AEIdeas

The public policy blog of the American Enterprise Institute

Subscribe to the blog

Discussion: (50 comments)

  1. Except that in the Title IX – there were some additional sentences that were invisible and to be used when Men complained about anything –

    “Title IX is intended to help women and even though it does not explicitly say so, if men challenge any part of Title IX, these invisible amendments shall be made visible and any challenge squashed. Till the day when women are over represented in every field of human (excuse me, hu-woman) endeavour, we can bring the overwhelming force of GOVERNMENT to command and control men”

    1. jesus chian

      I can’t tell if your serious or not… If you are serious though I have to wonder how it’s legal to have “invisible” additions to Title IX. I mean it follows that if something is law it would make absolutely no sense to hide it. If a law is just then it should not have to be hidden.

      1. john abruzzi

        I…I honestly can’t tell if your reply was a joke.

        Please tell me it was?

      2. You can’t see the “invisible” sections? Next you’ll tell us you can’t see the Kings new clothes.

        1. Mark Neil

          Oh. I SO wish there was a like button for this comment.

    2. Well what the heck?!?!

      Why can’t there be some ‘invisable‘ sections to Title IX?

      I mean it must be like those ‘invisable‘ sections of the Constitution that ‘legally‘ allow a Congressional Black Caucus to exist and use taxpayer money to support them…

    3. Locomotive Breath

      Someone’s sarcasm detector is broken.

  2. “…there were some additional sentences that were invisible and to be used when Men complained about anything.”

    Invisible?….as in invisible ink?, or has MSU been able to create gender specific typeface? :)

  3. reading Lowerie’s drivel, all I could think of was this: http://www.curiositiesbydickens.com/wp-content/uploads/what-your-mouth-just-said.jpg

  4. Tom E. Snyder

    Mark, you just don’t understand:

    “All genders are equal. Some are more equal than others.”

  5. Greg Webb

    MSU is violating Title IX with its women’s only lounge. The lounge should be open to all students regardless of gender. My guess is that no male student is so upset with this matter that he is willing to challenge it in court. The Michigan Civil Rights Commission is not the best place to challenge such nonsense because administrative agencies are filled with politically correct, but legally wrong ideologues.

  6. Meanwhile…in Denmark;
    It’s hitting the newwires this afternoon that Denmark will begin fining salons that charge more for women’s haircuts than mens…let the Hair War begin!

    1. I hope Danish women enjoy looking like their hair is cut by a flowbee.

      Nah. Either Salons will charge by hair length and number of procedures or something equally defensible or the price of men’s cuts will increase by some amount and women’s haircuts will decrease by the same amount. Whatever happens, this is a retarded law.

      1. Agree, I nearly dyed laughing after reading this….

        1. morganovich

          if that was deliberate, that was a truly cutting pun. ouch.

          does it seem like suddenly everyhting is a sex/race issue these days?

          http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_SUGARY_DRINKS_LAWSUIT?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2013-01-23-06-18-52

          The issue is complex for the minority advocates, especially given that obesity rates are higher than average among blacks and Hispanics, according to the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The groups say in court papers they’re concerned about the discrepancy, but the soda rule will unduly harm minority businesses and “freedom of choice in low-income communities.”

          it seems like you can’t win on this soda thing. if you allow them, it unfairly contributes to minority obesity, but if you ban them, it harms minority businesses and choice.

          talk about scylla and charibdis.

          1. If they ban my Diet Coke and there’ll be hell toupe!

          2. You’re killing me, Moe!

          3. MacDaddyWatch

            Manchester 12-Bagger:

            Still waiting for you to post the data that supports your bodacious performance claims. What are you hiding, why all the secrecy?

            You ran your big mouth, now its time to back it up. “Trust me, I manage a hedge fund” falls a little short.

          4. morganovich

            mac-

            show me where i EVER said 12 bagger.

            you can’t because i didn’t.

            until you can, you are just a delusional liar stalking someone of whom he is jealous on the internet.

            that’s a sad, sad life for a “macdaddy”.

