Further cuts to come for men's sports

You can see I'm not having much success. Reason doesn't seem to prevail on this subject when one has his mind made up on the subject. This kind of reminds me of Elise's thread about going back to the 50's... gobears, with all due respect, you seem to be the one who has your mind mind up. Not being accepting of other points of view is just as intolerant as the extreme view that you have a problem with. Just because I have heard from athletic, well-adjusted, well-educated women that the 50's were a pleasant time to live, and have bought into it, doesn't mean I am anti-woman. When you speak of another woman contemptuously that is not on the bandwagon screaming that Title IX is the best thing that ever happened, then you are beginning to get a little extreme. I will remain convinced that the 50's were a pleasant time in our history. I don't think that means I am closed-minded towards the progress of women in athletics. By the way, I used to say that "feminazi" was a term insecure men used to describe successful women.

gobears, with all due respect, you seem to be the one who has your mind mind up. Just because I have heard from athletic, well-adjusted, well-educated women that the 50's were a pleasant time to live, and have bought into it, doesn't mean I am anti-woman. When you speak of another woman contemptuously that is not on the bandwagon screaming that Title IX is the best thing that ever happened, then you are beginning to get a little extreme. I will remain convinced that the 50's were a pleasant time in our history. I don't think that means I am closed-minded towards the progress of women in athletics. By the way, I used to say that "feminazi" was a term insecure men used to describe successful womem. Whoa, there! All I said was that the conversation reminded me of that particular thread, for Heaven's sake! I was not condemning you personally! Didn't mean to offend. If you love the 50's, fantastic. More power to ya'. Now, as to the subject of this particular thread: would you agree that Title IX is inherently evil and solely intended to propagate a liberal feminist world-view? Or would you be willing to say that the way athletic departments choose to handle Title IX (a relatively neutral attempt to even the athletic playing field) and the way they heavily favor football over any other sport is the main problem?

Whoa, there! All I said was that the conversation reminded me of that particular thread, for Heaven's sake! I was not condemning you personally! Didn't mean to offend. If you love the 50's, fantastic. More power to ya'. Now, as to the subject of this particular thread: would you agree that Title IX is inherently evil and solely intended to propagate a liberal feminist world-view? Or would you be willing to say that the way athletic departments choose to handle Title IX (a relatively neutral attempt to even the athletic playing field) and the way they heavily favor football over any other sport is the main problem? Honestly, before I can intelligently answer your question, I would want to thorougly review the law and the statistics. To do otherwise would amount to pure speculation on my part. As with many laws aimed at creating opportunites for those groups previously denied opportunities, there comes what I call "unintended side effects." For example, with the equal employment opportunity laws in place, many previous bad employment practices have been nearly eradicated. The downside, however, is the cost to employers to comply with so many laws is out the roof. One could argue that such laws have a negative impact on the economy. With increased costs, employers have to make cuts somewhere and that may mean laying off employees. Also, it can mean in the whole big picture of things that the added expense of compliance makes it simply too expensive to do business and the business shuts down. So, my position is that there needs to be a balance. There needs to be a way to create opportunity but minimize the side effects. I don't think it is a weak argument that the "unintended side effects" of Title IX may have exceeded its benefit. I think hoping that AD's will give less scholarships for football players is unrealistic. Since the time of the gladiators, the mob has enjoyed seeing people get mauled. Those in power love to please the mob. The mob wants football and the best that can be had.

I think hoping that AD's will give less scholarships for football players is unrealistic. Since the time of the gladiators, the mob has enjoyed seeing people get mauled. Those in power love to please the mob. The mob wants football and the best that can be had. So, giving half of the athletic money to half of the athletic population is unfair if the (predominantly male) mob demands otherwise? I'm not asking what can or will happen. I'm asking what's fair. If men choose to give their half of the resources to football, women should be satisfied with less than half? Really???

I don't think anyone here is arguing that cutting men's swimming programs is a good way to equalize opportunity for women. None of us want to see men's sports cut. But that is exactly the point that every single person on this forum (including myself) that I know and have talked to about this situiation has been trying to make... and yes at times with a little gas thrown on the first to liven it up. GoBears your reaction to this is exactly what Whitten was writing about...no one...espeically a male can question a very well intentioned but shortsighted law that at a certain point in time was needed...has also been abused...without being called out as a woman hater!

So, giving half of the athletic money to half of the athletic population is unfair if the (predominantly male) mob demands otherwise? I'm not asking what can or will happen. I'm asking what's fair. If men choose to give their half of the resources to football, women should be satisfied with less than half? Really??? Hypothetically, what if Title IX was repealed (taken off the books)? Would we truly go back to the early 1970's? Would women have less opportunites? I'd like to hear why.

Apparently from what little research I've done, Title IX was interpreted to extend its language to athletic opportunities. The words "athletic opportunities" ae not in the statute. Although the motivation for passing Title IX was no doubt designed to protect women from further discrimination, like equal employment opportunity laws, the language of the statute actually protects both sexes. I think it is conceivable that a male would have a good argument that he was denied the benefit of athletic opportunities guaranteed under Title IX if he has a limited number of sports as compared to women in which to participate in at a particular academic institution. So, I would say that Title IX is not the demon. There needs to be a policy interpretation leaning towards equal athletic opportunity, meaning that each sex has an equal number of sports in which to participate. The problem is that society, lawmakers, and judges at this moment in time don't seem inclined to be sympathetic towards males being denied opportunites.

There is no law that is perfect. Title IX is no exception. That people (AD's) have used it to justify cutting men's sports is unfortunate. No doubt. But to point to Title IX as the crux of the problem is short-sighted. Someone please explain to me why the fact that football uses up most of the athletic budget at most universities is irrelevant in this argument. Football affords men with athletic opportunity. It has for years. The fact that Title IX allocates a fair portion of the remaining resources to women has resulted in the remaining men's sports suffering cuts. Nobody (but those making those decisions, I guess) is happy about that. But the blame lies squarely at the foot of AD's, a football crazed (and second-tier sports dismissive) mainly male public, and not the attempt to even the playing field for women. Could Title IX be amended somehow? I don't know. Anything that would remove football from the equation seems dishonest as I've yet to hear any good excuse for doing so. It's not the questioning about the effects of Title IX that make some sound sexist. It's the demonizing of Title IX and relegating its use by (mainly male) decision makers as somehow the fault of feminists or liberals that make you sound so.

. And you can't blame that on feminists for god's sake. They are the last ones watching football. Of course you can! Suffrage, feminism, equality in the work place, women, taking on men's jobs (Dr instead of RN etc), women wanting a college education, women's sports, title whatever. None of this would be an issue if... There, blamed! :bolt:

There is no law that is perfect. Title IX is no exception. That people (AD's) have used it to justify cutting men's sports is unfortunate. No doubt. But to point to Title IX as the crux of the problem is short-sighted. Someone please explain to me why the fact that football uses up most of the athletic budget at most universities is irrelevant in this argument. Football affords men with athletic opportunity. It has for years. The fact that Title IX allocates a fair portion of the remaining resources to women has resulted in the remaining men's sports suffering cuts. Nobody (but those making those decisions, I guess) is happy about that. But the blame lies squarely at the foot of AD's, a football crazed (and second-tier sports dismissive) mainly male public, and not the attempt to even the playing field for women. Could Title IX be amended somehow? I don't know. Anything that would remove football from the equation seems dishonest as I've yet to hear any good excuse for doing so. It's not the questioning about the effects of Title IX that make some sound sexist. It's the demonizing of Title IX and relegating its use by (mainly male) decision makers as somehow the fault of feminists or liberals that make you sound so. 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.