I grew up in a world in which girls didn’t have any right to participate in sports programs — whether school, town, city, or other programs. It was the accepted practice I found wherever I moved as a child; my dad was an air traffic controller, and promotions often meant going to a new state.
As a young girl, I was very interested in playing organized sports because I enjoyed playing with my friends in backyards, streets, playgrounds, and grammar school recesses. No problem, I thought… until I tried to join a baseball team in Reading, Pennsylvania, at the age of 10. There were no girls’ teams, so I tried to join the local boys league. My reaction to the discrimination of being refused was to cry with disappointment. I didn’t understand the reasoning, so I asked my mom and dad for help. They contacted the coach and argued my case, but they were helpless, too. I resented that, just because I was a girl, I couldn’t join and play.
My father kept watching for the chance to move closer to family, so he applied for assignment to the New Bedford Municipal Airport, and he got the job. When I was 12, we moved to Fall River, Massachusetts, where my mom and dad had grown up.
I started Morton Junior High in seventh grade and was excited about the new adventure of gym class on my schedule. During the ’60s, girls had to wear these awful A-line blue gym suits with pantaloons. I walked past the beautiful gym on my way to the locker room and was confused, when after we’d changed into our gym outfits, the instructor told us to make two lines, space ourselves, and face her.
Space ourselves for what?, I wondered. Unbelievably, my gym class was held in the locker room, not the gym. The gym was for the boys. The girls exercised in the locker room. Once again, I went home upset. Once again, I reported the situation to my mom, who was at a loss for words. Alas, once again, I found there was nothing that could be done.
I found the same reality when we moved to Tiverton and I went to Pocasset School. At the time, the town did not have a high school, so we had school choice. My family chose Mount St. Mary’s High School, which had a basketball team. Although I didn’t make the team, I was encouraged by the possibility.
In 1966, I joined what would be the first graduating class from Tiverton’s new junior-senior high school. Unfortunately, a new building did not mean new thinking, and there were no competitive sports programs for girls.
We did have gym class in the actual gym, although the partition remained shut, and the equipment was on the boys’ side most of the time. Equipment wasn’t the only thing missing from the girls’ experience. The girls’ version of basketball was so boring. You could dribble the ball three times and then had to pass it. No running. I asked the teacher why the boys had a very fast, fun, competitive game and we did not. I don’t remember any answer beyond having to play by the rules, which meant no fun.
It was supposed to be a time of liberation, so some of the girls interested in competitive sports started a petition, and everyone interested signed it. We presented it to the principal, who said he would get back to us. A couple of days later, we were told the school department did not allocate any money or budget for competitive girls’ sports programs… other than for cheer leaders. The school had no budget to pay a coach, buy uniforms, or pay for busses.
Title IX changed all this in 1972. The schools had to fund and offer competitive sports for girls.
When I had daughters, I was grateful they would have a chance to shine in competitive sports in towns, cities, and schools and possibly even earn scholarships for college. They didn’t have to be frustrated always sitting on the sidelines, not being able to participate because discrimination was simply accepted.
Unfortunately, it’s starting to look like the success of girls’ and women’s sports, allowing us to compete against each other on an equal footing, is now in jeopardy. Now that girls are no longer stuck in locker rooms or on the empty side of a partition, biological males are asking to compete against them. In state after state and sport after sport, girls reaching for the golden ring are having it snatched from their grasp.
Obviously, the story we’re told is very different. We’re not told that discrimination against girls is acceptable, but somehow giving girls their own sports is discrimination! The effect is the same. When I was a girl, I couldn’t take a spot on the boys’ team. Now, biological boys get to play on their own teams and the girls’.
Featured image by Justin Katz using Dall-E 3 and Photoshop.
[Open full post]
Unfortunately, Rhode Islanders don’t want it. The Ocean State could be a beacon collecting some of tech jobs California is losing, as Joey Politano shows here:
Rhode Island is so in the grip of its special interests and ideologues that they’d rather imitate California than create opportunity.
[Open full post]
As I suggested in a post this morning, it’s an error to think we can impose requirements on the status quo and not risk any loss of what we have. “Diversity, equity, and inclusion” (DEI) principles are the archetype of this thinking. Admittedly, I don’t know whether a U.S. Navy officer who didn’t notice that the scope on his AR was backwards, among other errors, in a photo-op — not to mention the assistants who prepared it and the media professionals who developed and promoted the post — was a victim of DEI, but it’s a good warning sign, nonetheless.
