Fathers can no longer take their daughters to father-daughter school dances in the state of Rhode Island. A law suit brought by the American Civil Liberties Union put the kibosh on such time-honored, festive events.
It seems that a mother complained to the ACLU because there was no father in the house to take her daughter to a father-daughter dance at her school in the town of Cranston. Therefore her daughter was being discriminated against.
The ACLU put the screws to the local school board, contending that father-daughter dances violated Rhode Island’s gender-discrimination laws, and the school board caved. Now nobody can go to father-daughter dances.
I am waiting for someone to tell me how this helps the girl whose mother started the ruckus. Does her mother take pleasure in the fact that she has spoiled the fun for everyone else in the community?
The ACLU used to be a great organization, back in the days when it specialized in cases that were politically incorrect. In one of its landmark cases, for example, it successfully defended an American Nazi propagandist who published materials that the government wanted to suppress.
Now the ACLU has come full circle, and is itself the very model of political correctness. Look at this excerpt from an arrogant statement it released in connection with the Rhode Island case:
“…in the 21st Century, public schools have no business fostering the notion that girls prefer to go to formal dances while boys prefer baseball games. This type of gender stereotyping only perpetuates outdated notions of ‘girl’ and ‘boy’ activities and is contrary to federal law… the time has long since passed for public school resources to encourage stereotyping from the days of Ozzie and Harriet. Not every girl today is interested in growing up to be Cinderella — not even in Cranston. In fact, one of them might make a great major league baseball player someday.”
Doesn’t it seem that this little statement contains a fair amount of what the legal folks call obiter dicta – gratuitous comments that range beyond the essential points of a legal case? The high and mighty ACLU knows best how the rest of us should think and act, and is more than eager to impart its wisdom to the tobaccy-spittin’, moonshine slurpin’, hog-wallowin’ yokels of Cranston, RI.
I know some militant feminists who talk exactly like that ACLU statement, so I am going to hazard the guess that the statement was, in fact, crafted by a militant feminist.
It appears that the ACLU has become the very same dragon that it used to bravely go out and slay.
So what now?
If I want to take my girlfriend out dining and dancing, must I take her brothers as well? I know that it would be difficult even for the ACLU to make a case that would force me to do so, but wouldn’t they force me if they could?
What if the brothers happen to be playing sandlot baseball or touch football, and turn down my invitation? Should I rebuke them for their stereotyped, sexist behavior?
What if I decide to take my son to a major league soccer game? Must I take my daughters as well? What if my daughters say no, they don’t know the first thing about soccer and would rather hang out with their boyfriends? Should I ground them? Disinherit them? After all, they are being anti-social in the eyes of the ACLU.
Maybe we could hammer out a compromise with the ACLU, getting them to let us have father-daughter dances if we also will promote father-son dances and mother-daughter dances. I don’t know, I fear that someone at the ACLU might catch on to the fact that all these dances exclude people who do not have either children or parents.
Maybe the ACLU can rope some elderly bachelor into filing a suit that will eliminate dancing entirely.