TITLE IX BULLSH*T??

dream on !

When will you see the day that educational opportunities are based on interest? There goes education for all the little kids in Appalachia! How funny!

AD's are men, not generally women - so it hasn't been women enforcing Title IX, sorry to break it to you.

You haven't got one shred of evidence to prove what women care about sports or otherwise - because you are ignorant.

Advice: if you're going to cry about discrimination, you ought to learn to spell it first. How funny!

you are distorting the truth to make some kind of point.

She is probably an 18:00 5K runner who was injured and ran some 22:00 races so you call her a 22:00 5k runner. You have distorted it somehow - and if it is true then give us the name and we'll google it and find out for ourselves. you are a liar.

I didnt think my post would get this much attention, i actually started it b/c i was giving a 5min speech on title 9. I think the main thing here is that title 9 needed to be passed to give women an equal opportunity in sports. every single girl agreed with me in the class that title 9 has gone too far and its almost bad for women, saying that they wouldn;t be able to achieve what they have without title 9. Football scholarships need to be cut down from 80 to like 60 because kids who are on a full scholarship never play a single down and yet they are on full ride?? Why?

Anyway i just wanted to say title 9 was a good thing, now they have taken it to the extreme. And not once did I blame the women athletes, so the person who said why am i blmaing them they didnt do anything, i didnt.

legally blond wrote:

Feeling a bit discriminated against? sucks, doesn't it?

Actually, in Canadian schools, most track/cross teams are not split between genders. There isn't a completely seperate 'womens track team' and 'mens track team'. They have the same coaches and go to the same meets on the same buses.

I can think of only one school on this side of the border that has cut a male team while leaving the corresponding female one in place.

But I guess such discrimination as you advocate is more acceptable in the "land of the free".

i don't know what you are reading or if i am just sending a completely opposite message than i want, but i feel all you are doing is repeating what i said. i stated that each employer (in a private business, private universities and teams/clubs involved) place their own "qualifications" needed to get the job. Most qualified certainly does exist in the job world, as you stated, the most qualified always gets the job, which any person can see the person who wasn't most qualified didn't get the job. Most qualified per employer gets the job. As on a cross country or track team, most qualified (and for most coaches it is the person who will most help their team, however the coach personally decides that) gets the spot. How is this misconstruing "most qualified" and how do i not understand it? how hard is it to understand, the MOST QUALIFIED person gets the job, according to who is deciding. Yes, it is very objective, but it still exists. So why should a woman who is "less qualified" get a free ride over a male who might be "more qualified" according to the coach? The woman has had the equal opportunity of being there and getting consideration, but they weren't a best fit for a team.

from someone earlier "no discrimination should take place based on gender". So if a girl just does not "make the squad" according the coach, meaning she will not help the team as much as the guy, then that is not discrimination based on gender, is it?

dude you need CLARITY....

WTF are you talking about mate?

its a response to legally blonde, from earlier...

because dude, forget about your subjective language about more qualified or better than, this is subjective and has no business in writing law amendments and your argument s look really lame to the bejury. Try it, use your verbage and pretend you are trying to convince law makers and AD's across the world of your point that there are all these "less qualified" females vs all these "qualified male runners" missing out on scholarships.

It still comes down to numbers vs numbers because someone defined sport as educational opportunity. That's it, that's all she wrote. Go find me 5 schools who have more female scholarships and opportunities than males in the full spectrum of sports. I don't think you can do it.

I'd like to give everyone some thoughts to consider regarding Title IX.

Have you read the basic facts of Title IX? It can be found on the ncaa.org website. Looks like it was written first in 1972, and then athletics was addressed more specifically in 1975 and 1979. Interesting, because in 1972, later in 1975, and even by 1979, there were NO women's athletics under the NCAA. Notice the big "celebrating 100 years of student-athletes" on the ncaa.org website. Less noticeable, "celebrating 25 years of women's championships"--- and that's just championships. I think it wasn't until 1983 that the NCAA sponsored women's sports as they do men's. So, that's over 10 years AFTER Title IX was originally written. The NCAA had an INTERIM Title IX compliance manual, an INVESTIGATIVE Title IX manual, and then, not until 1996, did they have there final manual with the three-part test of compliance.

I just thought that was interesting that the member institutions have had less time (1996-2006) to be compliant to the NCAA than the NCAA had to be compliant with the Federal government (1972-1996).

Thoughts?

legally blond wrote:

man, I'm telling you. First of all read it.

