There are innate biological differences between men’s and women’s sports interests, say evolutionary psychologists.Title IX is big in the news these days, as the Obama administration seeks to use the provision of the 1964 civil rights law to force colleges into compliance with his agenda for promoting the normalization of transgender status (hear FRC’s Washington Watch May 5 about how Obama has redefined “on the basis of sex” to include gender confusion).The rationale for Title IX in 1964 came not only from a desire for fairness to women and girls in sports programs, but from “the assumption that females’ sports interest is intrinsically equal to that of males,” the American Psychological Association says in a piece posted on Science Daily. How sound is that assumption?Because the assumption has “policy implications,” three psychologists studied sex differences in sports in 3 ways. First, they found that females generally have less interest in sports – and this applies to all cultures and all times. Second, they considered four “adaptive, functional hypotheses” for this observation. Finally, they looked into whether the difference is due to cultural conditioning. Has any program been able to reverse the difference? “In particular, no experimental manipulation or systematic historical comparison has ever shown a decrease in the sex difference,” they say. “Moreover, several studies indicate that prenatal hormones contribute to males’ greater sports interest.” Men and women, surprisingly, are different!The take-home points from this review are that the sex difference in sports interest is (1) substantial and widespread, (2) partly due to evolutionary pressures that differentially affected males and females, and (3) unlikely to be fully overturned by socialization. These points challenge the bedrock assumptions of many scholars and policy makers. Most notably, Title IX is a U.S. law that prohibits sexual discrimination in educational opportunities, including sports, and Title IX is generally implemented under the assumption that females’ sports interest is intrinsically equal to that of males. The present research indicates that this implementation may require revision.They’re not saying that opportunities for female involvement in sports should be diminished. But if the interest in sports for boys and men is truly “substantial and widespread” – and has been throughout history and across cultures – then the basis for Title IX lacks empirical support, putting liberals and evolutionists at cross currents in this instance. How this could impact the current policy dispute about transgender accommodation remains to be seen.The paper by Deaner, Balish, and Lombardo is published in Evolutionary Behavioral Sciences. where, even from “an evolutionary perspective,” they find that “females’ underrepresentation generally reflects lesser interest, not merely fewer opportunities for engagement. Moreover, there is mounting evidence that male and female athletes generally differ in their motivation, specifically their competitiveness and risk taking.”The headline of Science Daily’s article is revealing: “Sex difference in sports interest: What does evolution say?” Where does our culture go for answers? They go to their idol, Darwin-Baal. The Bearded Buddha is their Guiding Guru, their Delphic Oracle. “Please, Mr. Darwin, grant unto us wisdom who seek your favor. Are men and women different?” Their critics on the sidelines wag their heads, replying, “Open your eyes, idiots.”Exceptions prove the rule. For every female Olympian, there are many more males. Men are, on average, larger and stronger. That doesn’t mean better, superior, or more worthy – just different. Where are the female powerlifters? It’s true that some sports are female dominated (rhythmic gymnastics, etc.), but even when both sexes have equal opportunity to compete, far more males will step up to the plate; by nature, they are much more interested in sports, being competitive by nature, more willing to take risks, and built usually stronger and more muscular. There are good biological reasons for policies that make men compete against other men in the pool and on the track, rather than against women. The authors found, “this sex difference occurs in all societies described thus far, from hunters and gatherers to large contemporary societies. For example, in every society with available data, males participate in sports at least twice as much as females in terms of frequency or duration.” It takes decades of brainwashing to blind people to the obvious.What the article implies is that Title IX does not provide fairness for female athletes as much as it discriminates against males. If the empirical evidence these psychologists amassed were to drive policy, there should be twice as much federal funding for male sports as for female sports. Would that ever fly in this politically correct world? The International Olympic Committee is equally embroiled in controversy about alleged “fairness” and now has to decide if biological men should be allowed to compete against women if they declare themselves transgender females. Political correctness could cause the implosion of the Olympics.Republicans get a bad rap as “anti-science” but ask yourselves, who is being rational and empirical here? Conservatives affirm biological differences between men and women. They know you can’t declare yourself to be what you biologically aren’t. Watch the absurd extremes that PC-brainwashed college students go to in allowing a male interviewer to declare himself a six-foot-five Chinese woman in this video clip on Townhall.com. Who trained these students to let everyone declare themselves to be whatever they wanted to be? It wasn’t Republicans, conservatives, or Christians. It was Democrat progressives who posture themselves as champions of science.We’re glad these three psychologists had the courage to question a popular leftist position, but we contend that evolution has nothing to do with male-female differences. Examine the 4 mutually exclusive