news-record.com

OPINION

Charles Davenport: Women of enlightenment

Sunday, January 10, 2010
(Updated 3:00 am)

If an all-male hockey team were to play a game against an all-female team, on which club would you place your 20 bucks? If you believe a male victory is a foregone conclusion, you need not apologize; you are neither a “misogynist” (one who hates women) nor a defender of the “patriarchy” (a male-dominated system). There is no harm in acknowledging reality, but potentially much harm in denying it.

The aforementioned hockey game is not purely theoretical. Two weeks ago, as chronicled by Ed Hardin, the all-male Hillsborough Chiefs took on the all-female Greensboro Hookers, and the result was about what most of us would expect: The Chiefs won, 7-1. The only real surprise is that the women avoided a shutout. 

The reality of which I write, and which most of us acknowledge, is that men and women are not equal. I am not suggesting that one gender is superior to the other; only that men and women have different aptitudes and preferences, different roles to play. An efficient and orderly society requires the contributions of men and women alike. 

Jessica Custer, state chairwoman of the Network of Enlightened Women (NeW), explains the matter succinctly, in refreshingly anti-feminist terms: “Men and women are genetically, socially and intellectually different. Their differences should not be ignored by an over-regulatory government. Sex differences should be celebrated and encouraged. Men should be encouraged to be men, and women to be women.”

Custer grabbed my attention last month with a feisty letter to the editor about Title IX, legislation which, she argues, “ignores the possibility that more men than women actually want to participate in athletics.” Custer also asserts that Title IX disregards “the differences between men and women and demands a quota system that favors one group at the expense of another.”

Because of Title IX, Custer writes, “Women’s teams suffer as untalented players join the roster for the sake of making quotas and a team loses its collective competitiveness.” The same argument could be applied, with far graver consequences, to police departments, fire departments and the military. Women (and minorities) are coveted tokens of the “diversity” industry at all levels of government.

If your house goes up in flames and 10 big, burly men arrive to fight the fire, will you impede their progress on the grounds that the firefighting unit lacks “gender diversity”? Of course not. In fact, you would probably be grateful that men, rather than women, were on the scene.

All of this strikes me as common sense, although some may consider it an “old-fashioned” or “antiquated” way of looking at gender roles. On a university campus, my philosophy would be called “misogynist,” or “patriarchal,” and possibly even condemned as “hate speech.” Happily, even at the modern university, there remain young women who embrace traditional gender roles.

The Network of Enlightened Women exists as a safe haven on campus for young ladies who recoil from feminist thinking. NeW, Custer says, “is dedicated to challenging the liberal status quo on campuses by embracing femininity and masculinity, valuing motherhood and families, rejecting the victimhood mentality that dominates feminism, and helping women engage their communities.” 

NeW is a book club that was formed five years ago by Karin Agness at the University of Virginia. Its weekly meetings are designed to educate and teach leadership skills to young ladies Custer describes as “culturally conservative women.” In North Carolina, NeW is active at UNC-Chapel Hill, N.C. State and Meredith College, with plans to  form a chapter at UNCG. (Interested students should contact Jessica Custer: Jessica@enlightenedwomen.org.)

North Carolina’s NeW chapters are co-sponsoring an appearance by Fox News commentator and author Mary Katharine Ham at Meredith College on Jan. 27. Ham will speak at 7 p.m. on the topic, “NeW Wave Feminism: Girl Power without Government.” The event is free and open to the public.
 

Charles Davenport Jr. (cdavenportjr@hotmail.com) is a freelance columnist who appears alternate Sundays in the News & Record.
 

 

Comments

This article has been closed to new comments. Comments are generally closed after 14 days. However, comments may be closed earlier at the discretion of the News & Record.

Inappropriate content? Please report abuse.

JGALT

January 10, 2010 - 10:16 am EST

Encourage women to be women? as long as that includes the opportunity for women who want to be surgeons to be the best surgeons they can be. You may want 10 big burly men to show up to fight your fire-- but it might be smarter to realize that bulding design and inspection might be more important. It is a tragedy that brave firemen were sent into the twin World Trade Center towers hauling firehoses in 110.story buildings. A non-- macho fire fighter culture might demand designs that didn't rely on brute strength and policy that prevented them from running to that fire.

