Backwards Title IX at it again

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by rainmaker

That women can improve without male practice partners. I'm not saying male practice partners aren't a good way to improve, just that they're not the only way. And it sounds as though trigger thinks they are the only way.

If they banned automobiles he could have said they were preventing transportation and promoting staying at home. You could have said, "Nonsense, you can still walk or ride a horse." True enough, but it sure would make it tougher to travel the same distance.

[Adam]

It's not like they pick one method and ignore the rest. Practicing against men seems to be, on the testimony of the coaches who use it, a very good way to improve. I'd say it's a way that can't be equally replaced.

[mplagrow]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

It's not like they pick one method and ignore the rest. Practicing against men seems to be, on the testimony of the coaches who use it, a very good way to improve. I'd say it's a way that can't be equally replaced.

What about robots? Seven foot tall, fast robots? Would it be necessary to assign them a gender?

And as for you, Rainmaker, you've got my respect for standing up for yourself amongst this surly locker room mentality crowd of males! Myself included!

[mplagrow]

Oh crap! Do I need to change my signature, Juulie??? Should I make it PC?

[rainmaker]

Originally Posted by mplagrow

Oh crap! Do I need to change my signature, Juulie??? Should I make it PC?

What the heck does that have to do with this thread? or with me?

[mplagrow]

Originally Posted by rainmaker

What the heck does that have to do with this thread? or with me?

I'm trying to be more respectful to those of the other gender on this forum, and I'm wondering if it's wrong to say "It takes a MAN to suffer ignorance and smile." It was just meant as a little comic relief. Very little.

[rainmaker]

Originally Posted by mplagrow

I'm trying to be more respectful to those of the other gender on this forum, and I'm wondering if it's wrong to say "It takes a MAN to suffer ignorance and smile." It was just meant as a little comic relief. Very little.

Well, I'm not the expert on PC, and I really don't like to think in those terms. But I don't think your quote is offensive. I'm reading between the lines a little, but thinking that the person who said it lived many many years ago when "man" and "men" usually did mean "people" or "person". I'm figuring that what Mr. Sumner meant was that it takes a mature person to suffer ignorance and smile. No matter who he is, or when he lived, I doubt seriously that he meant that women can't suffer ignorance and smile. If he did, I would prove him wrong in a very simple way -- I'd nod and smile pleasantly. And roll my eyes quite self-righteously when he wasn't looking!

PS I appreciate your efforts to be respectful. Perhaps if you lead well, and others follow, there will actually be "those" instead of just Rita and me.

[rainmaker]

Originally Posted by just another ref

If they banned automobiles he could have said they were preventing transportation and promoting staying at home. You could have said, "Nonsense, you can still walk or ride a horse." True enough, but it sure would make it tougher to travel the same distance.

I'm not arguing with that. You're absolutely right. In fact, you prove my point by saying that "prevent" doesn't mean hinder. It means no transportation at all. NONE. Thanks for understanding me. I can't seem to get through to anyone else.

And I'd also like to point out that I still agree with everyone that forbidding male practice partners seems silly to me. My only arguement was with my inference from Triggers original post, which some people think I mistook. ALthough trigger still hasn't said he didn't mean what I inferred.