Title IX solutions?

100 METERS READ THIS:

Your post was completely ridiculous. The assumptions you made were not fair at all. I am a high schooler planning on running in college so this issue affects me heavily. How can you say that we are upset about not owning slaves or women having the right to vote, that is terribly sexist. What we are arguing is that it is not fair to deny men the opportunity to compete for the sake of keeping statistics equal. That is what we are arguing for, nothing else. Something else that seems to be confusing people on this thread is that EQUAL PARTICIPATION DOES NOT MEAN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY. When a man of the same ability of a woman is kicked off the xc team, that is inequal opportunity. Just because there are less women competing in sports in a school does not mean they have less opportunity. Another thing, schools give scholarships for a reason. If women want to form hiking clubs or aerobic clubs that is great but they should not have scholarships for them. On the same note, every one knows that FOOTBALL DOES NOT NEED 90 SCHOLARSHIPS. Whether the team makes money or not, 70 stupid kids who won't even play don't need a full ride. football is a professional sport and it doesn't belong at educational institutions anyway. Even if it does make money, it could make alot more if it wasn't giving scholarships away like that. I am sure universities could find a way to get rid of football.

feedback wrote:

If the same number of women and men are interested in playing sports, then the numbers of those playing should be equal.

Right. And there is no "if" about it.

But in reality there are fewer women interested in participating in collegiate sports.

That is total bull shit and sexist. There is only one reason that women would be less inclined to participate in collegiate athletics, and that would be from a lack of opportunity.

So the answer is to find out how many people of each sex are interested and base the numbers of those participating on that.

Count the number of women, then count the number of men, convert these to percentages and there's your answer. If there are 55% women at the Universities, then 55% of the opportunity to participate in athletics should be for women.

How does that sound for a solution?

It sounds like you think a woman is a second class person.

Whoever said they are in favor of it???? The President and Board at Indiana wanted to can Bobby Knight for years and weren't able to, and that's only one guy! We're not even talking about a college football program.

No that's not true. It is because they are totally University supported and most of the services they get and use are not even IN the budget. And these are taken from other University programs.

Have you ever wanted to run on the track, or around a grass field, or take a pee in the locker room and you couldn't because the whole place was closed for use of the football teams???!

You don't have a very high opinion of women do you.

Hey "dunes runner",

You can quote me on this one! Go ahead! I'd love it!

WOMEN ARE MUCH, MUCH WORSE AT SPORTS AND THERE IS NO WAY ANYONE CAN DENY THAT FACT!

Lets pose some matchups. As you will see, they are all crushing victories by the SUPERIOR MALE RACE!

Maurice Green vs. Marion Jones

Paul Pierce vs. Sheryl Swoops

Jorge Torres vs. Shalene Flanagan

me vs. any woman at any sport, anytime (and I'm not even GOOD at most sports, what does that say about women?!?)

Listen, lady, we don't give little kids driver's liscences and let them cruise around before they can even see over the steering wheel. This is just like women's sports... when you women will quit the whining and actually COMPETE with the men, then you can have your precious "equality".

Women are talented at many different things. They have many skills, most of them sexual or perfect for being secretaries, cooks, and mothers. I'll admit that freely. But sports... nope. Men are so much better it's not even funny. Stop deluding yourself with your feminist propoganda and face the facts.

I'm out.

Right on. : )

That makes no sense. Scholarships and participation should be based on demand. Any good American capitalist should know that.

I come from a track background in Europe, and we have no school sports, but rather a club based system. Anyone can join these clubs. Guess what? In any club that I have been a part of (track, skiing, and soccer) the ratio of men to women has been about 2:1. Do I think men are better than women or that anyone that wants a chance to participate in athletics should be turned away? No. That is why I think title IX needs to be modified.

-Clay

When you look at the data of participation increases since 1979 it can be very misleading. Some schools (hs) had already implemented girls teams and so their increase was marginal. But in the local high school where I live, the increase was huge as they didn't have opportunities for girls. Track and cross country only happened in 1979. As a result of a Title IX law suit they have just added girls golf.

But it seems from a lot of the comments, the biggest problem is not allowing walk-ons to participate. Financial aid can take the place of scholarships, but if you are not on the team, even that is harder to get. It could be argued that not allowing walk-ons denies equal opportunity for men. But I doubt that coaches are happy to turn away runners who might eventually develop into solid runners.

The women posting on this thread are hypocrites and I noticed they conveniently ducked my previous arguments. Apparently they have no couter-argument for what I stated earlier. Listen up ladies! You cannot have your cake and eat it too. Women's intercollegiate sports are not self-sufficient, they are totally dependent on men's football. No men's college football = no women's college sports! And unless there is a scholarship reduction across the board for men's football, every Div. 1 college with a football program gets to field 85 schollies in order to be competitive.

Yes, you may not like those lunk-headed football players, but those games manage to sell out a 70,000-seat stadium every weekend. Can a women's sport do that? Football generates more alumni revenue than any other college sport. MEN's football outright pays for nearly 90% of WOMEN's sports scholarships and it pays for men's track teams too. Without football, women would not have sports teams. They'd have to fundraise for a club sports team they wish to participate on. Hello! Men's football is your umbilical cord. You have no choice but to a) embrace football and be thankful for what it brings to women's collegiate sports in terms of funding, or b) generate enough revenue from women's sports so you are not dependent on men's football.