        2. “dyed…”

          meh meh meh!

  7. Given that open homosexuals of each sex use restrooms of their own sex; what is the legal justification for disallowing men in a “women’s” restroom?

  8. This is how equality ends, not with a bang, but a whimper.

  9. Dwight Oglesby

    Mark is clearly right to raise this issue. And the language of the statute clearly supports him. But he is also supported by his strong moral commitment to equality of opportunity. It is not easy to risk being mistreated or shunned in the medieval world of academia.

    I am an older than middle aged white man, one who actively promoted the end of gender discrimination during my business and legal career. I am astonished at modern day women who perpetuate blind prejudice against men. Such women continue to tell younger women that they are still being ground under the oppressive heels of men in general.

    Take a look around. It is no longer happening in America. (The progress made in America has not occurred in Continental Europe, Russia, China, the Middle East, India, Pakistan, Southeast Asia, Latin America, and on and on).

    In America, such blind prejudice probably does occur in individual situations, but I suspect no more often than when women categorically proclaim men to be animalistic oppressors. This seems particularly true in academia, as Ms Lowrie so firmly and bureaucratically demonstrates with her evasive answers.

    By the way, what are these “women’s needs” anyway. Peace and quiet? Are women so helpless that they can’t see to their “needs” without Federal Funding?

    A gender based lounge, while clearly illegal, will probably not ruin men’s lives at MSU. But MSU women are also strong enough. They would get over it too if the roles were reversed.

    Something much harder for students to get over is the constant teaching that women are currently victims just because they were victimized in the past. The last thing MSU should do is provide phony protection to women with the deadening technique of political correctness. They not only don’t need it, the process is harmful and divisive.

    It is now time to celebrate the progress in America that many men have encouraged, side by side with women.

    Revolutionary women have achieved their goal with astonishing quickness. Women, quite properly, won the gender revolution, thanks in many parts to the support and encouragement of men. I think it is time to move on; to look to each person’s individual merits and, as Martin Luther King said:

    “I have a dream that my four little children
    will one day live in a nation where they will
    not be judged by the color of their skin,
    but, but by the content of their character.”

    What better standard could there be?

    Maybe some day. Hope springs eternal.

    1. Prosperity and progress causes insanity – there is no other explanation. These same people who complain about being discriminated against and all that have NO IDEA how terrific the US is – they have NO IDEA how things indeed are today – worse, I do not think they care – they just like to complain and whine – and keep demanding more and more. It is like that other story that was posted – about how it seems that the Feds will consider women being equal to men only when women outnumber men in every discipline, in every job category, for everything – they have NO IDEA what a wonderful country they are indeed living in. No Idea.

  10. Bob Parkman

    Discrimination? It doesn’t exist, except when we discriminate against those who claim they don’t discriminate.

  11. I wonder what those needs are that she mentions. I can’t think of any.social needs women have that requires their own lounge… Other than the need to feel superior.

  12. Elizabeth

    As an MSU alum, I can recall this space — back in 1990, there wasn’t anything special about it execpt that it was quieter than the main “lounge” area in the Student Union, and adjoined the women’s restrooms, so it was a useful place to stop between classes. I’m not sure what the “needs” are that are being served by the lounge in 2012 unless they’ve changed the space to be more of an active “womens’ resource area” with organized events, in which case the quiet study space is lost.

  13. This existed as long ago as the 1960′s when I was a female student there and dated back to the 1950′s if not earlier. My impression is that it was/has already been eliminated in the remodeling/revamp of the MSU Union Building which was to be undertaken in the 2012/2013.

    1. My suspicion is that it dates back far futher and the base article says so saying 1925 at which time there was a mens and a womens lounge but the students voted the mens lounge away. Anyway if you live in the dorms on the East Campus or South Campus who goes to the Union anyway, its a 1.5 mile walk. So its more a place for off campus students to hang out. In the 4 years I was there in the 1968 1972 except for Bowling Class I doubt I went there 10 times. in the 4 years. (The Bowling Alley was in the basement of the Union)

  14. You’re actually expecting people who use the law to create institutional discrimination to abide by it when it demands non-discrimination?

