By Stephen Young
By Stephen Young
By Stephen Young
By Jim Schutze
By Rachel Watts
By Lauren Drewes Daniels
I don't involve myself with DISD concerns, largely because I have no children in school, and I voted for Bill Keever to represent my interests. I want him to stay, and if he resigns as Lyons suggests, it breaks the contract.
However, I would like all the belligerent, mouthy, rowdy, so-called activists, who use that sobriquet to rationalize all manner of disaffection, disagreement, and disrespect to disappear. I view them as agitators who have absolutely no interest in the education of our youth, but who have found a forum in which to act out their own dysfunctions.
I wouldn't be able to conduct the school board near as well as Bill Keever does; however, I would have each and every agitator out of there, and have the forum set for those who want to get on with the business of education.
The evil men do
The type of anti-male bias manifest in Holly Mullen's "Losing by decision" [February 20] is not only offensive, but I feel belies any claim she has of presenting this piece as professional journalism.
I appreciate the inherent requirement in writing an expose; however, the extreme bipolar manner in which the sexes are contrasted effectively attenuates her thesis and is, moreover, the dead giveaway of the new, extreme, "man is the enemy" women's movement. Without exception, every male or male group in the article--the TIWA, the wrestling officials, the coaches, the attorney, the judge, and the other male wrestlers and teams--are set forth as essentially being in a conspiracy against women wrestlers, and are cast as "the good ol' boys" and further qualified as haughty ("...referee will deign to..."), fearful and defensive (worried she will "...overshadow the guys..."), meanspirited ("churlish"), unfair and vindictive (...she was "singled out" to do grueling exercises). These adjectives are in sharp contrast to the tender, glowing descriptions of the girls (as she "...nods eagerly [then] lopes across the floor on long, coltish legs..."). It's a wonder that these horrible men are not up on charges for their wanton acts against the sweet, perky, honest, hardworking females.
So, notwithstanding your expansive position, let's venture a look at reality. Two arguments against intersex matches stand out: First, plain and simple, it is unfair. The fact of a higher muscle mass and faster rate of contraction gives males a dramatically unfair advantage. The women will almost invariably lose. This is not a chauvinistic mental construct of evil men--it is physiologic fact. A second and perhaps stronger argument against intersex matches is--as you clearly point out in your paper--that the girls will get hurt.
Miss Mullen, I am all for women wrestling. Not allowing them to wrestle against males doesn't mean that they are any less athletes, for athleticism is not defined in those terms, but rather the devotion to the ideals of sport, the self-sacrifice involved in the play at excellence, and the satisfaction born of fair competition. Women's sporting events are just as exciting as the men's and their athleticism the same, but certainly most of the athletic world has caught on to a salient truism that has somehow evaded you--that they need to be kept separate. I suggest, therefore, you redirect your self-righteous ire to the only reasonable solution. Instead of denigrating the men, set your energy to helping develop a separate women's league. You could then lobby them to keep out the evil men.
Ken Reed, M.D.
In our "Involuntary takeout" review on March 6, we incorrectly indicated that Ali Baba had no liquor license and patrons could bring their own wine. Ali Baba, indeed,now has a liquor license, and you no longer can bring your own alcoholic beverages.