Hurt Girls (NTTimes on another downside to Title IX)
Former Member
Anyone catch the NY Times Sunday Magazine Article "Hurt Girls" two weeks ago which posited the politically incorrect fact that female athletes propelled by Title IX are ending up as physical wrecks by the time they are young adults? Dealing mostly with girls in soccer, lacrosse, and basketball, there were some hard figures showing, for example, that female athletes in soccer get ACT tears at five times the rate of males. (As expected, swimming did not come up as a source of injury). Most of the letters published this week in response were the reflexive defense of Title IX by the Title IX athletic establishment.
Former Member
Yeah, this is terrible. Their knees are so bad they aren't able to push vacuums as well as they should.
Swimming guarantees at least half the traditional "barefoot and pregnant" goal will be operative.
I purposely winnowed the article down to its sexist essence (The Times was much more periphrastic). Most on this board already hate Title IX for destroying men's swimming. But this article raised to me a totally unexpected other issue- the well being of these female athletes.
Behind it is a more fundamental question: what is the purposes of sport? In addition to physical fitness, sports are suppossed to be play. And they are suppossed to teach values about team work, fair play, good effort, hard work etc. The whole system is so warped with kids specializing in a sport before middle school and giving up all the other activities- totally against the play mentality. And now all the colleges have this voracious appetite for female athletes. So a girl in her Junior year of high school plays through a knee injury or shoulder tear or concussion so that her college acceptance is not derailed. Boys do the same. (Apparently, the article says girls tend to be tougher and try to play through injuries more than boys thus compounding the situation).
But the apparently irrefutable physical evidence is that girls are five times as likely to have serious life long debilitating injuries in the new sporting culture. It is politically incorrect and I suppose illegal to assert that as a broad rule, males are more athletic than females and that participation in sports should follow nature not an unnatural demand for absolute parity. BTW, this is just talking broad averages and I have a daily experience of being obliterated by many woman on my masters team, my sister played college hoops and could probably beat me on one and one. I still think this is yet another reason to scrap Title IX- that and the fact that it has meant the demise of the great sports hero of all time, the walk on wonder (now anathema to Athletic Directors because walk ons upset the Tiitle IX balance.).
Is it possible that the coaching/preparation offered to women isn't as good as for the men? I.e. that the problem is not in the women being injured but in the coaches that are training them and/or allowing them to play through injuries that they shouldn't be playing through?
The article seems to suggest that the problem is with the fact that now girls are being driven and coached as if they were boys- and that is sort of the point of Title IX. No one is suggesting that there be a return to powder puff approach to girl's sports. But there should be recognition of physical difference even if culturally different attitudes are illegal.
Vertiginous, ouch. This is just another reason to No just another reason to eliminate Title IX. Let sports be as intense and as varied as naturally arises without the quota system.
I would think women probably get awfully tired of continuously hearing they can only have qualified equality. There's always gotta be someone telling them "I know better than you."
When I got smoked by (S)he-man I didn't blame Title IX or say I got killed by a girl, I just got beat by a flat out better swimmer.
Isn't that what women are always telling men?
The article seems to suggest that the problem is with the fact that now girls are being driven and coached as if they were boys- and that is sort of the point of Title IX.
I have read that title IX makes no mention of athletics at all so I highly doubt that "the point" is to coach girls as if they were boys.
If the problem is that coaches are coaching girls as if they were boys it seems that the logical solution would be to coach girls according to their individual needs and abilities rather than to have less girls participate. I would say that all individuals should be coached in a way that minimizes injuries, regardless of gender.
Example are the gymnasts that are working hours every day starting at 4 years old because they have the talent to make the Olympics. Usually, the whole family works around one kid's schedule. Do you just trust the coach? Ask a 4 year old? Use your gut?
That is such a tough question because of all the sports, gymnastics seems to be the one where one's 'prime' gets a little younger every year. I honestly don't know but I find it nearly impossible to beleive that that level of talent can be indentified at such an early age. Heck, a huge growth spurt at age 8-9 could wipe out any 'talent' shown at a young age. But I would leave it up to the child, if they don't enjoy it and cases of extreme participation, absolutely LOVE it, then it's not right to push them to that level. It's supposed to be fun, it's not supposed to be work, trust me that comes in another 18 years or so.
Paul
