|
Replies: 91
| visibility 1
|
Orange Blooded [3244]
TigerPulse: 93%
Posts: 2982
Joined: 8/26/99
|
It makes me sick that ESPN is celebrating Title IX.
Jun 21, 2012, 10:23 PM
|
|
Title IX does nothing but handicap college sports programs.
|
|
|
|
 |
All-TigerNet [12208]
TigerPulse: 72%
Posts: 20772
Joined: 2/13/05
|
Re: It makes me sick that ESPN is celebrating Title IX.
Jun 21, 2012, 10:24 PM
|
|
Changed the channel when i saw that. What a joke
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [14233]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 13983
Joined: 2/8/11
|
Re: It makes me sick that ESPN is celebrating Title IX.
Jun 21, 2012, 10:30 PM
|
|
Yeah! Women should not have opportunities to play sports in college! They should just get drunk and put out!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Varsity [206]
TigerPulse: 95%
Posts: 214
Joined: 9/24/06
|
Re: It makes me sick that ESPN is celebrating Title IX.
Jun 21, 2012, 10:32 PM
|
|
Yeah, because they wouldn't have a shot without it? If not, does that say that the system is discriminatory or NOBODY WANTS TO WATCH WOMEN NOT DUNK?! Market economics suck. Yay socialism.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [14233]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 13983
Joined: 2/8/11
|
Re: It makes me sick that ESPN is celebrating Title IX.
Jun 21, 2012, 10:36 PM
|
|
The point of college athletics is tv ratings! Duh! Girls should be playing with balls alright! Preferably bouncy balls made of leather!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Varsity [206]
TigerPulse: 95%
Posts: 214
Joined: 9/24/06
|
Re: It makes me sick that ESPN is celebrating Title IX.
Jun 21, 2012, 10:44 PM
|
|
The only one that I approve of is volleyball.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [24971]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 32297
Joined: 2/15/09
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [6768]
TigerPulse: 81%
Posts: 12494
Joined: 2/13/05
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [51531]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 43078
Joined: 8/10/04
|
|
|
|
|
|
Letterman [282]
TigerPulse: 83%
Posts: 720
Joined: 11/17/00
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [12208]
TigerPulse: 72%
Posts: 20772
Joined: 2/13/05
|
Re: Re: It makes me sick that ESPN is celebrating Title IX.
Jun 21, 2012, 10:31 PM
|
|
Sounds good to me.
Better than finger roll lay ups
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [3510]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 4044
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Re: It makes me sick that ESPN is celebrating Title IX.
Jun 21, 2012, 10:37 PM
|
|
No it might have generally hurt men's sprts but definitely helped the sports programs for more than half the population. Title IX is a huge help for women's sports of all ages ( it isnt just college- in fact the biggest impact is probably at the high school level). Like it or not, it is to likely to be changed any time soon.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Varsity [206]
TigerPulse: 95%
Posts: 214
Joined: 9/24/06
|
Re: It makes me sick that ESPN is celebrating Title IX.
Jun 21, 2012, 10:44 PM
|
|
And income redistribution helps the recipients. Doesn't make it the right policy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Standout [313]
TigerPulse: 91%
Posts: 735
Joined: 10/6/06
|
Re: It makes me sick that ESPN is celebrating Title IX.
Jun 22, 2012, 9:42 AM
|
|
It helps everyone. First, just thinking of sports, more girls playing sports equals more sports fans, equals more sports revenue. Second, as so many people on this board seem to forget, college and high school athletics does not exist merely to entertain us. They are there to benefit the participants. It builds confidence and leadership skills. Do you think women should be shut out of those opportunities? Should our tax dollars fund programs that are inherently sexist?
Separately, Title IX applies to all educational spending, not just sports. It helps women and girls receive equal access to all educational opportunities.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Athletic Dir [887]
TigerPulse: 89%
Posts: 1245
Joined: 2/3/04
|
Women's sports should exist on their merit, they
Jun 22, 2012, 9:49 AM
|
|
should not be mandated at the expense of other sports. Ever wonder what happened to Clemson's wrestling program? That's right Title IX casualty. Wonder how those guys felt about their opportunity?
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1838]
TigerPulse: 59%
Posts: 6249
Joined: 12/17/06
|
RIP golf and men's soccer at The Citadel as well***
Jun 22, 2012, 12:07 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [10454]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 11555
Joined: 6/29/01
|
Agreed.***
Jun 21, 2012, 10:38 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2220]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 2523
Joined: 11/20/00
|
Really a shame this post continues to be on TNET
Jun 21, 2012, 10:45 PM
|
|
Obviously I am biased..but I am glad my daughters had the same opportunities as their male counterparts to play sports....
