Posted on 01/25/2006 11:57:23 AM PST by JZelle
This year's spectacular Rose Bowl game attracted a phenomenal 35.6 million viewers because it featured what we want: rugged men playing football and attractive women cheering them on. Americans of every class, men and women, remained glued to their television sets and nearly 95,000 spectators watched from the stands. The runaway success of this game proved again that stereotypical roles for men and women do not bother Americans one bit. Political correctness lost out as all-male teams battled and women cheered.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
Atta girl, Phyllis.
Last I heard yes. Still losing money hand over fist and games are attended almost entirely by lesbians.
It's not bad enough that the players are ugly but the stands are filled with perverts.
If you mean most men perform better at things that require more strength, and that only women can bear children, I agree.
However, I'm not sure what you mean by traditional male-female roles. Certainly most jobs don't require strength in a way that precludes most women. I'd grant you that firefighting probably does, but wouldn't agree about police work. Even mailroom work doesn't generally require more strength than most wome have. Even modern construction work shouldn't preclude most healthy women. For instance I'd say sheetrock panels are unwieldy, but are managable with practice. Most women can be trained to do even that kind of grunt work if they were interested.
If you were insinuating that most men would be better income providers than most women, I'd disagree.
Who is better at teaching children, the child's mom, dad or the public school?
YOU SO TOTALLY ROCK!!! My wife, who homeschools our 8 kids, would agree! My point is about chosing between working and raising kids as I'm sure you also discerned. Thanks so much for playing.
PS your SN reminds me of a bible verse.
/Groucho Marx voice> ... "what else does your husband do?"
It's a false choice. None of those are necessarily better than the others at teaching.
That said, a child who either has A) dedicated parents who home-school him competently -OR- B) dedicated parents who support him AND good, competent teachers in a good school disctrict (Increasingly difficult to find) will probably turn out OK.
If a kid is taught only at school, without parental support, he is less likely to do well.
If a kid is kept home and (occasionally) taught by a poorly prepared or motivated parent, he is less likely to do well.
If a kid attends an inner-city, uber-liberal, politically-correct school and has an overworked, under-interested single mother, he's in for a very, very tough road.
Your screen name, Motherbear. Reminds me of a verse in proverbs that says it's better to come across a bear robbed of her cubs than a fool in his folly. I like the strong motherhood vibe.
At least in San Antonio, they are also frequently attended by graduating AF cadets and their familes. It was one of the early perks of graduating weekend and a first chance to be off base at the end of Basic.
Please note that very few, if any, of the graduates watched the game when I was there with my wife, most of them just congregated in the lounges and food courts around the arena to spend time with friends and family that had come out to watch them graduate two days hence.
On that point, we agree. Younger women today are doing just as well as their male counterparts. I think we have achieved that just in my lifetime.
But, feminism is not about that any more. It about elevating women by putting down men and masculine traits such as competition and aggression. The education establishment has been doing that to our young boys in school for some time.
So, what I mourn is the loss of the distinction between feminine traits that women posses, such as cooperation and nurturing, and masculine traits. Given more time the feminists will succeed in socializing masculine traits right out of men. Now, that's not natural.
"The lack of college sports teams and camaraderie makes many high school boys wonder, why bother going to college?"
Not being male I totally don't understand this comment. Is it true that a majority of guys would decide not to attend college based on the simple fact that there isn't a sports team? Isn't college for learning? IMHO college should never be about sports. That's probably why my husband and I can't agree on college sports.
Women--well, at least the vast majority of them--simply don't have the upper body strength to do such duty.
If you are constraining someone who is physically stronger than yourself, you obviously have to have an edge. In the case of granny guarding OJ Simpson, that edge would have to be her gun - and she simply might have no choice but to use it where a strapping man might not even be challenged.
If I played sports in high school, and was good enough to play in college, I would not go to a school that didn't have my sport. A) no scholarships, B) a large part of my life would end prematurely, C) sports are fun and competition is necessary. If you haven't even got the opportunity to beat the competition why bother even attending.
So while college is not about sports, it is about winning and losing (every thing is about winning and losing in most mens lives) and sports give us one avenue to be winners.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.