Let's do this:

Why don't we just "poll" white males on who they feel deserves equal opportunities for education and work and all other civil right laws they have enjoyed since the day the constitution was written.

We'll just send out a yearly survey to white males, and they can work together to develop the criteria of who gets equal opportunity for education, educational extra curricular activities, employment, etc.

And then you can deny or approve based on your criteria. Wouldn't life be so wonderful then?

FINALLY someone making sense. Thats the way the founding fathers liked it right?

you know what? you are right. my arguments are not going to hold up with law makers and AD's around the world. Good thing i didn't print those out to go give to my AD. Oh wait, thats right, this was a simple discussion on letsrun.com that i originally just wanted to bring a different perspective to. As i said, i am not, have never been, and will not be affected by Title IX in any way directly, and i have not known anybody to be affected by Title IX directly. So this is quite a mute point to me and i do not need to argue for or against it to any AD's or government heads. have a great night.

Title 9 isnt even going to last, that sucker is going to be amended within the next few years. It wasnt created to cut male sports teams and/or funding. And yes there are women who run 22 and 23 min. 5ks at my school and get good scholarships, and yes she was a runner who broke a state record in high school but dose that make it just for her to accept all this money with having no ambition to even make practice half the time. Its a f***ing joke to run five mins. off of your pb in high school, thats like putting any DI Nat. qualifer in the 5k and coming back the next year running 18:30s.

Its no wonder that most schools APPEAL Title 9 by showing an improvment towards womens athletics meaning that some schools just repaint there locker room and stave it off a year.

legally blond wrote:

Go find me 5 schools who have more female scholarships and opportunities than males in the full spectrum of sports. I don't think you can do it.

Actually, that's very easy to do. Just find the schools who don't have a football program. There's more out there than you would think.

what the he** is a 'mute' point??

haha, my mistake, i have never really seen it written before, have only heard it botched, so i always assumed it was spelled the same as "mute" giving people a reason to mix it up. thank you for the correction and now i must assume it is a "moot" point?

The truth is that men and women are not equal. Women are anatomically not the same as men. Men are better at sports (please don't try to bring up extreme cases where this is wrong). When was the last time more people went to a WNBA game than a NBA game. Never. This is not because women don't have an "equal" oppurtunity, it is because women suck at basketball. No one wants to watch a bunch of girls play basketball or any other sport really. This would be like guys fighting for "equal" oppurtunity for maternity leave. Why should males be discriminated against just because we are born differently than females(being facetious to make a point). Girls don't need title IX. Nothing was stopping them from playing sports before. I mean there was a GIRL on my highschool's VARSITY FOOTBALL team (she was the kicker). Girls saying "well why can't i go to this college for this sport, its because im female" is like me saying "well why can't i go work at NASA, its because i'm not smart enough." We should make NASA give equal opportunity to people with low IQ; it's not their fault they were born dumb(again being facetious).

Pro SPorts..even at the college level are about entertainment....not the quality of play...it is naive to think that men should necessarily get more money, time, resources because men are in fact physcially stronger, faster etc...Why are women figure skaters paid more than men? BEcause Men don't want to watch men's figure skating even though men are much more athletic..and women will watch both but prefer the women..even John McEnroe...not anyone who minced words said women on teh WTA tour should et paid more even though they are not better players than men because they attract more revenue.

In addition..there is no reason why women's sports cannot be as big a money generating sport as men's sports. The premise that football...played only by men generates income that is shared by the school sports programs is a dubious assumption at best...Why would teh football coach share money wit hthe athletic department if he did nto have to?

There might not be a verifyable reason why women's sports can't generate as much revenue as men's sports, but the fact is that they don't.

WNBA anyone?

subway dude wrote:

There might not be a verifyable reason why women's sports can't generate as much revenue as men's sports, but the fact is that they don't.

WNBA anyone?

When did the thread turn into revenue producing sports? I thought we were discussing educational opportunity.

If your argument is: to not give citizens equal rights under the law because they don't pull in as much revenue, then I guess you are going to have to revise the entire U.S. system of civil rights.

Let's see: If you make less than $30,000 a year - no vote

If you make between $30,000-70,000 a year you can vote twice, $70,000-$100,000 +, you can vote three times.

Same applies for schooling: people with no vote - kids stay home. If you make $100,000 plus - you get to go to the best funded schools.

We could apply this system to the purchase of food and even energy! This is great!

Reality:

You've completely changed discussion on civil rights to some kind of "justification by revenue production" argument and it only show, 1) ignorance 2) maturity level 3) lack of class.