I was right: Martina & the other sportswomen trying to compromise w TiMs are the Vichy French (women giving up other women's rights)

submitted by BEB from eu.azcentral.com

all 24 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]BEB[S] 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

So angry. This Nancy Hogshead-Makar is sabotaging women's sports under the guise of pretending to speak for the women trying to save it.

With friends like Nancy Hogshead-Makar, women don't need enemies.

And my love for Martina Navratilova is being seriously questioned: can she not read or are her sponsorship deals worth more than protecting women's sports?

[–]Finnegan7921 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Not everyone has JK money.

[–]BEB[S] 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I agree, but what these women are doing is VOLUNTARILY providing cover for the gender lobby's destruction of women's sports.

They could have kept their mouths shut either way. But now, with these women's "compromise" possibly widely accepted because of their own reputations, women's sports are truly screwed.

Obama put the coffin lid on women's sports, Biden placed the nails and these women hammered those nails in. Unacceptable.

[–]BEB[S] 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Luckily we have developmental biologist, Dr. Emma Fond of Beetles Hilton, on our side and she's schooling Nancy Hogshead-Makar on Twitter!

GO, EMMA, fight for every single girl who wants the thrill, the mental and physical health, and the self-satisfaction of being an athlete!

Boys advantages over girls does not begin at puberty, Ms. Hogshead-Makar - educate yourself!

Emma Hilton: "Fitness data from over 85k AUS children aged 9–17 yrs showed that, compared with 9 yr females, 9 yr males were 9.8% faster in sprints, 16.6% faster over 1 mile, could jump 9.5% further, could complete 33% more push-ups in 30 s and had 13.8% stronger grip."

https://twitter.com/FondOfBeetles/status/1356654235027468289

[–]BEB[S] 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

The wonderful, non-partisan, and now international, org. SAVE WOMEN'S SPORTS is not fooled either:

"Great to finally have some "famous" voices speaking up but compromising is not the solution to saving women's rights. #SexNotGender #SaveWomensSports"

https://twitter.com/SaveWomensSport/status/1356607911951282181

[–]Britishbulldog 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (13 children)

I love the analogy in your title, it’s brilliant.

[–]BEB[S] 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (12 children)

Thanks! But I am so incredibly angry.

I know you're a Brit, so might not get that Title IX was a significant piece of legislation that attempted to give American women equal opportunities in education.

For Martina and Donna DeVarona (sp?), both of whom would well know how dismal the prospects of female athletes were before Title IX, and for this piece of shit, Nancy Hoghead-Maker, a "Title IX attorney" to sell women out by basically saying Title IX was not written for females is betrayal of women of the highest order.

Now the genderists will point to this "compromise" and say, but, but, but... these famous women athletes, one of whom IS A TITLE IX ATTORNEY, are saying on the record that exceptions should be allowed for males in female sports, and that women who say "NO" are extremists.

These Vichy French women are sabotaging the Save Women's Sports movement and they need to be called out, before they give politicians, corporations, athletic organizations, etc., the ammunition to kill women's athletics once and for all.

Just like it was before Title IX. Traitors.

[–]Britishbulldog 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Thanks for the explainer, seen Title IX referenced a few times and not been sure what it was.

Someone show to author of that the myriad of papers showing T suppression does little to erase the advantages men have. These women who are all too happy to deny other women the opportunities legislation gave them disgust me. Sabotaging women’s movements for the patriarchy. Next stop, Gilead.

[–]nuhuhno 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (10 children)

My fear is that they will not stop at erasing women's sports. Title IX also covered education. The next goalpost shift may well be to force women out of advanced or equitable learning opportunities, AGAIN.

[–]MarkTwainiac 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

Yes, what people don't realize is that Title IX made it illegal to bar students from certain classes and programs based on sex. Used to be, in US HSs girls had to take courses like "home economics" whereas boys took "shop."

At a higher level, there were often two different sets of admissions criteria for female and male students applying to the same college/university and graduate programs. Moreover, the number or percentage of female students in some colleges/unis and graduate programs was capped so that females would remain a minority, often a tiny minority.

For example, US medical schools that men attended used to routinely bar female students entirely or enacted admissions and other policies meant to keep the number of female students very low. In 1970, Women’s Equity Action League filed a class-action lawsuit against all US medical schools alleging discrimination against women in admissions. Two years later, the federal government passed Title IX of the Education Amendments Act of 1972, prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sex in all educational institutions in the US that received federal funds, which had an immediate dramatic effect. In 1960, women made up 7 percent of US medical students; in 1970, women made up 9 percent of US. But in 1976, they made up 21 percent. Now women make up 50%.