The conclusion you may eventually come to is that our nation needs the best from all its citizens-- individuals, regardless of gender.

I'm willing to bet that the Mother Puckers of Colorado can whup ass on the Hillsborough Chiefs.

left-wing conspiracy theorist

January 10, 2010 - 11:00 am EST

As far as Davenport goes, this may be one of his less offensive letters.

Here are some comments from my wife:

1. You may be better off with 9 burly men and one woman to point out what direction to spray the water.
2. What exactly is meant by "embrace traditional gender roles" and "culturally conservative women"?
3. Why do you bring "minorities" in the conversation? Are you suggesting minorities should 'embrace traditional ethnic roles'?

maer568

January 10, 2010 - 12:05 pm EST

Actually, as far as building design goes, I'd trust a man much more. The same favoritism found in sports shows up in engineering classes as well. In general, the men in those classes had to work harder to get into them and the women are given an easier pass. Additionally, because men have more of a desire to get in and face a tougher road financially and educationally, they stick it out in the profession longer. Most women don't make it 5 years because they were taught engineering as a soft science, and then are shocked to find out the truth.
Now, if you notice I said in general. There are very good female engineers, but they are outnumbered by the very poor female engineers. If both genders had the same hoops and helps, then you could trust both genders equally

If our nation needs the best from all citizens regardless of gender, why would we support such a sexist law as Title IX? It limits boys' educational, physical, and artistic growth at nearly every opportunity.

I am shocked that he brought minorities into the conversation. It's usually the Feminist who try to portray themselves as just as much of a victim of history as the African Americans. It shows the stupidity of either side when they relate the two issues.

open-minded

January 12, 2010 - 9:55 am EST

Your comment is almost as ignorant as the article itself. Do the world a favor- don’t reproduce.

Thanks.

danagain

January 10, 2010 - 1:38 pm EST

"... the all-female Greensboro Hookers."

Who the hell came up with that name?

Sure enough they have a website:

http://www.hookershockey.com/

When you move the curser over "About Us" the words "Support Hookers" come up!! Too funny.

hockeyprincess67

January 11, 2010 - 1:56 pm EST

I am the Hooker responsible for the website. I am glad you got a kick out of it. The “Support Hookers” tab was meant to be in jest. Thanks for getting the humor. :)

danagain

January 11, 2010 - 7:43 pm EST

Alas, I cannot suport hookers, I'm married ;--)

snowyanderson

January 10, 2010 - 2:17 pm EST

As a recent female graduate of architecture school, I can tell you women work just as hard, if not harder, to be taken seriously. Many professors have a 'females get an easy ride' mentality and are more critical of projects submitted by women.

Feminism isn't about forcing women to act 'like men,' it's about choice. If you want to be a stay-at-home parent or a CEO, your gender shouldn't matter. It's that simple.

Also, I'd rather have a group of ten burly lesbian firefighters save my house. Since they've fought for acceptance all their lives, putting out a little fire would be no problem.

open-minded

January 12, 2010 - 10:04 am EST

Does it really matter if men, women, gays or lesbians show up to fight a house fire? As long as they bring water they are welcome to help :)

kbarker68

January 11, 2010 - 12:53 am EST

First of all DANAGAIN, I would like to inform you about a simple penalty in hockey called "hooking." So keep your childish attitude to yourself and know a little about hockey before trying to bust on an all female women's ice hockey team. Keep eating chips and watching Biggest Loser while we are out on the ice actually getting some exercise.
And for you Mr. Davenport, as captain of the Greensboro Hookers, I would like to invite you out to some hockey games where women play against men so you can experience first hand "Women Enlightenment." Please let me know when you are available as we play at the Greensboro IceHouse off of Wendover Ave. I am sure I can get some interviews set up for you with guys that we play against. So, before you bash the CHARITY GAME last week, I think you should see hockey played by woman first hand. I am available for any comments or interviews if you would like to rewrite this non-sense. Just because we lost 7-1 in a Charity Game doesn't mean that will always be the outcome of a hockey game of woman vs men. Also, I will gladly show you game sheets of the Hookers vs other men's teams at the IceHouse. Please let me know if you need any help getting out of the hole you just dug for yourself. Thanks, Kristina Barker-Greensboro Hookers Captain.

