|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
South Carolina: Protecting Women From Bogeymen Since 1776
Jordana Megonigal: “What are we protecting our girls for, again? And from whom are we protecting them?”
9 comments
If you are truly concerned about “protecting our girls” you’d encourage parents of girls to move far away from S.C. and the Southeastern USA.
Also, using a convicted woman beaters’ blog probably ain’t the best platform for your thoughts on “protecting our girls”.
I disagree. Any platform is a worthy platform for this subject, and you can’t overthrow Gilead by running away from it.
Funny all these people “protecting girls” ignore the girls that are unborn. Expendable……
Meanwhile the GOP continues to strip rights from women, regardless of if they are born or not. Less pay, no guaranteed maternity leave, slashing access to birth control, etc. You guys even have women trashing the idea of women being allowed to vote.
And yes, unborn girls should retain the rights over their body and health care, including abortion. You should read what some women who very much wanted to give birth have had to go through because of SCOTUS making it harder for them to get health care when things don’t work out in the pregnancy. Shame on you disgusting trolls.
You do realize what “unborn” means, right?
The author wrote: “play on sports teams opposite their biological gender.” Gender is not biological. Sex is biological. Chromosomes that determine sex (in almost all cases XX or XY) are biological. Gender exists on a spectrum.
Title IX is a complicated issue. Putting that aside, I think this is an excellent article and well illustrates what females are actually up against in South Carolina. Title IX, left untouched or changed, is not what is wrong in SC for females.
Sorry, Carla, but Title IX is not that complicated. Its intent was and has always been to prevent discrimination on the basis of sex in education and education activities. As a result, female athletics have flourished even when the free market likely would not have supported such. As the father of a female athlete, I have no interest in boys or men competing against my daughter regardless of how they may identify. The sex v. gender argument is nonsensical. Bottom line, there are many issues that females face in our state and nation, but this one should in no way be diminished which is exactly what the author seeks to accomplish. If anything, this could be used as an opportunity to open the eyes of our leaders to these other issues.
No need to apologize and thank you for explaining to me, a female resident of SC, what issues females in our state and union face. When speaking about males participating in female sports, I think there’s a big difference if that male is 6 years old or 16 years old. My opinion is that a broad, sweeping decision (all in or all out) is not the solution to this issue. Nuance is rare and complicated…especially complicated for those who don’t understand the difference between sex and gender.
Just a couple thoughts:
I think the problem with our schools is parental, not governmental. If you allow your kids to grow up to lousy adults, it’s a problem. If you don’t supervise their studies, they won’t excel. Very few kids have a burning desire to learn– at least I didn’t. I studied because my parents made me. I just don’t think the government can fix crappy parenting.
Obesity, I believe, is mostly a socio-economic problem. If a mother has a choice between making a salad the kids won’t like and may not eat, and buying Whoppers– which are cheaper than a salad, filling, and tasty, she’s going to opt for the junk food. Bellies get full. Especially if she’s working 40+ hours a week.
The government sucks at everything.