Pin It
Submit to Reddit

Letters To The Editor 

Hey, That's Not Funny

Responding to "Who's the Comedian?" (Sex & the Queen City by Elizabeth Chapel, July 3), I have failed to comprehend why this newspaper would reserve valuable newsprint for an extremely insecure woman with a personal life that exclusively revolves around her vagina.

. -- -- Adrian DeVore, Charlotte

Pay Up, Football

Regarding "Hands Off Title IX" (by Susan Shackelford, July 10), I have read the arguments against Title IX, such as that money earned in men's sports should not be used to fund women's sports. The logic that the money was earned at men's football so it is acceptable to spend on men's tennis, but not on women's tennis is flawed. Football is a part of the Athletic Department, along with tennis. To say the sex of the athletes in the sport that earned the money is the only sex entitled to benefit from it makes no sense.

One of my daughters has competed in co-ed sports, in girl's sports, and in otherwise exclusively boys' sports. As she entered her teen years, the physical differences between boys and girls became more pronounced and it was harder to compete as an equal in boys' sports. The idea of eliminating girls in sports by funding exclusively co-ed sports and let the best athletes prevail would be wrong.

My daughter and I have golfed, skied, swam, rock-climbed, fished, roller-bladed, played basketball, baseball, softball, tennis, table tennis, and racquetball together. I've watched her surf and compete at karate, rugby, gymnastics, soccer, softball, baseball, and high diving. Both of our lives are better because of sports. She enjoys sports and being an athlete. She is also a girl. They are not mutually exclusive. It is wrong to tell a person they can't enjoy or participate in sports solely because of their sex.

As far as not funding women's sports, why not sever the purse strings at the self-sufficient sports and put an end to the argument? Otherwise, shut up and pay up because the "sex earning it is the only sex that can spend it" argument doesn't hold water.

-- Jose Suarez, Charlotte

Very Creative IndeedRegarding "Arts In The Harriet Sanford Era" (by Perry Tannenbaum, July 10), I can't say that I disagree with your assessment of Ms. Sanford. I questioned her and the ASC's legal council at length about their "requirement" over "sexual orientation." They had a written rule that initially required (or so it said) companies doing business with the ASC to comply with their diversity mandates regarding sexual orientation (accept that homosexuality is OK or you don't get any money). I pointed out that there is no such protection under Federal, State, City, County, or CMS rules and that they could not restrict public money because some folks think homosexuality is a sin or unhealthy or downright perverse. That was and is the "thought police" for the simple reason that there is no "protection" of homosexual behavior -- it is a criminal act under NC law.

After getting the runaround from ASC board liaison Katie Tyler, the ASC's legal folks, through Harriet, determined to re-write the definition of sexual orientation to be gender neutral (meaning that anyone's viewpoint on the matter is acceptable and a grant applicant can be totally opposed to such stuff and still can't be denied public funding). They can legitimately say that they do not accept, promote, condone such perversity and the ASC has agreed that they would still qualify for government funding or work with the ASC.

To me this is a big victory that Ms. Sanford gets some of the credit. Clearly, leaving the term "sexual orientation" in their policy was different from the more frontal attack I would have done, but the slick way that the ASC "re-defined" the meaning was artful in and of itself. The homosexual community isn't pleased with the "re-defining" but that is their problem. The alternative was for me to place the matter on the County Commission agenda and force a full debate which no one (including me) wanted. To make sure that I understood the meaning of the re-defining of the word, I had the County Attorney contact the ASC directly and confirm that my conclusions about the change were correct. They were.

To me, this shows that Ms. Sanford and her legal team are very, very "creative" indeed. A solution was found that allowed them to keep the "term," gut its meaning and application (and protection to homosexuals). The conservatives were essentially happy with the re-defining, the liberals silently grumpy, and the homosexuals in a snit, feeling betrayed.

As a side note, they also confirmed that the Marsicano policy of self-censorship is still in place and that the ASC has confirmed that they will not engage in activity that is against the law (nudity on stage is illegal).

-- County Commissioner Bill James, Mint Hill

Pin It
Submit to Reddit


Subscribe to this thread:

Add a comment

Creative Loafing encourages a healthy discussion on its website from all sides of the conversation, but we reserve the right to delete any comments that detract from that. Violence, racism and personal attacks that go beyond the pale will not be tolerated.

Search Events
items in Creative Loafing Charlotte More in Creative Loafing Charlotte pool

© 2018 Womack Digital, LLC
Powered by Foundation