[–]ColoredTwice 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I've read recently about few Japan universities and there is exactly same situation - spots for women are very few and so because of this women need to have average much higher than men to get into one, as competition on one spot is much higher.

[–]WildApples 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Yes, what people don't realize is that Title IX made it illegal to bar students from certain classes and programs based on sex. Used to be, in US HSs girls had to take courses like "home economics" whereas boys took "shop."

And I've read that in the early days of some sex-integrated universities, female students were responsible for doing the male students' laundry and domestic tasks. Also, all the female professors no matter what they taught were relegated to the women's studies department, which had pros and cons. Obviously, this minimized women's accomplishments and created a kind of academic ghetto, but the women probably had more support from each other and more respect within their department.

All of this was before my time (although not terribly long ago), but I heard enough stories about pioneering female students to know that we have come such a long way and that I and my cohorts were the lucky beneficiaries of their progress. I think too many American women today do not realize how different things are now and therefore take being treated equally (more or less) in academia for granted.

[–]BEB[S] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Younger people have no idea how hard it was for women in terms of education before the 1970s or so.

By the time I got to university it was much better, but even there I was told by a physics professor on the first day of class that he would fail me because I was a woman.

[–]MarkTwainiac 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

And I've read that in the early days of some sex-integrated universities, female students were responsible for doing the male students' laundry and domestic tasks.

That's very interesting. Can you share links or citations of where you read that? And what period (century, decades) do you mean when you say "in the early days of some sex-integrated universities"?

In the US, colleges/universities started going co-educational in the 1830s. Many all-male colleges/unis long had sister schools for females and male and female students attended many classes together: Brown-Pembroke, Harvard-Radcliffe, Columbia-Barnard, Haverford-Bryn Mawr, Morehouse-Spelman... and so on.

I've never heard of female students at any US (or UK) colleges/unis being made responsible for doing the male students' laundry and domestic tasks, so I am genuinely interested.

Especially given how back-breaking and time-consuming doing laundry was historically, I can't imagine females privileged enough to attend a residential college/uni did their own laundry, much less the laundry of male students. Especially in eras when domestic servants were common, what would be the point of going to college/uni and spending your precious time there doing domestic chores and laundry for other people?

Most residential colleges and unis historically relied on janitorial and cleaning staff and porters to take care of the physical plant, including dorms, and on commercial laundry services to provide clean sheets and towels every week - and usually commercial laundries would do students' personal washing too if they elected to avail themselves of, and pay for, that service. Just as commercial laundries still do today. That's how it was when I was in college in the 1970s, and when my parents went to college/uni just before WW2. When I went to college, there were washing machines and dryers in the dorms - but that wasn't the case for earlier generations.

My impression is that persons of both sexes privileged enough to be attending residential institutions of higher learning traditionally relied on working class persons employed by the college/uni to clean their rooms and common areas like bathrooms and hallways, take out the trash, and on commercial services that contracted with the institution to do laundry. Some students also mailed their personal laundry home (presumably to be done by domestic servants under the direction of their mothers, or perhaps by the mothers themselves).

Also, all the female professors no matter what they taught were relegated to the women's studies department, which had pros and cons.

I don't think there were any "women's studies departments" or even courses until the 1970s, and those were explicitly feminist. Can you explain more what you mean? Thanks

[–]WildApples 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

That's very interesting. Can you share links or citations of where you read that? And what period (century, decades) do you mean when you say "in the early days of some sex-integrated universities"?

Unfortunately, it has been such a long time since I came across this information that I do not recall the sources. I did just find this article, though: "The clearly defined roles required that men studied Greek and Latin and prepared for the ministry, while the women cooked, washed, and cleaned. In fact, 1837 policy at Oberlin dismissed female students from Monday classes so they could do the male students’ laundry (Tuttle, 2004)." [https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1062478.pdf](Link)

I don't think there were any "women's studies departments" or even courses until the 1970s, and those were explicitly feminist. Can you explain more what you mean?

Actually, I may have erred slightly. As I think about it further, it was the home economics department that female professors were relegated to. So a female professor of chemistry would be housed in the home economics department instead of in the science department with all the male chemistry professors. When this sex-based system of organization broke down and the popularity of home economics as a discipline waned, remaining home economics professors were rolled into the newly formed women's studies departments.

