“anymore than a woman will find her way into the Monday Night Football booth.”

No. You. Didn’t!
You’re gonna get in so much trouble…I’ll just sit back and watch, thank you very much.

I suppose it’s possible (Robin Roberts maybe?), but unless you are a play-by-play person, the only other way to get into the booth is to have been a player or coach.

I suppose a woman might be a coach some day (bad Goldie Hawn movies aside), but a woman will never play in the NFL, except maybe as a kicker, and they generally don’t get announcer jobs post-football.

I dunno, Slartibarfast, as far as I know Al Michaels, Tony Kornheiser, and Mike Tirico have no playing or coaching experience. So I’m not sure that is the reason. I think it is just the way we prefer it.

And I’m not sure that gender exclusivity is a bad thing when the reason for gathering is not related to public access. We can effectively ostracize bigots, but I’m not sure that many people would consider Lindsay Ferrier a bigot in this context.

Good Lord man, I know you mean well but you are a dinosaur. Using an outdated movie reference doesn’t help your cause either.

Reports of my extinction are greatly exaggerated.

. . . and I guess you don’t have an argument?

Come on sara - actually, the fact that Ned had to use a 20-something year old movie as a reference kind of proves his point.

There just aren’t many movies made about SAHD’s. “Mr Mom” is pretty much it. There’s a reason for that. They are, statistically speaking, as culturally significant as Falco fans.

(Sorry, another 80’s reference there).

Lindsay’s original point was spot on: each gender needs its own “safe place”. There is nothing wrong with this.

The SAHDs acting like they’re the next Shannon Faulkner (damn - another old reference!) is laughable. Sometimes, when you belong to a statistically very small group, it’s lonely. I’ve been there. Comes with the territory.

Ned: Al Michaels and Mike Tirico are play by play guys. Tony Kornheiser has no business being in the booth.

SBF, I see your point about booth roles (and I agree about Kornheiser–like Dennis Miller, seems to be a comic, non-straight man, something that’s not necessary in my opinion).

But it’s interesting that you should bring up Shannon Faulkner. I’m impressed that you remember her name. As a Citadel grad, I imagine I’ll always remember her name, but her situation came to mind when I was writing this post. Shannon negatively affected The Citadel’s academic experience even if she had more “upper body strength” or more discipline or a higher IQ than every male in the Citadel Corps of Cadets. And to deny that there was something healthy (and something fully “constitutional”) about a public, all-male academic institution reflects a fundamentally flawed view (in my opinion) of the difference between males and females.

I’m not so sure that the Citadel is at all a good exemplar, unless you’re saying women should not be in the military as officers. Why should women be excluded from any public institution that is in the business of preparing officers for the US Military. If they’re good enough to fight and die for this country they certainly deserve the same–not separate, but equal–opportunities.

Well, the Citadel isn’t in that business . . . everyone takes ROTC, but the numbers that actually go into the service are nowhere near half as far as I know.

The Citadel used to be in the business of all-male education. It’s not an academy.

Though some women certainly do die in the service, they aren’t supposed to be in forward positions (I think that’s the term).

Ned:

I will admit that nearly 40 years out from my four, I don’t know a lot of the rules… But, female members of the various branches are in the thick of it in Iraq. And even if they’re on a ship at sea or a rear area, an exocet or suicide bomb is not gender specific.

Unless there is a genuinely compelling reason for a school to be non-coed, particularly one that receives public money, than I’d have to say it violates the spirit, if not the letter, of the law.

a genuinely compelling reason.

Yeah, that’s the debate isn’t it? But that wasn’t really my point. Women have tons of opportunities to participate in ROTC like the program at The Citadel–unfortunately, men didn’t have any other opportunities to attend an all-male military college. And competing with gov’t for supplying a service can get pretty pricey (see thread on “public sports”).

The Citadel and Shannon Faulkner situation presents various additional considerations to the debate, but there surely isn’t a constitutional right to attend a moms group, I’d say. That being said, I can picture the lawsuit now . . .

