To the editor:
I am writing in response to the Feb. 22 letter to the editor "NOW wasting their time on intramural scoring policy." It seems that the author holds a misconception in regard the nature of the debate over the scoring policy. The issue is whether awarding two points for a female goal is saying that a female player is worth half of what a male is worth. It seems to me that the scoring policy does promote this: men are encouraged to allow women to fully participate, not out of a recognition of their equality as players and individuals, but out an incentive that gives women a handicap because of their supposed weak, non-aggressive nature.
Justifying this type of policy with the rationale that "the 1:2 scoring ratio is not only a Geneseo thing" is fallacious. Whether or not other schools do this does not determine the correctness of our policy. Other universities, many of them religious institutions, strictly forbid dancing and music. Does this mean Geneseo would be justified in doing this? It would be a credit to Geneseo if we were the ones to break free from traditional notions of gender inequality.
Of course, as last week's author asks, is changing the scoring policy going to really further the women's rights movement? I mean, this is just sports. In the real world, men and women are treated as equals, right? It is true that in the world of employment, women aren't judged to be half the worth of a man. Instead, they are judged to be three-quarters of value, as shown by the "Wage Gap" in which women, on average, earn 75 cents to the dollar that their male counterparts make. I believe it is our duty to fight this gross gender inequality whenever we can, even if the arena is as trivial as a technicality in intramural sports.
This is not to say that the scoring policy is wrong. A fair case can be made that the policy is what allows women to fully participate in intramural sports. Maybe the societal attitudes held by male players could be to blame. I certainly am guilty of practicing these during my years as a gym class maniac in high school. Regardless, the only way this debate will be solved will be through a thoughtful discourse about the policy, not knee-jerk reactions that cloud the real - and important - issues.