    To me a more important question than why MSU is allowed to get away with this is why are students choosing to go to MSU and another similar institutions in the first place. The answer to this question is obvious. What may not be so obvious is that things don’t have to be this way.

    The best solution to the problem of corruption in higher eduction is the displacement from power of traditional colleges and universities. If the value provided by MSU were widely available from countless sources, institutions like MSU would quickly find themselves held accountable by a public uninterested in their political fetishes, or the current price tag for their services.

    Will this happen? Hard to say, but the emergence of things like Khan Academy, Coursera, and various other sources of educational value means that there are at least some changes coming our way.

  15. They really ought to find a gay male student to sue for access. He has needs, too! When faced with someone claiming Victim status, always look for someone with greater Victim status.

  16. Pat in Colorado

    I’d be curious to know if MSU has a Men’s Resource Center. (Ha Ha. I know, what are the chances?)

    1. “Lowrie said she has yet to hear of male needs that could be satisfied by a lounge.”
      … bikini competition; by tradition, it would have to be mixed attendance.

      Cheers

  17. When i was living in the dorms at the U of Washington in the late 60′s, a room in the eating area was reserved for non-white people. It was justified “based on the principal of room reservation”. Maybe they could try that shuck and jive at MSU.

  18. Why does Dr. Perry have these hangups about college girls and their privacy??

    The next thing he will find some right to go into their restrooms.

    Are there not more important issues for AEI??

    1. PeakTrader

      BigEd says: “The next thing he will find some right to go into their restrooms.”

      And maybe locker rooms? Let me know when he does.

    2. Why not? Female reporters (even female college reporters) have access to male athlete’s locker rooms – down to the college level. This BS double standard needs to stop. They want equality, then let’s have things equal – the men get to use the women’s lounge, and the male reporters get access to the women’s locker rooms.

  19. PeakTrader

    And, I’m sure, most guys wouldn’t say anything about a special women’s area for breast feeding and diaper changing.

  20. By definition, sexism is practiced by men against women. It is therefore impossible for a woman to be sexist. Even it it were possible, the women-only lounge would still be desirable because men are pigs. Also, the vast wealth of the western world that allows such things as women-only lounges at universities, was amassed by men who enslaved other cultures, that is to say, good cultures, and that alone is enough to exclude men. Also, men believe in collective punishment, and therefore, no man has a right to demand admission to such places that reject such behavior.

  21. It’s somewhat disingenuous to frame this as a female privilege issue. What’s actually being actively questioned is the basis for which such a room need exist in the first place.

    If we accept that women have special needs that can only be accommodated through a segregated female space , we should be asking ourselves what these needs supposedly are.

    I’m genuinely interested to know what these special needs are because I can’t think of any. One could argue that if women have certain problems that they have no desire for men to possibly hear about , that’s fine but in that case a wholly private room is the best solution.

    Further , if such special needs are accepted as extant for females , it stands to reason that men also have needs best left unheard by female ears.

    If it’s okay to set up a women’s lounge (I don’t really think it’s a bad idea anyway) then can men not also do the same ? If the argument is that men can do precisely that , let’s ask ourselves how likely it is that said men would be provided with federal funding to achieve that goal. As it stands , one gets the distinct impression that males would be denied funds despite providing exactly the same justification for needing them that the government decided was sufficient for females to have their own segregated space.

    Perhaps I’m wrong but I think most of us know that when it comes to “equality” Orwell had it right.

  22. Benjamin Cole

    “Lowrie said she has yet to hear of male needs that could be satisfied by a lounge.”

    Jeez. What can I say? Women just do not understand men and our needs. We obviously need a private mens-only lounge…especially in my house.

  23. When men have men’s only clubs, women sue to get in, then they sue to get the plumbing changed, the posters taken down, the language used changed. Men have to take it.

