July 17th 2004


  Buy Issue 2686
Qty:

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
FONT SIZE:

BOOKS:
Tilting the Playing Field, by Jessica Gavora


by Bill Muehlenberg

News Weekly, July 17, 2004
Compulsory androgyny

TILTING THE PLAYING FIELD
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

NATIONAL AFFAIRS Cardinal Pell charged: the process is the punishment

GENDER POLITICS Melbourne mum goes viral on 'Safe Schools'

COVER STORIES Liberal discontents take internal struggle to Shakespearean heights

CANBERRA OBSERVED Cory Bernardi claims strong flow to his ranks

COVER STORY The rise and rise of Old King Coal

INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS Taiwan's 'friends' make the Beijing cut

EUTHANASIA What Boudewijn Chabot can teach Victoria



























© Copyright NewsWeekly.com.au 2017
Last Modified:
March 16, 2017, 10:40 am