just-so stories they offered up:Two hypotheses seem relevant for both males and females. One hypothesis focuses on the importance of needing to ally with coalitions in between-group contexts… [irrelevant to the issue]…while the other emphasizes the need to develop social and motor skills. [irrelevant to the issue]Another hypothesis holds that individuals compete in sports to gain status and that nonparticipants monitor sports performances so they can evaluate potential competitors and allies. The evidence indicates that this hypothesis applies chiefly to males. [But this could equally apply to females in an Amazon-style culture, so it explains nothing.]A fourth hypothesis is that sports serve as courtship displays that advertise participant quality to the opposite sex. This hypothesis effectively explains some aspects of females’ sports interest. [Well, then, give all the federal funding to male sports! Let the guys strut their stuff for “female choice” (a favorite evolutionary meme).]None of these hypotheses improves on the Stuff Happens Law in explanatory power. The Bible’s creation account, though, makes perfect sense: God intelligently designed two equal yet different individuals for complementary roles, to ensure the reproduction of the human race and the expression of His image and attributes in their respective unique ways. For elaboration on this theme, read the novel Perelandra by C. S. Lewis.(Visited 27 times, 1 visits today)FacebookTwitterPinterestSave分享0
South African songstress Yvonne ChakaChaka has been recognised for herefforts in the fight against malaria. Chaka Chaka receiving a recognitionaward from Prof Ahmed Wadee, dean ofthe Faculty of Health Sciences at Wits.(Images: Bongani Nkosi)MEDIA CONTACTS• Borrie La GrangeHead of CommunicationsMSF South Africa+27 83 287 5294RELATED ARTICLES• Holgate’s goodwill drive to Juba• Malaria cases halved in SA• Roger Milla, Fifa give malaria the boot• Swaziland to wipe out malariaBongani NkosiSix months after Yvonne Chaka Chaka’s backing singer Phumzile Ntuli died of cerebral malaria in 2004, the renowned musician resolved to start bold awareness campaigns about the deadly disease.Chaka Chaka’s group were unaware that Ntuli had contracted malaria when they returned from a musical festival in Gabon. Not suspecting that her malaise signalled an infection, Ntuli was driven home to rest.She visited a doctor the following day when her condition deteriorated, but it was misdiagnosed as general fever – according to Chaka Chaka.“She was put in the intensive care unit at the Johannesburg General Hospital (now Charlotte Maxeke Academic Hospital) and two days later she died.“That was a turning point in my life,” said Chaka Chaka, speaking at the opening of the Malaria in Context exhibition at Wits University on 25 July 2011.Chaka Chaka became a goodwill ambassador for Unicef in 2005 and has since used this status to raise awareness about malaria.It’s estimated that the mosquito-borne infectious disease kills at least 800 000 people, mostly pregnant women and children, in Africa each year.Although Unicef initially approached Chaka Chaka to become a goodwill ambassador for HIV/Aids, she chose instead to focus on malaria due to the unexpected death of her band member.During her life, Ntuli had also sung alongside legendary musicians such as Letta Mbulu and the late Miriam Makeba.The tragic loss made Chaka Chaka realise how uninformed South Africans are about the disease, as it’s no longer a common killer in this country.“I was totally ignorant of malaria as well,” she said. “You don’t know until it happens to you.”Through her involvement in several awareness campaigns, Chaka Chaka has travelled the continent and the world to speak out about the disease and distribute mosquito nets.Her goodwill ambassadorship for the Roll Back Malaria Partnership (RBM) is her most notable contribution to the cause.This campaign – led by the World Bank, World Health Organisation, Unicef and the UN Development Programme – is a “global framework for coordinated action against” the disease.For her efforts, RBM and the UN honoured Chaka Chaka with a special award of recognition in November 2010.The New York-based Explorer’s Club honoured her in June 2011 alongside South African explorer Kingsley Holgate, who has fought for many years to combat the disease.Chaka Chaka’s foundation, Princess of Africa, has also positioned itself as a leading voice on the issue.In addition, she has endorsed Doctors without Borders’ (MSF) Kiss Malaria Goodbye, a new online campaign that seeks to raise awareness of malaria among South Africans.Wits exhibitionAt the exhibition opening, Wits University’s Faculty of Health Sciences Prof Ahmed Wadee said of Chaka Chaka’s efforts: “She has taken her public profile and used it as a goodwill ambassador.”Sponsored by MSF, the exhibition illustrates the history of the disease in South Africa and shows how the country is fighting to eliminate the disease.“I’m proud to be associated with this initiative the exhibition,” Chaka Chaka said.‘It can be beaten’Chaka Chaka has seen various improvements in curbing the impact of malaria. While in 2005 it used to kill at least one child every 35 seconds in Africa, statistics show that this has dropped slightly to one death every 45 seconds.But figures show it remains a serious concern, she noted. Chaka Chaka believes African governments need to invest more in fighting the disease – and for it to become a public- and private-sector initiative.“It can be done,” she said. “If we don’t do it now, we’re going to be judged by the next generation.”Some countries have shown that it’s possible to eradicate malaria completely. Australia achieved this in 1970, and Morocco in 2007.Mosquito nets have become highly successful in preventing malaria in risk-prone African areas. But actual treatment still needs to be improved, according to MSF.The organisation said it was lobbying governments to adopt artemisinin-based therapy, which it said is more effective, safer and easier to administer than quinine.