    Do we treat women as special or not, they cannot keep having it both ways. When they are in combat units, if one soldier calls another a wimp or a sissy, is it illegal if the receiver of the taunt is female, but legal if the other way around?

  24. Well. The choice is simple. Either get rid of the women-only space, or create a men-only space to balance it. If you keep the women’s lounge but create no men’s lounge, that smacks of female supremacism.

  25. Dick King

    There’s bigger stuff to worry about … like the fact that we still have a men-only draft registration system, even though women are now on track to be serving combat roles.

    The Supreme Court did find a male-only draft to be constitutional in http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1980/1980_80_251 , but the decision explicitly mentioned the [then [1981]] fact that women couldn’t serve in combat.

    -dk

    1. Agreed the question becomes if a draft ever comes back will it be gender blind? (although I doubt it ever will things are to complex for draftees to operate today, and the draft is a non market solution, the other solution rather than imposing a “tax” on young men is to pay more to attract volunteers.)

    2. Finding a male-only draft to be constitutional is only a tiny step compared to the giant leap of finding the draft itself to be constitutional.

  26. richard40

    I can see legit situations where each sex may want a place to only be with their own. So I can see a legit reason for a womens only lounge, but only if there is also a male only lounge. But having one without the other is clearly discriminatory, and the feminists are either blind, or grossly biased, to not see that.

    1. What is the special need that requires segregation? Menstruation? PMS?

      The value of a segregated lounge is that protects the rest of the student body from whatever infests the misfits who need such isolation.

      American universities have entirely descended from tragedy into farce.

  27. Mark Neil

    Nothing like setting up double standards to set the example of what kind of equality one seeks. Feminists have made crystal clear how they view equality, and that is women on top, to hell with men. Tina Timm knew it when she said merely suggesting the idea would upset her feminist friends (why would feminists be upset about raising the topic of equality?) and Patricia Lowrie proved her right when she attempted to justify a double standard with vague references to “issues” unique to women, and a handwave away of even the posibility men may have issues too.

  28. Person X from MSU

    If you look at the history of the Women’s lounge, there was once a time where there was a Men’s lounge as well (actually 2, one for studying and one for playing billiards). They decided to eliminate the men’s study lounge because it wasn’t used in the same manner as the women’s lounge was, it wasn’t used as much and it was deemed unnecessary by the college (including students) when it came time to renovate the Union. Women on campus go to the women’s study lounge for a number of reasons that men did not need a separate lounge for. First of all, there are very few places where there is quiet on campus. The library quiet floors are virtually the only other place that are continually quiet. Do you know how unsafe it is for a female to walk to the library on her own at night? It’s known as “the rape trail” for a reason. Gruesome, but true. I have not and will not ever walk that way at night due to safety concerns. Women go to the women’s lounge because it’s SAFER to go there than it is to go to the library which is the only other truly quiet place to study. Second, as a female, if you’ve ever been abused by a male, being around them when you’re feeling vulnerable (paying all your attention to studying, stressed about an upcoming exam, ect.) will take away all concentration on what you should be doing and can make you re-live horrible memories. Or just plain intimidation by males if you’re a quiet or introverted person.

    Take away gender, if you have EVER been in there, it’s a very comfortable place to study that you can count on having a quiet environment with no pressures from the people present.

    Granted, I do think that it could be considered sexist to have a female lounge and not male lounge. BUT you HAVE TO LOOK AT THE HISTORY. There were 2 male lounges at one point and due to the way they were used and the little value males sought from them, they were eliminated for a reason. It was deemed males felt safe at other places, the women’s lounge was kept because there was a large population on campus that did not feel safe, be it because of potential harm, intimidation, ect.

    Want to bring up Title IX, how come the women’s athletics players don’t get the same lounges with flat screen TV’s, Xboxs, Playstations, and catering that their male counterparts do?

Comments are closed.

Sort By:

Refine Content:

Scholar

Additional Keywords:

Refine Results

or to save searches.

Open
Refine Content