I believe I got this from a podcast or NPR radio segment, and it contained a very fascinating look at the merits and detractions of this pedagogical sex segregation from the female professors' perspective. It is a shame that I cannot remember it. If I can locate the source, I will let you know.

[–]BEB[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

I was around when Title IX was passed and yes, equal opportunities for women in education was very much a part of it. We had classes in our school district that were sex-restricted before Title IX. For instance, girls couldn't take a "boys" class that taught woodworking, etc.

I'm pissed off that Title IX is being reduced to sports, when Biden's EO and the Equality Act if it's passed, will have huge implications for girls' educational opportunities, and girls' safety, privacy and dignity.

[–]WildApples 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

I'm pissed off that Title IX is being reduced to sports, when Biden's EO and the Equality Act if it's passed, will have huge implications for girls' educational opportunities, and girls' safety, privacy and dignity.

What other impacts do you foresee? Maybe I am being naive, but I imagine the gender battles in schools will be focused mainly on sports, bathrooms, locker rooms, and lodging accommodations for overnight trips.

[–]BEB[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I am not the person to ask because I am just a layperson, but I'm guessing that scholarships set aside for girls might go to males, among other losses of opportunities for females.

Check out Kara Dansky's (Women's Human Rights Campaign) videos because she is a lawyer and she explains what's happening well. Some of the videos are posted on here but she's also on twitter on @kdansky

[–]WildApples 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Thanks!

[–]MarkTwainiac 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

This raises an interesting question of whether this gang is acting like the Vichyites or quislings. Which is a rabbit hole I'd prefer not to go down, but probably will, LOL.

The Vichy 80 were a group of elected French parliamentarians who, on 10 July 1940, voted against the constitutional change that effectively dissolved the Third Republic and established the authoritarian regime of Philippe Pétain now referred to as Vichy France.

Vichyite

Pronunciation: | \ ˈvishēˌīt, ˈvēsh-, -shiˌ-, usually -īt+V \

NOUN

a member or supporter of the authoritarian regime of Marshal Henri Pétain governing unoccupied France during the earlier part of World War II under an agreement calling for economic collaboration with the Nazis

Pétainist

Pronunciation /ˈpɛtənɪst/ /ˈpeɪtənɪst/ /pɛˈtɛnɪst/

NOUN

A supporter of Pétain or his policies; (hence, more generally) a collaborator or supporter of collaboration. In later use also: a person espousing the ultra-conservative, nationalist ideology associated with the Vichy regime and its supporters.

ADJECTIVE

Of, relating to, or supportive of Pétain or his policies; (hence, more generally) inclined to collaborate. In later use also: espousing the ultra-conservative, nationalist ideology associated with the Vichy regime and its supporters.

Origin: 1940s; earliest use found in Nevada State Journal. From the name of Henri Philippe Pétain, French military commander and head of the Vichy government between 1940 and 1944, during which time he collaborated with the German occupying forces + -ist, perhaps after French pétainiste (although this is first attested later: 1944 as adjective, 1946 as noun).

quisling

| ˈkwizliNG |

noun

a traitor who collaborates with an enemy force occupying their country: [as modifier] : he had the Quisling owner of the factory arrested.

ORIGIN

Second World War: from the name of Major Vidkun Quisling (1887–1945), the Norwegian army officer and diplomat who ruled Norway on behalf of the German occupying forces (1940–45).

[–]BEB[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I personally am going to stick with Vichy, because I want to call "Progressive" female politicians who betray women "Vichy Women"

Although, I might be one of the few who remembers the Eagles song and therefore one of the few to get my own joke ;-)

[–]MarkTwainiac 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Since "Vichy" and "witchy" don't rhyme, or sound much alike at all, I don't think most people will get the joke, LOL.

[–]DiscoStegosaurus 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

So her solution to this problem is child abuse. Got it. Promote the act of destroying the bodies of little boys via “puberty blockers” and cross sex hormones. Tell parents that only if they destroy their sons bodies can their offspring participate in female sports categories. This is so beyond sick and twisted. This abusive behavior should not be normalized or encouraged. These people are dangerous.

[–]BEB[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

An unsettling thing about Martina Navratilova's involvement is that she has been participating in men in women's sports debate on Twitter for at least a year or two so should know the controversy surrounding puberty blockers.

Is she ignoring the possible side effects of puberty blockers on children and/ or is she being paid by the gender lobby/Big Pharma? I would be crushed if she were actually a paid shill, because she was one of my heroines and I always felt she was genuine and had a lot of integrity.