Sex In The Public Square - Equality - Comments

Just Say No.

Lou FCD — Fri, 10 Oct 2008 13:18:09 -0700

Basic human rights should not be subject to the will of the majority. That's a basic underlying principle of our entire Bill of Rights.

No, neither the states, nor the feds, nor the people should get a say in the fundamental rights of other people.

No, the rights of the minority are not subject to the whim and the tyranny of the majority.

Just no.

There are so many

Gracie — Mon, 28 Jan 2008 16:32:55 -0800

There are so many conversations going on this, that I may be mistaken, but I do think it was discussed somewhere that boys are more distracted by girls in classrooms. And I do believe there was not too long ago a study or report of an all boys school (and if I am recalling right, also black students?) which had results to say that such separation was benefitial to the boys... If I have time later I'll look it up.

There are also the matters of other educational components at work -- you'd have to compare equal quality schools and programs and isolate the separation issue to see if that's what is really at work.

My experiences in college make me think that there are times and places for separations, but that we do have to come together, work together, as we will eventually in the life outside of/after school.

PS Pls excuse typos etc., I'm typin on the fly!

Who benefits?

Elizabeth — Mon, 28 Jan 2008 03:00:32 -0800

It's interesting, Gracie: Rashima's essay (the one you link to) discusses separation of all sorts, not just gender separation. But where it does discuss separating students by gender the benefit is to the boys. I always think about single-gender classrooms as being set up for the benefit of girls and yet this reminds us to consider that boys benefit too. It's been ages since I've looked at any data on single-gender education but I wonder if boys actually benefit more?

The reason Rashima gives for the benefit she noted is the removal of social distractions. The boys stopped posing and posturing, she says. I have heard the same argued as a source of benefit for girls too. Rather than focusing on "victimization" or intimidation, the focus is put on the intensity of the erotic and social tensions between boys and girls and the attendant distractions from academic work.

My own students who have come out of single-gender schools have remarked on the same thing. They've also typically been schools with uniforms or fairly rigid dress codes and students report at least some reduction of what might be called fashion distractions. it's interesting to discuss the issue in classes. Often the students who went to co-ed schools (the vast majority) can't imagine ever wanting to be in a single-gender school and think the idea is a bad one because it prevents boys and girls from learning how to deal with each other. The students who attended single-gender education often report on the usefulness of it, and on the other places where they got to interact in mixed gender groups.

I'm teaching a Sociology of Gender course this semester. I should ask my students to comment on this, and I should also go back and check out studies of single-gender education to see if there is data on the relative benefits experienced by boys and by girls. Wouldn't it be ironic if it turns out boys benefit more?

Ryan, I can't tell which way

Gracie — Sun, 27 Jan 2008 22:38:29 -0800

Ryan, I can't tell which way your passion is leaning.. sarcasm was my first thought, but on my second read the intensity made me wonder if you wanted such a world as you described.

So far, if I'm reading all the comments at a total of 3 sites correctly, most people are thinking separation at times is a good thing, as is the choice to pick a gender specific shcool ~ if all things are equal in terms of quality at each school.

Yes, exactly what women need!

Ryan Prior — Wed, 23 Jan 2008 19:17:11 -0800

Of course, what women need is to be closed off from the scary, abusive, stifling male portion of society and allowed to flourish without being subjected to any real or imagined threats. Surely this will lead to an era of light and equality, where men finally realize that women are just as able to cope in competitve academic environments; where women can stop believing that they are of a different breed and class, unable to fulfill those jobs which men presently dominate! Besides, this will put and end to those awkward situations in which women must confront those who don't process and think the same way that they do.

Make it so!

Stayed

Elizabeth — Fri, 31 Aug 2007 20:06:06 -0700

So disappointing. Legally, I suppose, it is sensible, though morally it just seems so wrong. Very frustrating. But congrats to Fritz and McQuillan!

Amnesia

JanieBelle — Fri, 31 Aug 2007 08:26:01 -0700

I forgot we had one of those....

D'oh.

I just added a link to that

Elizabeth — Fri, 31 Aug 2007 08:10:09 -0700

Thanks JanieBelle. I just added a link to that same page on our "Links" page under the category "Court cases"

Court Documents

JanieBelle — Fri, 31 Aug 2007 07:26:43 -0700

For anyone interested,

Lambda Legal has all the relevant court documents here.

Read the decision!

JanieBelle — Fri, 31 Aug 2007 06:59:12 -0700

Holy crow.

It's actually very readable and understandable, and he cites Lawrence and Loving among a pile of other cases and laws.

The best part is that he quotes Scalia a couple times.

Ouch.

And the NYT has a decent

Elizabeth — Fri, 31 Aug 2007 05:54:24 -0700

And the NYT has a decent story here .

Hurray for Hanson

Elizabeth — Fri, 31 Aug 2007 05:52:28 -0700

(The judge, not the band.)

Indeed! Way to support the rule of science :) (Wait, I mean the rule of law, supported by science.)

Now, of course we expect that this is going to be appealed to the Iowa Supreme Court, so it'll be interesting to see what they do. And any bets on whether this creates a new surge of energy fr state constitutional amendments?

(Wow, where did that pessimism come from?? I think I need to get out for a walk. I'll be back in a little bit.)

Judge Hanson Rips Defense "Experts"

JanieBelle — Fri, 31 Aug 2007 05:42:04 -0700

I'm reading the decision and WOW. The Defense called in some Religious Studies type folks to testify, and the Judge was having none of it:

"...the Court does not believe that the expected testimony of these individuals is scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge..."

"...these individuals are not qualified to testify as experts regarding the issues in this matter...they do not appear to possess expertise in relevant fields..."

"Ms. Somerville specifically eschews empirical research and methods of logical reasoning in favor of “moral intuition.” She has no training in empirical research and admits having no knowledge of existing social science research relevant to this case. She concedes that her views do no reflect the mainstream views of other ethicists..."

"The views espoused by these individuals appear to be largely personal and not based on observation supported by scientific methodology or based on empirical research in any sense."

That full section is posted on my blog.

The long and short of that seems to be "The religious opinions of a few people (edited unnecessary term of disparagement) does not qualify them as experts qualified to testify about marriage, sociology, .. or basically anything related to this case or the law."

Hurrah for Judge Hanson!

PDF of the Judge's ruling

JanieBelle — Fri, 31 Aug 2007 04:34:43 -0700

Here's a link to a .pdf of Judge Robert Hanson's ruling in its entirety .

DesMoines Register Article

JanieBelle — Fri, 31 Aug 2007 04:31:39 -0700

The DesMoines Register has a piece up , with a bit more meat to it than the CNN article.

The Lycos blurb is here .

The BBC blurb is here .