Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by Tamrin on Nov 25, 2007 1:03:29 GMT
You do have the Equal Rights Amendment waiting in the wings. Of which we read: How does the ERA relate to single-sex institutions?
The ERA would not make all single-sex institutions unconstitutional – only those whose aim is to perpetuate the historic dominance of one sex over the other. Single-sex institutions that work to overcome past discrimination are constitutional now and are likely to remain so.
|
|
|
Post by lauderdale on Nov 25, 2007 1:08:47 GMT
Give the change in Government in Australia, do you think that matters there might now change by Force of Law?
|
|
|
Post by billmcelligott on Nov 25, 2007 1:12:33 GMT
Yes the Women's Institute has a lot to answer for.
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by Tamrin on Nov 25, 2007 1:21:00 GMT
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by Tamrin on Nov 25, 2007 1:23:02 GMT
Yes the Women's Institute has a lot to answer for. As does the Men's Institute.
|
|
|
Post by tws on Nov 25, 2007 1:41:59 GMT
You do have the Equal Rights Amendment waiting in the wings. Of which we read: How does the ERA relate to single-sex institutions?
The ERA would not make all single-sex institutions unconstitutional – only those whose aim is to perpetuate the historic dominance of one sex over the other. Single-sex institutions that work to overcome past discrimination are constitutional now and are likely to remain so. This feminist BS has been out of the picture for decades. It is not "waiting in the wings." Don't bother looking up things on the web, it will never happen. It was a feminist pipe-dream from the bra-burning era.
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by Tamrin on Nov 25, 2007 1:45:59 GMT
|
|
|
Post by tws on Nov 25, 2007 2:12:20 GMT
From the website of the National Organisation for Women (NOW) www.now.org/The Equal Rights Amendment was written in 1921 by suffragist Alice Paul. It has been introduced in Congress every session since 1923. It passed Congress in the above form in 1972, but was not ratified by the necessary thirty-eight states by the July 1982 deadline. It was ratified by thirty-five states. Dead as a doornail.
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by Tamrin on Nov 25, 2007 3:45:07 GMT
Don't bother looking up things on the web... Are you suggesting I disregard everything on the web except what you have to say on the subject? If so, I like it—I like it a lot ;D However, I expect it probably wouldn't work for me I note that even the link you provided leads into a very different scenario and analysis of the current situation to those postulated by you and Bro. Theron. I suggest the counter winds of recent decades have eased and the prevalent winds of change are again strengthening. Albeit, I may be reading too much into yesterday's election result.
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by Tamrin on Nov 25, 2007 5:58:26 GMT
So we make sure there is no legal ground for a woman to sue us on, so they cannot force us to change our rules. Its silly we should have to operate this way... Being "silly" (tying one's self in administrative knots and depriving one's self of sound opportunities, just to avoid sitting with women) is corroborated by a comparison of the map of those states which did or did not ratify the Equal Rights Amendment (Reply #63) with one showing average IQ per state.
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by Tamrin on Nov 25, 2007 6:23:25 GMT
I am sure you did not mean to imply that those with high intelligence would agree with your point. Any correlation between IQ and those in favour of inclusion would not be absolute. If there is a causal connection, other factors may account for individual exceptions. By analogy, while smoking is more prevalent among the socioeconomically disadvantaged, not everyone who smokes is poor. There is also the map, to which you have referred, showing a similar correlation with Prince Hall recognition.
|
|
|
Post by billmcelligott on Nov 25, 2007 9:31:10 GMT
As King of the silly people its seems to me that careful examination of the maps shows that Prince Hall Masons are all very intelligent and are responsible ratifying the Equal Rights Amendment.
|
|
|
Post by lauderdale on Nov 25, 2007 10:41:22 GMT
Yes Bro Bill, it is interesting to overlay these maps. I have to say I could NOT sing the song "I wish I were in Dixie!" NO WAY
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by Tamrin on Nov 25, 2007 11:01:45 GMT
Yes Bro Bill, it is interesting to overlay these maps. I have to say I could NOT sing the song "I wish I were in Dixie!" NO WAY The Mason-Dixie line appears to have cut deep into the nation.
|
|
|
Post by billmcelligott on Nov 25, 2007 11:31:21 GMT
Can I put my serious hat on for a minute. I don't think 1 Englishman, 1 Scotsman and an Australian should go any further down this road for fear of causing offence to the US contingent.