Ned:

Again, why is the Citadel a special case? I don’t know what their funding sources are, but if they’re taking public money and are not open to the public then I as a taxpayer would have a problem with that. And, yes, it does cut both ways. I don’t think any educational institution should be exempt from open admission policies unless there is some proof that certain groups need to be excluded. Women have proven in various wars that they are every bit as capable in the mayhem department as men.

I don’t know about the “mom’s group” thing. Between service work at the church I formerly attended, pottery making and cooking, I’ve been the thorn amongst the roses many, many times. Some women didn’t like me (now, THERE’S a surprise!) but, then, a fair number of men don’t either.

The Citadel isn’t an academy. Their “funding” sources are probably the same as other non-private universities–favorable tax treatment, land grant, tuition grant monies for individual students, etc.

some proof . . . That’s the nub, dc. I think there is tons of “proof” of the differences between men and women, enough so that there are legitimate advantages in segregating them for educational purposes . . . for people who desire that.

Of course, war is more than “mayhem,” but I get your point. Troop cohesion is not a frivolous concept, and effectiveness in battle is not less important than giving women an equivalent opportunity to give their life for their country.

So you’re saying women can’t lead, can’t follow or can’t serve alongside men in battle? It’s just not true, Ned. Women don’t generally have the upper body strength that men in the same age groups have. It does not mean they are less athletic or less capable of sustained physical effort under difficult circumstances. The Russians, during their Great Patriotic War trained and deployed many highly efficient female snipers. Both Russian and U.S. female soldiers ferried aircraft across vast distances under harrowing conditions. There is no reason that women cannot be as effective as men at most if not all of the combat arts.

No, I said that The Citadel isn’t in the business of filling up our armed services.

And I said that mixing women and men in combat is arguably counter to the right kind of troop cohesion and morale. Winning wars is more than a bunch of individuals winning individual confrontations, I think you’d agree; so the efficiency of working together is relevant. And given the gravity of war, it is not the place for “social engineering.”

The Soviets/Russians and their “equal treatment” of women is another subject . . . it is not the unisex utopia that many presume.

Ned:

You are adept at setting up strawmen. I did not suggest that the Citadel is purely in the business of making soldiers. Once again, if it has no compelling reason for being exclusively male, why is it being given public funds to operate as a segregated institution.

“The Soviets/Russians and their “equal treatment” of women is another subject . . . it is not the unisex utopia that many presume.”

I never said anything about China and I never suggested that Russia’s allowing/requiring women to be warriors had anything to do with equality. The US WAAC had women flying everything from single engine fighters to heavy bombers, until they were no longer needed for that duty. Not an awful lot of women flying military aircraft these days.

Your comments about mixing women and men in combat sound a lot like the rational that was formerly used to keep Afrian Americans and whites from serving in integrated units.

I did not say that the

Ah yes, I was waiting for you to try and say that color of skin is the same as gender. Big difference . . . talk about straw men . . .

But on the subject of strawmen, I made my point numerous times about how men and women are different. Simultaneously, you REPEATEDLY referred to the U.S. Armed Services despite my REPEATED differentiation between the armed services and what The Citadel’s purpose is/was. Oh, and newsflash: The Citadel is no longer single-sex as of 1996(?).

“Soviet” is not related to China.

I would have thought the Citadel was no longer male only, but your comments made it sound as if it had reverted.

I’m not equating gender with race; I’m saying that what used to be said about (take your pick) African, Italian, Irish, Jewish Americans being unable or unwilling to perform at the same level as previously assimilated Americans are arguments that are made about women in the military or as CEO’s, cops, whatever.

I was listening to NPR this afternoon and they were talking with a guy from the Marine Times and an Army HR spokesman about the problem the Army is having retaining young officers. At one point a woman was mentioned, who is a major and a mother of four, who has served in combat in both Afghanistan and Iran. Women are not incapable of or afraid to fight. I’m not suggesting that we put them on the front lines in the combat infantry. What I’m suggesting is that they are in no way, other than by dint of insufficient training, any less capable of doing the work of war.

You “made your point”?, perhaps; you did not however support it.