Hey, if men can go out and bash eachother's heads in week in and week out on the football field and women find it wildly entertaining to have these poor bastards sacrificing life and limb for their entertainment, let's have some intercollegiate women's soccer matches in thongs. Or maybe women's intercollegiate mud-wrestling. That'd sell tons of TV air time and viewing tickets which in turn would amply fund women's sports teams.

But your pusillanimous arguments are without basis in reality. Maybe daddy has been giving you too many handouts or something and you've grown accustomed to taking freebies from men, but in the real world, you can't bite the hand that feeds you and that hand is men's football. You have yet to offer any solutions, all you're doing is complaining.

Seaman you sweet thing you turn me on so much when you get so excited. Now come to momma.

dunes runner wrote:

No that's not true. It is because they are totally University supported and most of the services they get and use are not even IN the budget. And these are taken from other University programs.

Have you ever wanted to run on the track, or around a grass field, or take a pee in the locker room and you couldn't because the whole place was closed for use of the football teams???!

You don't have a very high opinion of women do you.[/quote]

Where do you get these stats? You obviously make them up. You have no evidence that the football team actually takes money from the other teams, yet you spout it as gospel. Please back up your stats. Also, I've never been denied access anywhere by the football team at my school. Also, I did not generalize about women at all in my quote, I don't stereotype. I was satiring how the poster I was responding to seemed to be posting.

Clay wrote:

That makes no sense. Scholarships and participation should be based on demand. Any good American capitalist should know that.

Okay fine. Since 60% of University enrollments are women, then give 60% of the scholarships to women.

In any club that I have been a part of (track, skiing, and soccer) the ratio of men to women has been about 2:1.

This is from a lack of historical opportunity. Fifty years ago the participation by women was MUCH less. And the participation by women is growing much faster than by men.

Do I think men are better than women or that anyone that wants a chance to participate in athletics should be turned away? No. That is why I think title IX needs to be modified.

If it is modified to encourage women and increase their percentages of participation and scholarships then I agree.

dunes runner, you are possibly the most sexist poster on the Letsrun boards. You don't care if men die, as long as one more girl is forced into playing another sport they're not interested in.

Yes you do sound very bitter! You are also right... women are not physically capable on competing against men, but it does not mean that we should be given less of an opportunity to do so.

Maybe scholarships should not be given to athletes in the first place... the main reasons should be academic!!! AMERICAN SCHOOL SYSTEM SUCKS, I red from a paper that graduation percentage for football players from University of Michigan was 11%... I don't care if they were smart, but decided to go pro, somebody could have used the money and actually get a degree!!!!!!

Consider: We're talking about colleges/universities. What's their reason for existence? Hopefully, it?s about education and offering individuals the means to personal exploration. It?s not supposed to be about athletics, although that is certainly PART of the experience. Academics come first and athletics serves to support that.

I don't see Title IX as a problem, but rather I see it as a scapegoat. Admin doesn?t want to put the money into equal opportunity for all, so they simply chop away at men?s sports conveniently blaming Title IX. No one is willing to touch the sacred cow of football. Why are we even suggesting ?taking football out of the equation?? Are there three categories of sport: men?s, women?s, and football? No. Football is a pig. It soaks up far too much time, attention, and effort for its worth. It doesn?t matter if it brings in money or not. Hell, you could put an abattoir or brothel on campus if all you wanted to do was make money. These institutions are supposed to be about higher education (and please spare me the ?this is the real world, dude? banalities). Maybe it?s time we held them to that and while we?re at it, dump the entire notion of athletic scholarships. What the hell does THAT mean anyway? ?Athletic scholarship? pretty much defines oxymoron.

If Admin would simply put football in perspective, all the Title IX complaints would pretty much disappear.

third choice wrote:

dunes runner, you are possibly the most sexist poster on the Letsrun boards. You don't care if men die, as long as one more girl is forced into playing another sport they're not interested in.

What happened to the boys, and the women?

Don't forget that in college women suckle at the teat of men's football.

the argument about basing participation numbers on enrollment numbers is a huge problem because not everyone enrolled in college is there to learn AND try out for an athletic team. I just wonder what would happen if universities demanded equal fan attendence at every athletic competition? What if the same number of people had to come watch women's basketball as men's football? Now wouldn't that create a huge outcry?

JOHN MOODY OF RACINE, WISCONSIN AND STEVE UNDERWOOD (DYESTAT ADMINISTRATOR) OF ROSWELL, GEORGIA HARRASS BY NAME INNOCENT MINORITIES ON MESSAGE BOARDS!

JimFiore wrote:

No one is willing to touch the sacred cow of football. Why are we even suggesting ?taking football out of the equation?? Are there three categories of sport: men?s, women?s, and football? No. Football is a pig. It soaks up far too much time, attention, and effort for its worth.

If Admin would simply put football in perspective, all the Title IX complaints would pretty much disappear.

Jim hit the nail on the head. College D1 football is nothing more than a breeding ground for Pro Football, and when all is said and done - IT DOESN'T MAKE MONEY for colleges. That is a misperception, and you have been shown the FACTS. Only a few MAY break even,like Ohio State and Notre Dame. It spends more than it makes. It is kept around as nothing more than some kind of cultural ikon. If you are in a non-revenue sport and you are cutting the "cuts", go after the culprit.

FOOTBALL DOES NOT MAKE MONEY FOR COLLEGES.