• Welcome to BradleyFans.com! Visitors are welcome, but we encourage you to sign up and register as a member. It's free and takes only a few seconds. Just click on the link to Register at the top right of the page, and follow instructions. If you have any problems or questions, click on the link at the bottom right of the page to Contact Us.

Title IX - has it worked?

tornado said:
I disagree - and I think the sentiment of that very blogger I just linked to proves my point........
-just like EVERY government program - it is deemed "successful" mostly by those who have gained the benefits, and those who have suffered unfair disadvantages as a result of the programs definitely DO NOT deem the programs successful but the press rarely carries their point of view..

The government's massive taxpayer giveaway to help poverty has done little to achieve the desired intent - to eradicate poverty - and some believe the efforts simply reward the very behavior that locks people into poverty...

..same with affirmative action, food stamps, "free universal healthcare", and almost every other government imposed or sponsored program & giveaway.
I simply do NOT see where it has been successful except to a few in the short term - and I believe that anywhere you identify "success" that it likely would have and could have happened on its own without Title IX.


It all boils down to that old saying - that there are two types of people who react differently when someone knocks on your door saying ...
"I am from the government and I am here to help"
...One type of person would say "sure, then why should I do anything on my own - I'll just let you do it for me and pay the costs"...
...The other type would say "no, thanks, get out of my way as I can do it on my own and I do not need you"
..unfortunately we have far too many of the former type and far too few of the latter type whose hard work generates the government's resources to pay for the former's handouts
Click to expand...

What are the "unfair disadvantages"? Unfair to whom? Title IX, which is what we are discussing, not the role of government policy in health care or poverty, has made it more fair for women to compete. If you say that is at the expense of men's sports, then I say men's sports are at the expense of women's opportunity. Providing a balance of opportunities, which is the intent of title ix, has occurred. We know that a balance was not happening in 1972. To say we "may have" gotten here anyway, who knows. But for 70 years we didn't get there. A law was passed, and things changed. Sounds like the idea has worked.
 
bradleyfan20 said:
...To say we "may have" gotten here anyway, who knows. But for 70 years we didn't get there. A law was passed, and things changed. Sounds like the idea has worked.
Click to expand...

The Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution officially outlawed slavery...

The Nineteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits any United States citizen to be denied the right to vote based on sex...

Some things require government intervention.
 
bradleyfan20 said:
What are the "unfair disadvantages"? Unfair to whom? Title IX, which is what we are discussing, not the role of government policy in health care or poverty, has made it more fair for women to compete. If you say that is at the expense of men's sports, ...
Click to expand...
it's all in how you look at it....since only a few college sports actually make money and all the rest LOSE money - so every college must look at whether to continue to provide and subsidize sports that lose lots of money - and this is why MANY colleges are dropping sports...UNI dropped baseball, UCLA dropped gymnastics even tho many of their gymnasts were our Olympic medal winners...
OBVIOUSLY those participants in the dropped sports and those who have their opportunity quashed feel they have paid the price..

In any endeavor there are winners and losers, and if the government steps in a legislates that WE MUST support certain sports that lose money - then it is NO different than the government choosing to help support, fund, or bail out one company or industry while letting others fend for themselves - and thus we get the Solyndra debacle...
When the government decides what's fair and what's not, then they mandate certain actions, just who pays for it when that action that is mandated actually costs a lot of money and does not support itself -- OF COURSE IT IS THE TAXPAYER OR THE PARTICIPANTS OF THE OTHER SPORTS.

As I said - in any government mandated action such as this - then OF COURSE those who benefit think it's working.
BUT just like in a baseball game where the ump calls a clearly LARGER strike zone for one team than the other - the team gaining the advantage isn't going to be the one arguing the calls!!
 
Without Title IX - good women athletes would not have sufficient opportunity

With Title IX - marginal male athletes do not have sufficient opportunity.

One side or the other is getting screwed no matter what. With or without the law, one side is suffering. I'd rather the marginal male athletes suffer than the good women athletes.

But that doesn't mean this law doesn't suck for men. It does. It's ok to acknowledge that. But it's the lesser of two evils.
 
tornado said:
When the government decides what's fair and what's not, then they mandate certain actions, just who pays for it when that action that is mandated actually costs a lot of money and does not support itself -- OF COURSE IT IS THE TAXPAYER OR THE PARTICIPANTS OF THE OTHER SPORTS.