The more we prioritize things that are irrelevant (at best, nice to have) to jobs, the more likely it is that the people who take them will lack some other experience. We don’t live in a world in which there are just so many identically good candidates for every role that new requirements will have no effect. Pretending otherwise is going to get a lot of people killed.
[Open full post]
The featured image of this post compares the original cover of Mountain Music by the band Alabama with the censored version now used for music streaming services. I should specify that I’m not alleging the band and the companies that manage its music were forced to make the change by a government agency, but censorship it is, nonetheless.
In January, I argued that Americans on the political left are wrong to insist that nobody be allowed to see the Confederate Flag as a symbol representing Southern cultural heritage disconnected from the Civil War. The meaning of symbols can change, and we should not assume the absolute worst intent in somebody who makes use of a symbol to which we respond negatively. The Mountain Music modification drives the point home and illustrates the depth of our loss when we discard historical perspective.
Here are some of the lyrics from “Changes Comin’ On,” a song on the Mountain Music album:
Ford unveiled the Mustang
Things looked good in Detroit for the people there
And I could feel the changes comin’ on
From Atlanta, Doctor King told the world he had a dream
People followed him
And daddy said my hair was getting longI could feel the changes comin on
People started singing different songs
Searchin’ for the place where they belong
I could feel the changes comin’ on
No doubt, young progressives will find an excuse to scoff, but that this song was on an album adorned by the Confederate Flag points to something important. You erase a whole lot of people — good people — when you hide their complexity.
To my eye, the juxtaposition of “Changes Comin’ On” with the Confederate Flag is a powerful indicator that the forces of tolerance, pluralism, and respect had won so thoroughly that the separatists couldn’t even claim their own symbol. Their progeny had changed their beliefs, and the United States had absorbed their flag as regional marker.
As always, with pluralism, and as used to be characteristic of the United States, that absorption came with an invitation to evolve and be honored. By the 1980s, we were able to raise up the good and American values that had gone so wrong in the Civil War, as distinct from the racism and dehumanization that had always been at odds with our founding principles. We were moving on to a better future.
We impoverish ourselves when we draw a big red X through the possibility of such changes, and the past decade or two have shown the division and danger of such impoverishment.
[Open full post]
This flaw of inexperience among the young (and progressives) has become far too pervasive in our society and is particularly notable in Rhode Island. People seem to think that the current state of affairs has been established and will continue indefinitely, so we can shape it like clay to the future we want to see. Investors will continue to build businesses… producers will continue to produce… minority parties will continue to fight the good fight to keep representative democracy honest. And so on. That’s not how reality works, though.
The above was my reaction to this tweet from left-wing Democrat state representative David Morales:
It might be nice to hire a chief executive with intimate and specific experience with the product, but past experience as a customer is not typically an overwhelming advantage and certainly not one that can’t be compensated once in the role (not least because customer experiences differ). Morales’s underlying assumption is that there is a pool of indistinguishably high-quality candidates for the role, so adding a mandate won’t have any negative effects.
The more likely outcome, from which Rhode Island increasingly suffers, is that the pool of candidates will be so uniformly unqualified that additional requirements won’t make things notably worse. The first step to fixing this problem is a more mature understanding of how reality actually functions.
[Open full post]
On the list of people for whom the exposure of social media has been a source of disappointing exposure, novelist Stephen King has got to be near the top. Like his books or not (and, honestly, given the content, I regret the influence that he had on my younger life), authors are generally placed in the “intellectual” category, and one would expect more insight than tweets like this:
I’m on the pro-life side of this issue, but I also wish we could have honest discussions about public policy. The anachronism of this state law isn’t evidence that the federal government has to set policy for every state in the country, which was essentially the state of affairs while the horrible Roe v. Wade ruling was in effect. Rather, it should be a reminder that we have an entire system built around the principle that people can change the laws under which they’re governed over time.
It’s telling that advocates for the permissibility of killing of children are so much more focused on deriving political benefit from old laws than changing them where they can be changed. Apparently, what they really want is a world in which a rich old writer from Maine can tell the people of Arizona what sort of laws they live under.
