Let's keep cutting men's sports. Hey.... it's the economy now, not Title IX.
I find this reasoning amusing.
John Smith
=======================================
NCAA's Brand: Don't fault Title IX for Future Cuts
Author: ASA News
Blog URL: allstudentathletes.com/.../ncaabrandtitleix
Description:
Brand expects some schools to drop men's teams in coming months because
of the economic downturn. He is urging them in advance to cite the
economy, not the law that bans sex discrimination at schools receiving
federal funds.
Amy...did you read the link to the article I posted with Whitten? I think he's pretty clear on where he stands regarind football and has made some great suggestions about how it should be addressed.
As for demoninizing Title IX I'm not sure who/what your talking to so maybe provide a quote to show me what your talking about...the problem is that AD's (mainly men, but not in ASU case) do use Titile IX as the rationale to cut men's sports and I think everyone here who has posted their frutrations about them and the misuse of the law has been very clear that they don't want anything taken away from women's sports oppurtunities. However as I pointed out when you post as your doing you make Phil's point about femists shouting down an calling anyone who may want this situation to no longer be abused sexists...and with regard to me your dead wrong about that.
This makes sense:
"Unethical administrators and athletic directors are using the excuse of Title IX to cut men's programs when that isn't what is really driving their decisions. What's maddening is that there would be no need to cut men's teams, and all of the dissembling, obfuscation and plain old lying would be unnecessary if these guys would only use a little creativity, if they'd think outside the box or invite the participation of their Olympic sports coaches in dealing with budgetary issues. The total lack of imagination is depressing and, frankly, bewildering. Are these guys really such rigid thinkers?"
This does not:
"What is happening with Title IX is that the radical feminists have taken it to the limit and beyond. In conception, Title IX was a good thing – equal opportunity for men and women. Who could be against that? But remove football from the equation and men are now the under-represented sex. It's men who are being discriminated against."
The first paragraph says what we all agree on. AD's are using the legislation as an excuse. The second paragraph, however, is nonsense. And it's sexist. Which radical feminists, exactly, are at fault for how AD's are using Title IX as an excuse to cut sports? And why, again, are we to remove football from the equation? We are to simply ignore 85 scholarships exclusively for men for what rational reason?
Title IX should have been drafted to help prevent the slash and burn decisions of athletic departments during it implementation as well as the ever present football budgetary favoritism. Unfortunately, it was only written to protect women
When Title IX was drafted it was to protect women. Why? Because women weren't afforded athletic opportunities. My mom was not able to play sports in high-school or college. I think NCAA Division I Women's Swimming only came into existence a couple of years before I went to college. Women had NOTHING in the way of athletic opportunities only 30+ years ago. The law was written to rectify that.
There was no way those writing the law could foresee that NCAA Division I football would become the mega-dollar business it has. To imply that Title IX was somehow a feminist conspiracy because "it was only written to protect women" is dumb. That's exactly who it was written for. And the reason was that women were getting zilch. To complain and whine that the law wasn't looking out for men is absurd. At the time men had it all!
And, as geek points out, constantly harping on a legislation that evened the playing field for women as if it were the problem (and not those who abuse it for their own ends) seems sexist. Sorry if I actually like what Title IX allowed me to experience as a female college athlete!
That's it for me on this thread. I'm worn out. If ya'll don't get it, I can't think of anything else I can say that will change your minds...
Amy...did you read the link to the article I posted with Whitten? I think he's pretty clear on where he stands regarind football and has made some great suggestions about how it should be addressed.
As for demoninizing Title IX I'm not sure who/what your talking to so maybe provide a quote to show me what your talking about...the problem is that AD's (mainly men, but not in ASU case) do use Titile IX as the rationale to cut men's sports and I think everyone here who has posted their frutrations about them and the misuse of the law has been very clear that they don't want anything taken away from women's sports oppurtunities. However as I pointed out when you post as your doing you make Phil's point about femists shouting down an calling anyone who may want this situation to no longer be abused sexists...and with regard to me your dead wrong about that.
This makes sense:
"Unethical administrators and athletic directors are using the excuse of Title IX to cut men's programs when that isn't what is really driving their decisions. What's maddening is that there would be no need to cut men's teams, and all of the dissembling, obfuscation and plain old lying would be unnecessary if these guys would only use a little creativity, if they'd think outside the box or invite the participation of their Olympic sports coaches in dealing with budgetary issues. The total lack of imagination is depressing and, frankly, bewildering. Are these guys really such rigid thinkers?"
This does not:
"What is happening with Title IX is that the radical feminists have taken it to the limit and beyond. In conception, Title IX was a good thing – equal opportunity for men and women. Who could be against that? But remove football from the equation and men are now the under-represented sex. It's men who are being discriminated against."
The first paragraph says what we all agree on. AD's are using the legislation as an excuse. The second paragraph, however, is nonsense. And it's sexist. Which radical feminists, exactly, are at fault for how AD's are using Title IX as an excuse to cut sports? And why, again, are we to remove football from the equation? We are to simply ignore 85 scholarships exclusively for men for what rational reason?
Title IX should have been drafted to help prevent the slash and burn decisions of athletic departments during it implementation as well as the ever present football budgetary favoritism. Unfortunately, it was only written to protect women
When Title IX was drafted it was to protect women. Why? Because women weren't afforded athletic opportunities. My mom was not able to play sports in high-school or college. I think NCAA Division I Women's Swimming only came into existence a couple of years before I went to college. Women had NOTHING in the way of athletic opportunities only 30+ years ago. The law was written to rectify that.
There was no way those writing the law could foresee that NCAA Division I football would become the mega-dollar business it has. To imply that Title IX was somehow a feminist conspiracy because "it was only written to protect women" is dumb. That's exactly who it was written for. And the reason was that women were getting zilch. To complain and whine that the law wasn't looking out for men is absurd. At the time men had it all!
And, as geek points out, constantly harping on a legislation that evened the playing field for women as if it were the problem (and not those who abuse it for their own ends) seems sexist. Sorry if I actually like what Title IX allowed me to experience as a female college athlete!
That's it for me on this thread. I'm worn out. If ya'll don't get it, I can't think of anything else I can say that will change your minds...