As I said - in any government mandated action such as this - then OF COURSE those who benefit think it's working.
BUT just like in a baseball game where the ump calls a clearly LARGER strike zone for one team than the other - the team gaining the advantage isn't going to be the one arguing the calls!!
Click to expand...

By definition, the government is "We the people". So, we the people, as decided by a majority in elections, decided that it is better to provide a fair opportunity proportionally for women in comparison to men in athletics. Your scenario of umpires forgets that before 1972, women could only get a home run or strike out. Now, they too get a chance to walk. If 200 male athletes used to get scholarships and now it is 150 men and 150 women, 300 PEOPLE now get a chance when before it was 150. So, I'd again say...sounds like it is working.....
 
I have tried not to get too involved in this Title IX discussion, because I think we should celebrate what it has done for women and girls in athletics. But for anyone to try to say that it hasn't hurt men's participation in high school and college athletics is naive at best, and dishonest at worst.

I'll just pick one sport- soccer- There are more than twice as many boys who play youth soccer than there are girls. In high school it is closer 60/40, but boys still outnumber girls, even though the opportunities should be even by legislation. Yet there are far more opportunities for women to get scholarships and play college soccer than there are for men. It simply makes no sense. Thousands of men who would like to play soccer in colleges are deprived of the opportunity.
And why is it necessary for the NCAA to limit men's D1 soccer to 9.9 scholarships per year, but allow women's soccer to have 14? That is not equality, that is blatantly unfair. It seems those who favor fairness in supporting Title IX, only see fairness when it benefits the specific group they favor.
The result is that there are almost 3,000 more women who have the opportunity to play college soccer than men. And because the NCAA allows 14 scholarships for women per team (and there are 310 teams) compared to 9.9 scholarship per men's team (198 men's teams) that is the equivalent of 2,380 more women who have the opportunity to get a full college scholarship than men every year.

Here are some stats-
https://www.collegesoccerconnector.com/opportunities.shtml

888.jpg

889.jpg
 
I am convinced that the great increase in participation by girls and women in sports largely would have happened with or without Title IX.
In many areas where Title IX is completely irrelevant and has no effect like youth sports programs thru the "Y" and park districts, and travel programs, as well as even adult rec leagues - the numbers have grown dramatically and it has nothing to do with Title IX -- heck - boys' participation is also way up since the 70's when someone in their wisdom rammed Title IX thru..
.. it's just because we are in a new age, those opportunities ARE available regardless of government mandating it, and girls are choosing more to participate.

And the people have also spoken in the "democracies" of western Europe - but their ill-informed and short-sighted giveaway programs are bankrupting most of the entire continent and causing HUGE losses in opportunities as various financial disasters and bankruptcies force closure of the programs.
Some people will always be able to simply afford and pay for their own daughters' opportunities, but the majority of people who don't have wealth are going to lose what they once believed they had the RIGHT to by electing those who promised the opportunities...
I hope we don't find ourselves stuck down the same path here in the USA.
It should not be the government's job to find and attempt to cure at great expense, every perceived unfairness in society -
People need to take care of themselves and if they choose not to then there'll come a day when relying on the feds is going to ruin and bankrupt this nation as well.


"While Title IX's goals are admirable, it has not worked out in practice as it was meant to...
..That isn't equality, but a ludicrous attempt to justify more discrimination."
http://www.thehoya.com/sports/title-ix-causes-inequity-1.2671919#.T-d-x7X2Y20


But here, don't believe me - just read what ALL of the top women's activist of ALL TIME say....they say that despite all the changes, the legislation, and the social upheaval of the past 40 years...that women have barely seen any improvements...
that women still earn only a fraction of what men do, that women experience severe discrimination just about everywhere in life, and that women simply DO NOT have the same opportunities as men and aren't making much of any headway in that direction....
then note than a HUGE part of the world from Spain to India, and from Africa to England is gradually shifting towards Islam - which is the ONE religion and philosophy that treats women the worst and gives them barely more opportunity than a family pet or possession would have. Islam is the WORST friend that women could ever imagine!
So if Title IX is so good - why do the top women in the world in that field state "NO. it hasn't"??
http://www.now.org/issues/economic/cea/ireland.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/11/s...thletes-equal-opportunity.html?pagewanted=all
http://sharenews.com/beta/fight-for-equality-for-women-far-from-over/
http://www.equalitynow.org/press_clip/gloria_steinem_discusses_war_on_women_equality_now_cnn
http://www.thenational.ae/thenation...men-must-regain-narrative-in-bid-for-equality


