The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
35 Years Of Title IX, And We're Still Bickering Over It
AngelHedgie
Registered User regular
Registered User regular
So, we've now had 35 years of Title IX - the law that states that our educational system cannot discriminate based on gender. Mostly, people agree that it's been a good law, and that it makes sure that the doors to education are open for all. But then, we get to athletics. And it all goes up in flames.
Seriously, this is one of those issues that makes me scream "A pox on ALL your houses, damnit!"
I would say that there are three groups:
Recently, the Women's Sports Foundation released a report detailing how schools are meeting the requirements of Title IX in athletics. They state that 20% of the schools were failing - meaning that there was a 22+ percentage point gap between the female student body percentage and the female student-athlete percentage at that school. What bothers me, though, is how they immediately have leapt upon the problem being that the schools don't support women's sports enough. To me, the problem is that our society discourages the participation of women in sports in a general sense (though they are encouraged in specific senses), and without fixing that underlying issue, pushing for proportionality is just a band-aid.
Seriously, this is one of those issues that makes me scream "A pox on ALL your houses, damnit!"
I would say that there are three groups:
- First, we have the defenders of Title IX, who see that the only problem is that Title IX isn't enforced tightly enough.
- Second, we have the opponents,who would like nothing more than to see Title IX gotten rid of, no matter what the effects are.
- And last, we have the reformers, who honestly question if the policies used to enforce Title IX are truly fair, while believing in the law itself. This is where I stand.
Recently, the Women's Sports Foundation released a report detailing how schools are meeting the requirements of Title IX in athletics. They state that 20% of the schools were failing - meaning that there was a 22+ percentage point gap between the female student body percentage and the female student-athlete percentage at that school. What bothers me, though, is how they immediately have leapt upon the problem being that the schools don't support women's sports enough. To me, the problem is that our society discourages the participation of women in sports in a general sense (though they are encouraged in specific senses), and without fixing that underlying issue, pushing for proportionality is just a band-aid.
XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
AngelHedgie on
0
Posts
I'm hyperbolizing, yes, but I think you touched on an important thing, and it's that regardless of whether schools do a good job supporting girl's sports, if they don't want to play them, and no one wants to watch them (both being social issues, and not the school's fault), it's hard to blame the school.
― Marcus Aurelius
Path of Exile: themightypuck
And frankly, the complaints about underfunded women's sports are entirely valid. Every time this comes up on a blog I read, the article is flooded with reports from current and ex- US students who experienced blatant discrimination in the amount of gear and facilities provided, the ability to travel to away games, quality of coaching, and even what's offered.
The problem isn't the law itself. The problem is the backwards asshole administrators in the individual schools deciding how to spend their money based on antiquated ideas about how women should be. THe other problem is the drawcard of HS and college-level sports being a huge recruiting ground for professional level athletes, and the money this attracts. And male sportsmen get vastly more money and attention in almost every sport. Majority-women sports are devalued and regarded as not as serious.
If mens football is bringing in sponsors and getting the school recognition and a good reputation, then under a capitalist society it makes financial sense to support that more than say, womens synchronised swimming.
Unless you live in a socialist country, then you do what the state wants you to.
Again, these are legitimate complaints, and this is not where reformers focus on.
I'll admit that the ADs are a huge problem. But at the same time, the NCAA is a big contributor to the mess too, when you look at their scholarship caps, yet you see little pressure brought against them. The issue of attention is part of that larger issue - the lack of emphasis on the athleticism of women - and proportionality is very much a band-aid.
Wouldn't you say this has more to do with the level of popularity(among spectators) of men's sports vs women's sports than discrimination on the part of the school?
I don't see how it could not screw the less popular men's sports without football becoming less popular. And I don't see football becoming less popular.
I don't see why women should have to be playing the same sports as men before their desire to participate in sports can be taken seriously. please explain?
And to answer your questiin Aethelred, yes women can play on American football teams. It's very rare, and if they do play they are usually on the special team as a field goal kicker. The reason is pretty simple. Football takes alot of linebackers, the majority of the team are linebackers. An ideal linebacker is the biggest, heaviest, meanest, hardest to move person you can find. More highschool males fit this profile then highschool females. To be the ideal good looking highschool female you can not be the ideal linebacker, guys have it much easier in this regard.
