 50-50 mix in athletics' spending and programs, but insisted it be 53-47, since 53 per cent of the student body was female.

And it was not just males and male programs that suffered. Females also suffered. For example, if a girl really preferred to be a cheer-leader instead of a football halfback, she often found her desires frustrated, with the gender equity police insisting that females not take on what they perceived to be traditional female roles.

A regime of androgyny, in other words, was enforced by the gender-benders, regardless of whether it was in the best interests of all concerned. Thus taxpayers subsidised a system which was often out of kilter with the biological realities of those involved.

The feminists insisted that male-female differences are only social constructs, not something rooted in our very nature. They insisted that the sexes are identical in their interests and abilities. And they insisted that such parity be fully represented in our schools, even in our sports, with the full force of the law brought to bear on those who do not comply.

Guided by these stubborn, and often irrational, convictions, they insisted that if a school has 33 boys playing soccer, then 33 girls should be playing it as well. They insisted that if males are over-represented in advanced maths and sciences, then this "obvious injustice" must be remedied by force of law.

Indeed, such differences are clearly documented by the social sciences. The emerging fields of genetics and evolutionary psychology, and our growing understanding of male and female sex hormones, are all pointing in the same direction - males and females are different. These are innate and deeply rooted differences. Environmental and social factors do explain in part these differences, but they are only a small part of the equation.

Males are more aggressive and competitive, while females are more likely to avoid risk and to develop relationships. And because of these differences, not only do more males like to play sport, but more males like to watch sport as well.

Nature, it seems, has hardwired such differences into us, and government attempts to act as if they do not exist, or to seek to eradicate them, can only result in chaos and grief. Indeed, given that males have 10 to 20 times more testosterone than females, it is folly to ignore the very real biological and psychological differences between the sexes.

A mandated androgynous ideal may appeal to feminists and government bureaucrats, but it does real damage to ordinary men and women, as this book so clearly shows.

Join email list

Join e-newsletter list

Your cart has 0 items

Subscribe to NewsWeekly

Research Papers

Trending articles

SAME-SEX MARRIAGE Memo to Shorten, Wong: LGBTIs don't want it

COVER STORY Shorten takes low road to defeat marriage plebiscite

COVER STORY Reaper mows down first child in the Low Countries

SAME-SEX MARRIAGE Kevin Andrews: defend marriage on principles

COVER STORY Bill Shorten imposes his political will on the nation

CANBERRA OBSERVED Coalition still gridlocked despite foreign success

ENVIRONMENT More pseudo science from climate

News and views from around the world

Menzies, myth and modern Australia (Jonathan Pincus)

China’s utterly disgraceful human-rights record

Japan’s cure for childlessness: a robot (Marcus Roberts)

SOGI laws: a subversive response to a non-existent problem (James Gottry)

Shakespeare, Cervantes and the romance of the real (R.V. Young)

That’s not funny: PC and humour (Anthony Sacramone)

Refugees celebrate capture of terror suspect

The Spectre of soft totalitarianism (Daniel Mahoney)

American dream more dead than you thought (Eric Levitz)

Think the world is overcrowded: These 10 maps show why you’re wrong (Max Galka)

© Copyright NewsWeekly.com.au 2011
Last Modified:
November 14, 2015, 11:18 am