Then lastly I have seen numerous bits of Title IX coverage both on TV and radio this week - almost always bringing up the Billie Jean king match with Bobby Riggs.
What a laugh - just what did that prove?? That the very top ranked woman tennis player in the WORLD is roughly equal to some old washed up guy who wouldn't have ranked inside even the Top TEN MILLION men in the world?
I think most women use the term "equality" in a far different manner than I would. I think women are equal in the value of their inherent being, in God's eyes....but they are NOT equal in every respect to men, as there are huge differences that only the completely ignorant or dishonest would try to ignore or argue otherwise. They are far better at some things than men will ever be but there are differences...
 
Da Coach said:
I have tried not to get too involved in this Title IX discussion, because I think we should celebrate what it has done for women and girls in athletics. But for anyone to try to say that it hasn't hurt men's participation in high school and college athletics is naive at best, and dishonest at worst.

I'll just pick one sport- soccer- There are more than twice as many boys who play youth soccer than there are girls. In high school it is closer 60/40, but boys still outnumber girls, even though the opportunities should be even by legislation. Yet there are far more opportunities for women to get scholarships and play college soccer than there are for men. It simply makes no sense. Thousands of men who would like to play soccer in colleges are deprived of the opportunity.
And why is it necessary for the NCAA to limit men's D1 soccer to 9.9 scholarships per year, but allow women's soccer to have 14? That is not equality, that is blatantly unfair. It seems those who favor fairness in supporting Title IX, only see fairness when it benefits the specific group they favor.
The result is that there are almost 3,000 more women who have the opportunity to play college soccer than men. And because the NCAA allows 14 scholarships for women per team (and there are 310 teams) compared to 9.9 scholarship per men's team (198 men's teams) that is the equivalent of 2,380 more women who have the opportunity to get a full college scholarship than men every year.
Click to expand...

What about the 80 scholarships for football per team in the country? It is about providing more opportunity for women. Why does football need 80 scholarships? NFL rosters have 54. Cut back to 60 scholarships and let the rest be walkons. Use those other 20 scholarships to increase your scholarships in other areas on campus to provide more opportunity in men's soccer and baseball and swimming. Can't the 3rd string left tackle also be the 3rd string right tackle?

Why should women's scholarships be at the expense of men's scholarships? More women attend college than men. Shouldn't are college teams represent that diversity for opportunity?
 
I am not sure why the number of football scholarships is always brought up. Why is that relevant any more? Title IX guarantees that women will get their fair share of scholarships regardless of how many go to football.
Why should the NCAA limit men's soccer to 9.9 scholarships, while women's soccer gets 14? That make absolutely no sense. That also has nothing to do with the number of scholarships in football.
9.9 is not even enough to field a whole team of scholarship men's soccer players. That hurts a private school like Bradley, because a kid can attend a state school as a walkon and pay less than if they get a 1/2 or partial scholarship to Bradley.

The fact still remains that a lot more men athletes are deprived of opportunities and scholarships than women. I guess that is what Title IX proponents like to call fairness. As has been noted, there are colleges who are offering full scholarships to women athletes who have never played the sport before just to get up to the number of scholarships to stay in compliance!
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/28/sports/othersports/28xrowing.html?pagewanted=all

There are even sites like this that advise women who aren't good enough to get a scholarship in the sport they play to go for these newly created scholarships in sports like rowing, fencing, and bowling, "even if you don't have experience"-
http://saxo.highschoolsports.net/ar...ernative-college-sports-options-girl-athletes

Some schools are even counting male practice players as women athletes just to comply. Ridiculous!
http://sports.espn.go.com/ncaa/news/story?id=6430091
 
If a woman wants to play sports in college then just go to a school that has that sport and succeed!
Instead, repeatedly you point to "all those football scholarships"...what does that have to do with it?....

Why do you base your whole point on being a victim - on the unfairness of life because you aren't getting what someone else is getting?
I find that approach makes you endlessly dissatisfied because there's always someone with more than you.
Just go out and compete and make your own legacy....

Here's the kind of story I admire....Janet Evans -- a great swimmer who grew up in the 70's and 80's, then she went to schools that DID sponsor swimming teams (Stanford, USC -since the 1970's), and she excelled...
She didn't whine and demand that someone else start up a swimming program...
http://www.foxnews.com/sports/2012/06/19/evans-at-age-40-puts-olympic-hopes-into-800-free/
then she went out and dominated - and now she's trying to make a comeback at 40 and doesn'
t appear to be asking the government to help her...
 