Also, football is about slamming into people as hard as you can with no remorse. I don't know many guys that would want to do that to a girl.
I think it depends on the region. My school is known for basketball, but 80% of the student body openly mocks school sports. NYU has like a crew team and a fencing team. The northeast in general isn't big on college sports.
College sports are much bigger in areas like the south that don't have traditional professional teams.
There's a very obvious feedback loop between women's underfunding in sports and cultural views about women's place in public. Its still seen as icky for women to be 'too' physical, beyond what's required to get them lookin' sexy. Witness the constant reassurance of women in the fitness thread that they won't get all big and bulky if they join a gym. They know they'll be regarded as less attractive and possibly assumed homosexual if they don't conform to how most people think women should look. Women watch sports less than men, although they're hardly absent from the audiences, and sports marketers generally have ignored their demographic rather than working to develop and expand it - there's no rational reason to do this, since more money is better for them. When there's no drawcard for women to get really into sports and even likely drawbacks, of course participation is going to be lower. Just saying 'oh, women playing sports is boring' is facile and simplistic.
The only other sport that I pay any attention to that both genders play is basketball, and men's basketball is a hell of a lot more fun to watch than women's, because it is a much faster game, and far less formulaic.
Oh, also, curling! Man I love curling.
It isn't that "women playing sports is boring." Rather it is that, in general, men's sports are more exciting, probably because men are on average bigger, stronger, and faster. That makes for more exciting sports.
Like billiards. Why is billiards split by gender?
If memory serves so is bowling. Why?
It's nice to see some women breaking into the NASCAR scene. Not that I give a rat's ass about NASCAR, but it's good to see women getting into a traditionally male dominated sport.
Fair enough. I think I can point the finger at relative audience size having too much influence over college/school sports, then. With the way its structured here, you don't really need to think so much about the likelihood of getting on TV as it impacts on funding, or whatever. People get into a sport because they like it and its fun, and I think they self-organise rather more that way - seems to be a lot more 'grassroots', although I'm definitely an outsider speaking. The money and audience conserns only appear once you turn pro, really.
I think the emergence of billion-channel cable has done a lot for the more obscure sports, though.
No. He's saying that the the women hockey teams, basketball teams, etc do not draw the same attention and audience that male hockey, basketball teams, etc, do.
Edit: Nevermind. He started to mention softball, etc. I stand corrected.
Definately. You can catch all sorts of sports you've never seen before on TV these days. Great way to find out what's avaliable. Sadly, some sports when watched seem like very little fun, when they are actually quite fun to play. A good example of this would be paintball. Painfully boring to watch (except for highlight reels), great fun to play.
And I'm trying to point out why that is, ie cultural bullshit. Gender roles are hardly set in stone. Title IX may still suffer from less female participation in sports, but female participation has jumped hugely since it was introduced. There were almost literally zero opportunities for women to play sports in college before its advent - even the girly gymnastics and whatnot. Now, there's craploads of women playing, even if its still less than men. Its an ongoing shift in culture that Title IX is actually doing a good job of supporting, despite the retrograde actions of many in charge of administrating it.
― Marcus Aurelius
Path of Exile: themightypuck
I do not know if the same is true of billiards, though.
As for racing, yeah, it's great. The equipment levels the playing field between the sexes. I don't like how Dannica Patrick gets all the attention just because she is pretty. There were like three women in the last indycar race, I think, but no one got a mention besides Patrick.
For the bowling, I guess I didn't realize there was such a split between professional male amd female bowlers in terms of performance. Then again, I kind of view bowling as a silly recreational game and am very ignroant of the ins and outs of professional bowling.
Same basically applies to being a horse Jockey, small and light gets better performance. The problem with thsoe sports though is that a typical average school can't really fund a department around them since they require you to put down several thousand a player for the basic instrument, motorcycle/horse. Then again, a full ride scholarship is a few thousand easy so it could be possible...
I'd be fine with the quota for men and women, if accompanied with it was a maximum percentage that you could spend on one sport. I don't think something like that could or will happen, though.
But shouldn't college athletics be about the athletes?
― Marcus Aurelius
Path of Exile: themightypuck
Funniest thing I've ever heard. College athletics (at least in the US) is all about money.