countryboy

January 11, 2010 - 8:36 am EST

Ouch Lady K...I'm calling a roughing penalty on you. And try starting the morning with decaf. The good Mr. D is comparing apples with apples...you are comparing hockey pucks with basketballs. If an NHL team plays the best female team in the world...even the Russians, the men are going to win. If a college D1 mens team plays a college D1 womens team...the men are going to win. If I bring a few of my duck hunting buddies to the ice house and play the "Hookers" you would probably not let us score even if we paid you (so to speak). How can we "celebrate diversity" if we are not allowed to recognize it for fear of having it labeled "hate speech." And I am still laughing at Left Wing Conspiracy Theorist comments....very funny. Sorry...they came from his wife...she must be a conservative.

open-minded

January 12, 2010 - 10:11 am EST

Countryboy- "even the Russians"??? I seriously doubt that you have ever been out of Randolph county long enough to have a clue what people from other countries or backgrounds are like. You probably do not even have cable TV, a newspaper subscription or a sex life. Please, please, next time- get your mom (who probably owns the basement your live in) to proof read anything you write prior to you posting it.

danagain

January 12, 2010 - 7:55 pm EST

I would not label such supposition as open minded.

danagain

January 11, 2010 - 11:36 am EST

Ms.Barker, I am a hockey fan and am well aware of the penalty hooking, thanks. Sorry to ruffle your feathers, but calling a womens sports team the Hookers when that word is so widely used to describe a prostitute, is, in my humble opinion, not such a great choice. Since the name from a hockey penalty was chosen, perhaps "Icers" would have been a better choice. You might also find a better way to word that site tab than "support Hookers". Just my opinion. Good luck to you and your team.

Clint

January 11, 2010 - 12:32 pm EST

danagain,
Since you're a hockey fan, please explain what "Icers" would mean. I don't get it. "Hookers" is funny and a great name for a women's hockey team. If that offends you, then you probably would pass out watching the Hookers play against the Ice Holes. In my humble opinion, you should lighten up a little and laugh once in awhile.

danagain

January 11, 2010 - 12:44 pm EST

Clint. Hooking = Hookers, Icing = Icers. Get it? Slashers, Trippers, etc.

What they name their team offends me naught, I could care less what they call themselves. I agree it is a funny name hence my first post, "too funny", especially the "support Hookers" tab on the site. Twas Ms. Barker who seemed to get her nose out of joint.

Maybe I'll take the kids out to the next Hookers - Ice Holes game.

Clint

January 11, 2010 - 12:54 pm EST

danagin,
Well, with "Who the hell came up with that name?", saying it wasn't "such a great choice" for a team name, suggesting other team names, and suggesting she change the website, I assumed you were offended. If you were starting a team, I doubt "Icers" would get too many votes from your teammates, but who knows. I can tell you as a former male Hooker fill-in, I was proud to wear the pink!

danagain

January 11, 2010 - 7:42 pm EST

Nah I don't really care Clint. If these women want to slide on the ice, slap pucks into the goal, and be named as the Hookers then more power to them. So go out and support Hookers please, hockey players and otherwise.

knorman

January 12, 2010 - 6:27 am EST

A double entendre (pronounced /ˌduː.bᵊl.ɑ̃ːnˈtɑ̃ːn.drə/ (BrE)) or adianoeta[1] is a figure of speech in which a spoken phrase is devised to be understood in either of two ways. Often the first meaning is straightforward, while the second meaning is less so: often risqué, inappropriate, or ironic.

danagain

January 12, 2010 - 7:59 pm EST

Ahhh, French...my favorite language. Entendre - to hear, to understand, to mean.

left-wing conspiracy theorist

January 13, 2010 - 7:37 pm EST

I'm still eating freedom fries.

cdavenportjr

January 12, 2010 - 1:58 am EST

Miss Barker, I accept your gracious invitation. I have been a puckhead since my folks took me to Generals games when I was a kid. I'm looking forward to it. Next week/weekend would be great. What's your schedule?