[Open full post]
The short answer is that we shouldn’t, but Bill Bartholomew’s attempt is worth a double-take and some thought about what he’s missing:
at nearly 68k, Scott Avedisian’s termination payment is almost as much as the contract that the most exciting player in college basketball, Caitlin Clark, signed after being selected first overall in the WNBA draft last night
The tweet is a fine example of a particularly progressive means of argumentation. Bartholomew presents two news items that have nothing in common other than the fact that they both involve people being paid money related to jobs. The context and phrasing make clear that he thinks the comparison shows self-evident injustice. The disgraced white Republican male (presumably getting no credit for being gay, in this context) collects a parting check from a state agency, while “the most exciting player in college basketball” languishes with low pay, as the latest example women making less money as professional athletes.
Thus, the argument, such as it is, derives from little more than a projection of a virtue signal. And because the self-evident nature of the injustice substitutes for explanation, the complaint is an invitation for any sort of policy suggestion that progressives can assert will make a difference. Predictably, explanation of the mechanisms that make any policy likely to work will be passed over in favor of assertions that progressive policies can’t help but resolve progressive problems.
A grown-up polity, however, has to put some details on its analyses. I’m no fan of Avedisian, or the Rhode Island Public Transit Authority (RIPTA), for that matter, but the job he’s leaving is as the chief executive of an agency with a nine-figure budget. We can debate the public policies of the agency, but thousands of people rely on it for both economic production and day-to-day living and urgent needs. To run this organization, the chief has to navigate an uncomfortable political atmosphere in which he or she is always one bad decision away from a scorching public spotlight, and special interests are constantly pulling every lever they can find to get more out of the system.
Yeah, I know, woe is the lonely bureaucrat. The point is simply that it isn’t unreasonable for RIPTA to send the message that qualified people taking such a job don’t have to worry about being totally cut off on short notice should a moment of bad judgment (even really bad judgment) make them politically vulnerable.
On the other side of the comparison, we should note that Clark’s pay is annual and, moreover, it probably isn’t even a substantial fraction of the money she can expect to make. The Women’s National Basketball Association (WNBA) — which does not have the profits of its men’s counterpart — is providing her a platform from which she will surely make millions of dollars endorsing products. That is how a free-market economy recognizes people for being “the most exciting player” in a sport.
In fact, if there is any unfair factor contributing to the level Clark’s pay, it’s probably the fact that the WNBA is unionized. I haven’t reviewed the terms of the union contract, but they tend to be levelling, making it more difficult for the league to recognize Clark’s unique situation. To be sure, men’s sports show that in high-variety, big-money ventures like professional sports, labor unions tend to be less able to demand rigid pay scales, but if the likes of Bartholomew are looking for villains in the identity politics war, there are plenty of alleys they can explore.
Featured image by Justin Katz using Dall-E 3.
[Open full post]
The Rhode Island Office of Revenue Analysis releases regular reports summarizing the state’s tax credit programs, and sometimes progressive politicians and journalists get a news story out of them. What’s disappointing is the paucity of the opposing voices. According to Katherine Gregg’s Providence Journal article the Rhode Island Business Coalition is fine with ending the program for any new participants.
For their part, the authors of the report acknowledge that the businesses that use the program tend to be among the largest, so without programs designed to make them stay, like tax credit programs, the state’s economy could suffer.
There we see the underlying problem that nobody wants to address. Rhode Island’s economic policy is terrible. We’ve taken a beautiful state in a great location and made it so difficult and risky to operate in that we have to lure businesses here. Progressives with a coherent philosophy should realize this is their ideal policy. They get to pick and choose who gets relief from what imposition and to maintain a lever for bribery and ideological pressure.
I’m all for ending tax credit programs, but we should lower taxes and regulations generally. If we make Rhode Island a beacon for economic activity, businesses will pay their full taxes to be here.
[Open full post]
I don’t want to read too much into a few seconds of video, but something is chilling about progressive Democrat Representative Brandon Potter’s face as Meara began to speak in favor of Republican Representative Patricia Morgan’s bill to prevent transgender-related mutilation of children:
His facial expression is not just of hatred. It’s cold, as if promising that one day he hopes not to have to sit there and be polite while people speak blasphemies.
[Open full post]
That means most of us have to be servants to somebody else. That’s why a political party that still pretends it’s “for the little guy” is relentlessly targeting “little guys” who work for themselves. This video from John Stossel is worth watching:
If you’re independent, you’re difficult to manage. If top-down government can pressure top-down business with the aid of top-down labor unions, things are easier (and more profitable) for the people at the top.
[Open full post]