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.
This makes sense:
This does not:
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?
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...
I've asked Phil to join in the conversation....we'll see if he does because I agree with you that he should give specifics vs. a general statement such as the one you detailed.
John's an ass and just likes getting people worked up...
My last comment (for know) Amy with regard to your posts is you constantly talk about the "past" with regard to Titile IX...we are all (I think) arguing for the here and the now and that means accept the positives that Title IX created but also the unintended negatives and let's try and get them corrected...when a law is adopted but found to have loopholes in it that allow others to misuse its still a poor law and because those of us who recognize this and want it corrected doesn't mean were all idiots and sexists.
This makes sense:
This does not:
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?
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...
I've asked Phil to join in the conversation....we'll see if he does because I agree with you that he should give specifics vs. a general statement such as the one you detailed.
John's an ass and just likes getting people worked up...
My last comment (for know) Amy with regard to your posts is you constantly talk about the "past" with regard to Titile IX...we are all (I think) arguing for the here and the now and that means accept the positives that Title IX created but also the unintended negatives and let's try and get them corrected...when a law is adopted but found to have loopholes in it that allow others to misuse its still a poor law and because those of us who recognize this and want it corrected doesn't mean were all idiots and sexists.