17 February 2012A major industrialisation drive across Africa is needed for the continent to transform its current growth spurt into sustained social and economic development, Trade and Industry Minister Rob Davies told the South Africa-Turkey Business Forum in Istanbul on Thursday.Davies said that a general improvement in economic governance across Africa underpinned the growth spurt the continent was experiencing. “However, the challenge facing Africa is to transform that growth spurt into a sustained effort and development.The business forum included break-away sessions and business-to-business meetings between South African and Turkish business people.Africa ‘can’t grow on raw material exports alone’Davies told the meeting that Africa could not continue to grow simply on the basis of the supply of raw materials to fuel industrialisation processes taking place elsewhere.He stressed that in order to address this, the continent had to engage “in a series of exciting ventures to boost and expand regional integration”.According to the minister, lack of infrastructure as well as the lack of productive capacity were the biggest barriers to inter-regional trade in Africa.“To overcome this, we need to promote a significant industrialisation effort across the continent.”SA, Turkey trade ‘well below potential’Davies told the forum that bilateral relations between South Africa and Turkey were currently well below their potential.In 2009, trade between South Africa and Turkey decreased significantly, mainly due to the global economic crisis.In total, trade decreased from R10.6-billion in 2008 to R5.1-billion in 2009 and further to R4.9-billion in 2010, after an upward trend from 2006 to 2008.“The trade decrease is of concern, but there is certainly room to grow the volume of two-way trade and investment, create a more diversified balance of SA exports, a greater proportion of beneficiated and higher value goods and services in our export basket to Turkey.”Later on Thursday, Davies was due to co-chair the second session of the Turkey-South Africa Joint Economic Commission, which promotes trade, investment and economic co-operation between the two countries.Source: BuaNews
Share Facebook Twitter Google + LinkedIn Pinterest By Peggy Kirk Hall, Associate Professor and Director, OSU Agricultural & Resource Law ProgramThe legislative Joint Committee on Agency Rule Review (JCARR) has voted to send the “watersheds in distress” rule revisions back to the Ohio Department of Agriculture (ODA). JCARR reviews administrative rules to make sure they follow legal requirements. The “watersheds in distress” rules seek to address agricultural nutrient impacts on water quality. At its December meeting, JCARR members voted 8 to 1 to recommend that ODA revise and refile the rules for consideration at JCARR’s next meeting on Jan. 22, 2019.The Jan. 22 meeting date effectively removes Governor Kasich’s administration from the rules revision. Kasich issued an executive order last July directing his agencies to prepare the controversial rule package. But the incoming DeWine Administration will control the fate of the rules after Jan. 14, 2019. JCARR is apparently counting on the new administration to take a different approach on agricultural nutrient pollution reduction.“There will be a new administration and we’ll have maybe more productive talks,” said JCARR’s chair, Sen. Joe Uecker (R-Loveland). “The DeWine Administration has demonstrated an interest on working with stakeholders on this issue.”The lack of stakeholder involvement was a common concern voiced by JCARR members, who stated that the rules had been rushed and did not involve all of the interested parties. Several committee members also suggested that the rules are inconsistent with legislative intent and will have a significant adverse impact on farmers. The Ohio Soybean Association, Ohio Corn & Wheat Growers Association, and Ohio Farm Bureau echoed those criticisms to JCARR members while several local residents, local groups and the Ohio Environmental Council testified that the rules would not sufficiently protect water quality.If ODA fails to refile the rules proposal for the January meeting, JCARR will have 31 days to recommend that the Ohio General Assembly invalidate the rules. That action would allow each chamber five days to pass a resolution invalidating the rules. If the concurrent resolution does not pass within that time period, the rules would stand. Alternatively, ODA could remove the proposal from JCARR’s agenda and refile revised rules at a later date, a likely course of action for the incoming DeWine administration.
Let’s say your average sales cycle from target to close is 90 days. That means that the opportunities you create this week will be won in the first week of April. If you decide not to prospect this week, you will pay for this decision months from now.Maybe your sales cycle is longer, call it 180 days, twice as long as the example above. The prospecting you don’t do this week will not come back to bite you until July. With a 180-day sales cycle, there will be nothing you can do to create the opportunities you need.For some of you reading this, your sales cycle can be a year or longer. You won’t have any negative repercussions from not prospecting now until an entire year has passed.The problem with prospecting and opportunity creation is that there is no penalty for not doing it today. You show up tomorrow, you still have your job, no one notices that you didn’t do any prospecting, and no one expected you to win an opportunity on any particular day (unless you forecasted the deal). The penalty for not prospecting comes much later, at some date that is so far away that you are misled into believing that you have time to make up for lost time. But the more days you go without doing the work, the more the penalty multiplies, creating a gap that cannot be overcome by even the most valiant and determined effort.It’s worth reviewing the math. If you have a 1,200,000 quota, you need to win $100,000 business each month. If you have a 50 percent close rate, you need $200,000 worth of opportunities each month. If you fail to produce those opportunities in a single month, your number doubles to $400,000 in new opportunities the following month. That means those opportunities will be won a month later than they would have been had you done the work when you needed to.The first rule of getting out of a hole is to stop digging. This is why it is important to keep the disciplines that produce success consistently over time. What you do this week matters, even if you won’t see the results until well into the future.