Please
|
|
|
Post by tws on Nov 25, 2007 12:50:15 GMT
So we make sure there is no legal ground for a woman to sue us on, so they cannot force us to change our rules. Its silly we should have to operate this way... Being "silly" (tying one's self in administrative knots and depriving one's self of sound opportunities, just to avoid sitting with women) is corroborated by a comparison of the map of those states which did or did not ratify the Equal Rights Amendment (Reply #63) with one showing average IQ per state. This is simply ridiculous. My IQ, last it was tested in elementary school was 135. The chart does not corralate, as my state,Tennessee, was one of those that voted for the ERA. If we use this chart as an indicator, we should have voted against it. As to the chart, who compiled it? How old is it? What was the criteria used to determine the IQ levels of each state? Do you have one of Australia as a comparison? Or are you so much more superior to us? That seems to be the consensus to me.
|
|
|
Post by tws on Nov 25, 2007 13:01:29 GMT
I am sure you did not mean to imply that those with high intelligence would agree with your point. Any correlation between IQ and those in favour of inclusion would not be absolute. If there is a causal connection, other factors may account for individual exceptions. By analogy, while smoking is more prevalent among the socioeconomically disadvantaged, not everyone who smokes is poor. There is also the map, to which you have referred, showing a similar correlation with Prince Hall recognition. As to Prince Hall recognition,That has absoulutly nothing to do with the subject at hand, but is simply another ploy to point out the superiority of your intellect. Australia has no reason to be casting stones, as I don't think your treatment of the Aborigines has exactly been stellar. Pot=kettle=black. Most Prince Hall Masons in the South do not care a whit for recognition. Understand this: From thier point of view, Prince Hall Masonry provides the Black community with a unique identity culturally. Prince Hall Masons are very sharp, and take the Craft very seriously. They, for the most part, do not want recognition for fear of PH being subsumed by the Regular state GLs. It likely wouldn't occur that way, but that is how it is seen by many. I would like to see a stop to the technique of tearing down the crediblity of a persons argument by subtle attacks on the country or region of a persons origin. If you can not argue your point on the facts, but have to resort to such tactics, you have lost your arguement.
|
|
|
Post by tws on Nov 25, 2007 13:05:51 GMT
Can I put my serious hat on for a minute. I don't think 1 Englishman, 1 Scotsman and an Australian should go any further down this road for fear of causing offence to the US contingent. Please I'm afraid it is way too late for that Bro. Bill. I am sick of the arrogance that I see on this board coming from the UK/European/Aussie contingent as to the relative intelligence of those in the US. I know that we are a popular target, but I would expect better out of Brother Masons.
|
|
|
Post by tws on Nov 25, 2007 13:15:26 GMT
Yes Bro Bill, it is interesting to overlay these maps. I have to say I could NOT sing the song " I wish I were in Dixie!" NO WAY Bro. Steve, if ever you visited here, you would see how silly the prejudices against the American South truly are. We are not all toothless hillbillys running around stringing up minorities with ropes as some ill-informed people like to portray us. Nashville, which I am 30 miles Southeast of, prior to being known as "Music City", because of the Country Music industry, was originally known as "The Athens of the South." It has a replica of the Parthenon which was built in the 1800s for a world exposition, complete with a large statue of Pallas Athena. One of the finest institutions of higher learning in the country, Vanderbilt University, is located there. Hardly the kind of place that reflects below average IQ scores, I think.
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by Tamrin on Nov 25, 2007 15:29:17 GMT
Australia has no reason to be casting stones, as I don't think your treatment of the Aborigines has exactly been stellar. This is another area about which I am passionate. I could not agree with you more: Our treatment of aborigines has been and remains appalling. My recent posts have not been intended to put down your country, other than to point out there are problems there as there are elsewhere. Australia and the UK have similar faults (hopefully, following yesterday's election, we will now emerge from our "Thatcher years"). In pointing out the ERA, I was addressing Bro. Theron's argument that the US is somehow isolated from the equal rights movement throughout developed nations (I hadn't even mentioned the USA up to that point) and then, when both you and he were dismissive of that legislation's prospects which, democratically already has a majority of support in a majority of states (just not enough states yet to be passed), I addressed the issue of its support. Ask me about problems here in Australia, say all you like, you will not find me to be jingoistic. I believe in confronting issues.
|
|