Sexism at SEN

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
Post Reply
_Lemmie
_Emeritus
Posts: 10590
Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2015 7:25 pm

Sexism at SEN

Post by _Lemmie »

It was a great day for Kaylee Foster, obviously. Not so much, I’m guessing, for the guys on the losing team. Being beaten by the opposing school’s homecoming queen isn’t the sort of thing that will likely be recorded in annals of male athletic glory at the defeated school.
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeterso ... quran.html


The above was DCP's comment after posting this link:

“She ditched the homecoming crown for a helmet then went out and kicked her team to a win”
https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/08/us/missi ... index.html

"Male athletic glory"? So it's a success for a young woman in sports, but the important point to Peterson is that males were embarrassed- not to lose, but to lose to a girl.

Why not just admire the girl's skill, give the school credit for integrating talent without limiting the process to a single gender, and then ask about her college plans, like non-sexist readers would do? She will be playing soccer for Mississippi College in Clinton, according to the article.
_I have a question
_Emeritus
Posts: 9749
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2015 8:01 am

Re: Sexism at SEN

Post by _I have a question »

Some guy who hasn't been involved in sport since that time a ball accidentally bounced off him in Kindergarten said..
In a sense, it’s about contemporary Southern high school jihad

"Jihad"? Seriously?
“When we are confronted with evidence that challenges our deeply held beliefs we are more likely to reframe the evidence than we are to alter our beliefs. We simply invent new reasons, new justifications, new explanations. Sometimes we ignore the evidence altogether.” (Mathew Syed 'Black Box Thinking')
_I have a question
_Emeritus
Posts: 9749
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2015 8:01 am

Re: Sexism at SEN

Post by _I have a question »

Lemmie wrote:
It was a great day for Kaylee Foster, obviously. Not so much, I’m guessing, for the guys on the losing team. Being beaten by the opposing school’s homecoming queen isn’t the sort of thing that will likely be recorded in annals of male athletic glory at the defeated school.
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeterso ... quran.html


The above was DCP's comment after posting this link:

“She ditched the homecoming crown for a helmet then went out and kicked her team to a win”
https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/08/us/missi ... index.html

"Male athletic glory"? So it's a success for a young woman in sports, but the important point to Peterson is that males were embarrassed- not to lose, but to lose to a girl.

Why not just admire the girl's skill, give the school credit for integrating talent without limiting the process to a single gender, and then ask about her college plans, like non-sexist readers would do? She will be playing soccer for Mississippi College in Clinton, according to the article.

There's no mention that the opposition was an all-male team. He's simply made a sexist assumption.
“When we are confronted with evidence that challenges our deeply held beliefs we are more likely to reframe the evidence than we are to alter our beliefs. We simply invent new reasons, new justifications, new explanations. Sometimes we ignore the evidence altogether.” (Mathew Syed 'Black Box Thinking')
Post Reply