.....I just don't get it -- if a woman wants to play sports in college then just GO TO a SCHOOL that has that sport and succeed!!!!
Instead, repeatedly you point to "all those football scholarships" like a greedy kid staring at lollipops thru a store window....

Why do you base your whole point on being a victim - on the unfairness of life because you aren't getting what someone else is getting??
I find that approach makes you endlessly dissatisfied because there's always someone with more than you.
Jus go out and compete and make your own legacy....

Here's the kind of story I admire....Janet Evans -- a great swimmer who grew up in the 70's and 80's, then she went to schools that DID sponsor swimming teams (Stanford, USC -since the 1970's and they were pogressive schools that would have had women's swimming regardless of Title IX), and she excelled...
And even if there were no colleges that had swimming she'd have trained on her own like a lot of Olympians do and like Evans is doing RIGHT NOW for her comeback...
She didn't whine and demand that someone else start up a swimming program...
then she went out and dominated - and now she's trying to make a comeback at 40 and doesn't appear to be asking the government to help her...
http://www.foxnews.com/sports/2012/06/19/evans-at-age-40-puts-olympic-hopes-into-800-free/
 
My question- is there ever going to be a point at which women's sports should be expected to generate their fair share of revenues as men's sports do? Or must we accept that women's sports will always be a financial drain on college budgets, or live off the revenue generated by men's sports?
 
tornado said:
If a woman wants to play sports in college then just go to a school that has that sport and succeed!
Instead, repeatedly you point to "all those football scholarships"...what does that have to do with it?....

Why do you base your whole point on being a victim - on the unfairness of life because you aren't getting what someone else is getting?
Click to expand...

Why do I point to football scholarships getting 80, because it is excessive. Why not have 80 tracks scholarships for women? Why do you keep pointing to these "victims" of men being deprived by women getting an opportunity to compete. If men want to swim, whey don't they go to Stanford where they have men's swimming.

See, if you put a wo in front of your argument for men, it could be argued the other way. THIS IS THE ENTIRE POINT - EQUALITY!!! EQUAL, not more, EQUAL - Nothing could seem more fair than equal based on proportionality...but I guess you don't see it...so no point in arguing...
 
JC said:
My question- is there ever going to be a point at which women's sports should be expected to generate their fair share of revenues as men's sports do? Or must we accept that women's sports will always be a financial drain on college budgets, or live off the revenue generated by men's sports?
Click to expand...

Not everything good makes money. High school sports lose money. Should they be expected to generate revenue or disband? MANY college football teams lose money. MOST men's sports lose money.
 
The reason there will never be agreement is that some see Title IX as some kind of vast government instituted affirmative action program that the government must legislate to maintain what some see as fairness. Others see college athletics as a market driven and demand driven area of the college experience.

Many universities award more scholarships in math, chemistry, and physics to males, though it is not because of discrimination, but merit. Do you think they should be mandated to award equal amounts to both sexes, even if there are more deserving men? Why should it be any different for athletics?
 
Da Coach said:
The reason there will never be agreement is that some see Title IX as some kind of vast government instituted affirmative action program that the government must legislate to maintain what some see as fairness. Others see college athletics as a market driven and demand driven area of the college experience.

Many universities award more scholarships in math, chemistry, and physics to males, though it is not because of discrimination, but merit. Do you think they should be mandated to award equal amounts to both sexes, even if there are more deserving men? Why should it be any different for athletics?
Click to expand...

College athletics clearly isn't market driven. If it were, only football and basketball would be offered at most schools. Know of a lot of wrestling programs making money? Or soccer? Or track? Or baseball? So, since that is clearly not the case, there should be fairness in opportunity.

The reason it should be different in athletics is because it is separate. If we had men's only math departments, then I would say we should provide opportunity for women in math. You present a false analogy....

Lets go the other way...if women had 95% of the scholarships for college athletics, I think that would seem unfair. Men would then need more opportunity. If we went 70 years and men were still not getting those opportunities, so we passed rules saying that they MUST get opportunities, that would be a good idea. Then, if 40 years after that the playing field was much closer, say 55/45, wouldn't we say...looks like it is working? Or would you say, men are causing women to lose scholarships?

What's fair is fair. And the irony of me arguing all of this... I don't watch a single women's sport. I could not be less interested in them. But, I do think what is fair is fair.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top