kbarker68

January 12, 2010 - 1:09 pm EST

Davenport... thanks for responding. Based on responses I have received via email and other forms of communication from my players, guys we play with and against, and other supporters in the community, I find it hard to believe that you be it would be a great time for yourself. I will gladly send you a schedule of when the women play against the men via email this afternoon but remember you have no fans at the rink and may enter at your own risk. I am in the process of collecting game sheets from last year when the Hookers had a team in the IceHouse league. In this league we played against all guys' teams and we won the "Manley Cup."
I still can't believe you have based your information on a charity game and confirmed that women will always lose to men in hockey. How do you know if the Hillsborough Chiefs actually had ALL C level players? How do you know if we were missing some key players? You don't!
Again, I will send you a schedule via email and get those game stats to you. Right now, you are being called everything but an angel.

left-wing conspiracy theorist

January 12, 2010 - 3:32 pm EST

"Right now, you are being called everything but an angel"

eh, he's used to it. I doubt that will change any time soon...

seaner7633

January 11, 2010 - 10:29 am EST

I'm curious if you even watched the charity game, or are basing your comments just on the score. There are any number of reasons a team can lose. Maybe they were missing key players, maybe their goalie was having an off night, maybe the other team was actually a B level team playing down a division. All of those are legitimate possibilities, yet YOUR obvious conclusion was that the girls lost because they were girls. That is ignorant.

I suppose I understand the real point of your article, and I don't like forced quotas either. If a public service, or any group really, accepts an unqualified person, just to meet a gender quota, then that IS a problem.

But here's the thing: these forced quotas are the result of these organizations turning away qualified women based on the same logic you presented in your opening paragraph. So I hope you were looking in the mirror when you wrote this, because it's people like you that created the problem in the first place. You should thank yourself, in addition to the other things you should go do to yourself.

Clint

January 11, 2010 - 11:24 am EST

Well, it doesn't just take just a few "duck hunters" to lose to the Hookers. The Hookers moved out of the Greensboro Ice House C league, because they wanted a bigger challenge. I've played on several different teams with Hookers, and they've always been amongst the best (if not the best) players on the team. I would imagine the Chiefs were a little better than the typical C team, but I would bet money that the Hookers' top 5 would hand the Chiefs' top 5 their hinies all night long.

kbarker68

January 11, 2010 - 12:11 pm EST

Mr. Davenport... I am awaiting your response to let me know when you are available to come watch women play hockey against men at the Icehouse. Please let me know ASAP....

Get A Clue

January 11, 2010 - 12:18 pm EST

"Battle between the sexes" solved!
One hockey game has been played, and that's enough proof for "Mr. Open-minded" to declare his myopic points-of-view the champion and to end debate with a commercial plug for his kind of "gal."
Man, I love reading columns by people too dumb to even know they're parading their ignorance for all to see.

Mincy

January 11, 2010 - 2:03 pm EST

When any sporting event is played "for the sake of Charity", the objective isn't for serious competition, but pulling people together for a good cause. You can't judge the Hookers by their performance from this one game. I've played against and alongside some of these women, and believe me they can play hockey... just as good as men can too. I know your piece wasn't intended to spark controversy about gender roles in sports, but in everything across the board. Women have become better at things that men were once best at and visa versa. Things change, that's life.

knorman

January 11, 2010 - 2:21 pm EST

1. I am appalled that Mr. Davenport would use a charity event as a platform to espouse his controversial views on “proper” gender roles. The event raised money to help children with cancer. Have you no shame? We have the luxury of freedom of speech in our county, but certainly this was in poor taste.
2. It occurred to me your discomfort with women excelling in “non-traditional roles” might stem from deep insecurities about your own masculinity.

eMail Updates

Advertisement | Advertise with Us

Featured Ads

Search

Advertisement | Advertise with Us
Advertisement | Advertise with Us
Advertisement | Advertise with Us

News & Record Network Sites

User Tools

  • Social Networking
  • RSS
  • Share
  • Sign in to MyNR

Search