"You run like a girl." It was an insult aimed at boys. Being "like a girl" was clearly a bad thing for a boy to be if he wanted to be an athlete. Not being enough "like a girl" on the other hand, is devastating for women.
It was not so long ago that the International Olympic Committee (IOC) used to require all women athletes to be tested to discover whether they were 'truly women' or not. [Bracket, please, for a moment the question of what a 'true woman' might be. We'll come back to it. I promise.] Now such tests are only performed, according to the story in today's New York Times, when a woman athlete's sex is questioned. [Bracket for a moment why this never, apparently, comes up in men's sports.] What would cause her sex to be questioned? The Times does not present a list of specific suspicious indicators, but does say that it has come up in the context of doping tests. What is so striking about this is that it represents an insistence that women be held to a biological standard of womanhood. Consider the variations among women. What does it mean to set aside some group of women and say they are too powerful to be 'real women'? Consider how this makes even less sense when we are talking about women who represent the strongest, fastest, most agile, most physically powerful women in the world.
In Separate Or Not , a teacher discusses the "completely contrary to feminist thought" concept of same-sex education (or, if you prefer, separation of genders in classrooms).
Her personal experiences lead her to conclude:
As for someone who fought for gender equality I am willing to be politically incorrect in firmly stating my belief that based on the reasons above, students should be separated in classrooms to facilitate their learning. Is it time for the “fad” for separation of students to return? I think so.
Matters of gender identity aside (for that's too complicated a matter for me to contemplate at this wee hour), I am inclined to agree. Somewhat.
As a graduate of an all-women's college, I certainly benefited from the women-only atmosphere. We were free from (perceived or real) the attacks on our way of processeing and thinking.
These two pictures accompany an article in this morning's Times on the presidential candidates' use of their opposition to NCLB (which stands for No Child Left Behind, not No Cheerleader left behind") as a way of rallying supporters.
Maybe it's just that my brain is still a bit addled from the end of the semester, and I'm only through my first cup of coffee this morning, but it seemed like an odd selection of images to me. Take a look. Then feel free to discuss in the comments whether or not these images matter at all.
This one is captioned "Students at Central High School in Davenport, Iowa, listening to former president Bill Clinton."
HRC is announcing that tomorrow, Wednesday November 7, the House is scheduled to vote on ENDA.
Please call Tammy Baldwin and urge her to offer her amendment and not to withdraw it. Then call your representative and urge that person to support her amendment.
If representatives are given the chance to avoid going on record about gender identity they'll take it. I, for one, don't want them to have that chance.
Click here to find contact information for your congressperson or use the Speak Out!! section on the left.
Oh, and happy election day.
UPDATE 10:00pm NOV 6: This is not such good news as it first appeared. This is the notation from GovTrack.us about the schedule debate and vote:
Nov 5, 2007: Rules Committee Resolution H. Res. 793 Reported to House. Rule provides for consideration of H.R. 3685 with 1 hour of general debate. Previous question shall be considered as ordered without intervening motions except motion to recommit with or without instructions. Measure will be considered read. Specified amendments are in order. All points of order against consideration of the bill are waived except those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. |
So, maybe one of you can help decipher this but I read this to mean that the "previous question" (a yes or no vote on the bill as presented) will be considered without any other motions (e.g., amendments) except motions to send it back to committee.
This makes it sound like Tammy Baldwin's amendment will not be offered.
Tune in tomorrow to see what the debate sounds like.
Meanwhile, expect an ENDA without gender identity included. In other words, expect a largely ineffective ENDA that reflects the needs of elite gays, lesbians and bisexuals but does not meet the needs of most of us.

I made a new acquaintance the other day. I had seen her before. She’s a lesbian. We have some of the same friends and we travel in some of the same circles.
One common theme that comes up often in some of these circles is how straight men are assholes. And it’s true that a lot of them are assholes. But not all of them. Straight people. The topic comes up so often in the women’s community. It seems acceptable to complain about the straights. Like it’s a topic we all can agree on. We should all be able to commiserate about how horrible the straight people are. Especially those clueless straight men who just don’t get it.