Here's an interesting link:

http://www.apa.org/releases/gendersim0905.html

Exactly what phrase in the story, Juulie, makes the article "Not entirely off-topic" to basketball officiating?

The story and it's PDF friend have as much in common with basketball officiating as they do with underwater Caribbean basket weaving.

Janet Shibley Hyde reminds me of J. Evans Pritchard.

Wow, sorry to push your buttons, Jglar. Some of us struggle constantly with the subject of how gender affects our performance as refs, or how it affects the perception of our performance, depending on the circumstances. If you don't see that as an issue, then you're part of the problem.

btw, "The story and it's PDF friend..." is incorrect grammar -- no apostrophe is necessary in this "its".

I'm not here to take sides, but this post realy confused me...much more than my normal state of confusion anyways.

Are you agreeing or disagreeing with the article you linked? Frankly, I find it hard to imagine a scenario where a man would say what you've just said here.

Or maybe I'm just part of the problem too.

I don't know whether I agree or disagree with the article. It's just interesting -- a different view of the "gender gap". A man probably wouldn't say what I've said, because a man mostly doesn't have to worry about how his gender affects how he's perceived. Although, I've heard that divorced fathers who want custody of their children face incredible prejudice in court. Dan, you're not as much part of the problem as others. You are willing to watch someone ref and judge them based on their abilities. Maybe Jugular isn't as bigoted as he's pretending, but he sounds pretty sexist. Maybe that's because I don't know who J. Evans Pritchard is.

Also, I don't know what the "PDF friend" thing means.

Put me down as part of the problem.

I'm against sexism- from <b>both</b> sides.

First of all, any "research" that sets out to debunk how something is portayed in the popular media amounts to nothing more than a pile of BS, imo. The popular media is hardly known for presenting well thought out representations of anything.

Secondly, even the researchers agree that there is a marked difference between men & women in how they deal with sexuality & aggression, as well as in general physical abilitiy.

If how they deal with sex & aggression does not cause a marked difference between the general psychological make up of ANY 2 groups then I don't know what does.

Finally, my doubts as to whether I'm part of the problem or not was a sarcastic comment.

Hakuna matata, Juulie. I am a referee. It takes a lot more to push my buttons. :)

It is often said that one should never say 'never', and never say 'always'. If you believe that someone is part of the problem if they're not part of the solution, then I think you're using the same idealogy as the never/always thought process. There are grey areas. I'm not part of the problem because I don't work with gender equity issues in officiating. I'm not part of the solution for the same reason.

Do I see it as an issue? Well, in my necks of the woods, you don't want to know what happens. ;) I do understand that it certainly is an issue at some places in the world.

Thanks for the grammar correction. The choice of which word to use did cross my mind and I made a mistake. I will place blame on my desire to finish the post quickly, to fill my belly with breaky.

I'm neither bigoted nor pretending to be bigoted.

However, I do have a big ote.

Jugular -- everyone is part of the problem, and the problem affects everyone, and everyone has a choice to part of the solution. From what you have said here, it's impossible for me to tell what you're choosing. Fine.

Still, an article about gender and perceptions of people based on gender is very relevant to officiating. Gender does affect people's perceptions about our fitness and abilities at this task. You may or may not have found that to be a problem for you. But is it really not a problem for anyone around you? I'm finding that hard to believe.

I said two or three times that I don't know whether I agree with the article or not. It's just interesting. Of course, nothing is true for everyone. I think that's what the article is saying -- that "men" and "women" may have some differences but to apply them to everyone in the group is simplistic.

She does say that women and men have differences in their aggression and in their physical abilities. Why does that have to affect their communication styles, or their abilities and desires to nurture, or their mathematical intelligence, or their spatial perception, or their empathic abilities? I don't understand your point here.

I still don't understand what you mean by the "PDF friend".

[Edited by rainmaker on Oct 30th, 2005 at 11:47 AM]

It seems to me Juulie that unless someone is proclaiming at the top of their lungs about this "issue", they are part of the problem.

Referring to the PDF link in the original article further discussing the "research".

I don't agree, and I'd be interested in knowing why you think this.


TMI!!



[Edited by rainmaker on Oct 30th, 2005 at 12:02 PM]

That's part of the problem because...

The problem is labelling somebody as being "bigoted" or "sexist" just because they disagreed with you is wrong imo. It's wrong t'other way too.

Even hermaphrodites?