she is hurting her cause by taking such a comprehensively defensive stance.
that is, she starts with the premise that women are inferior, "physically
incapable" as she puts it. imagine this same article, but replacing "woman"
with "negro". here's an example:
Whilst there are undoubtedly differences between negro and white competitors
I believe it is incorrect to suggest that negros are physically incapable
and would urge those who are of this belief to look further into
physiological experiments and research into negro sport. Whilst certain
aspects of strength are cited as the negro's weakness little is ever
mentioned of the negro's strengths noted in recent studies which show how
well suited negro physiology is to endurance and G-force tolerance,
essential in racing.
today this would seem outrageous; for example, the (male/white) measure of
strength is citied as the "standard" that the (women/negros) are measured
by. what about determining what strength is needed to drive a race car
competitively? maybe this would have been timely in 1960, but in 2003?
what we need are articles about how to improve women's participation and
success in the sport, not an article that defines a women's role in racing
ONLY in comparison to men.
-james
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ms Katie Kelly" <aceontour@yahoo.com>
To: <ba-autox@autox.team.net>
Sent: Thursday, January 09, 2003 8:40 AM
Subject: Sociology
> Biased that I am, I found this article interesting:
>
>
http://www.thundervalleyracing.com/news/topstories/archive/20021226women.htm
l
>
> Katie K.
|