You can always change the channel
|
|
|
|
|
|
Varsity [206]
TigerPulse: 95%
Posts: 214
Joined: 9/24/06
|
Re: Really a shame this post continues to be on TNET
Jun 21, 2012, 10:52 PM
|
|
In order for opportunity to be granted to some via regulation, it must first be taken from others.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Standout [313]
TigerPulse: 91%
Posts: 735
Joined: 10/6/06
|
Re: Really a shame this post continues to be on TNET
Jun 22, 2012, 9:44 AM
|
|
That logic doesnt hold. Are you saying that men deserve our tax spending more than women?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4787]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 9986
Joined: 6/12/10
|
Re: Really a shame this post continues to be on TNET
Jun 22, 2012, 6:54 PM
[ in reply to Really a shame this post continues to be on TNET ] |
|
is it true: yes or no, that at some schools they have to have sign-up sheets to get enough women to fill the spots to even field certain womens sports teams? and that includes the schollys that goes with participating in said sports. it's just a fact that more males are involved in sports than females, and to make the numbers 1-1 is a socialist action.and i do think women should have the means to participate, i just question the 1-1 ratio.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [3510]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 4044
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Unlikely
Jun 22, 2012, 10:02 PM
|
|
Schools have to have proportionate representation of men and women in sport as there are in the school OR enough team/positions to accomodate the interest of underrepresented sex whichever is lower. You should note that Title IX also applies when men are the underrepresented group (for example a school that recently was an all girls school who then allows males would have to allow for these opportunities for men).
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [3244]
TigerPulse: 93%
Posts: 2982
Joined: 8/26/99
|
Bengalbabe, I did.
Jun 21, 2012, 10:52 PM
|
|
I don't have a problem with schools adding women's programs no one cares about.
I DO have a problem with schools being forced to cut men's programs that people DO care about in order to make it happen.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [51531]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 43078
Joined: 8/10/04
|
Clemson wrestling. Case and point.
Jun 22, 2012, 9:28 AM
|
|
And for what? Rowing?! #### rowing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [3788]
TigerPulse: 99%
Posts: 9880
Joined: 11/2/08
|
The AD spit on Frank Howard's grave by doing that***
Jun 22, 2012, 10:04 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [15914]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 7797
Joined: 11/15/09
|
|
|
|
|
|
Amateur [37]
TigerPulse: 86%
Posts: 80
Joined: 7/1/09
|
Re: Yeah, screw rowing and the ONLY NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIP
Jun 22, 2012, 12:11 PM
|
|
The golf team would like a word with you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [15914]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 7797
Joined: 11/15/09
|
TU'd you.. I forgot!***
Jun 22, 2012, 12:12 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [15914]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 7797
Joined: 11/15/09
|
This is the most astoundingly ignorant post I've read on
Jun 22, 2012, 2:14 AM
|
|
tigernet in quite some time. This even surpasses the "we're better off without Clowney" posts.
Then to have it followed up as a comparison to socialism... really?
Fellas, please put the keyboards down, have conversations with real people (yes, even women), and try again in a couple of months.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1838]
TigerPulse: 59%
Posts: 6249
Joined: 12/17/06
|
Taking from producers and giving to non producers
Jun 22, 2012, 12:10 PM
|
|
= Socialism
|
|
|
|
|
|
Amateur [37]
TigerPulse: 86%
Posts: 80
Joined: 7/1/09
|
Re: Taking from producers and giving to non producers
Jun 22, 2012, 12:15 PM
|
|
If college athletics was only about money, you'd be right. Me thinks that a lot of sports people would want to keep (soccer, tennis, golf, etc) don't really pull in a lot of money. So are you saying that Clemson should just have football, men's basketball and baseball and abolish all other sports because they don't turn a profit?
Or should baseball and basketball be cut as well because they benefit from the money that football brings in? Football subsidizes the entire athletic department, so unless you want to just watch football I think a little bit of your "socialism" in this case isn't all that bad.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1838]
TigerPulse: 59%
Posts: 6249
Joined: 12/17/06
|
agreed***
Jun 22, 2012, 12:18 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [24971]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 32297
Joined: 2/15/09
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [93662]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 95412
Joined: 12/25/09
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [53]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 35
Joined: 11/30/98
|
I have a better idea. Let them team up. Every guy should be
Jun 22, 2012, 7:35 PM
|
|
allowed to play with 2 women. Threesomes are wonderful, foursomes even better. Ask any golfer. Four or five always make for better poker too.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-Conference [400]
TigerPulse: 52%
Posts: 818
Joined: 3/19/01
|
Re: Taking from producers and giving to non producers
Jun 23, 2012, 4:54 AM
[ in reply to Taking from producers and giving to non producers ] |
|
This from a tough Citadel guy, y'all could not even figure out how to go to college with women until 1992. Rock on, dude.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [83075]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 80143
Joined: 11/29/99
|
^^^^^^^^^cro magnon man^^^^^^^^^^***
Jun 22, 2012, 9:52 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [53]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 35
Joined: 11/30/98
|
I've never used the "facepalm" before
Jun 22, 2012, 10:03 AM
|
|
But I would presume this would be the appropriate use for it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4098]
TigerPulse: 94%
Posts: 10336
Joined: 7/1/97
|
Re: It makes me sick that ESPN is celebrating Title IX.
Jun 22, 2012, 10:04 AM
|
|
agree!!! what should be the case is that football is not counted..everything else would even out!!baseball=softball,baskb for both,golf, U get the idea
I am not against women but this is stupid right now
|
|
|
|
|
|
Walk-On [129]
TigerPulse: 95%
Posts: 170
Joined: 8/11/11
|
Re: It makes me sick that ESPN is celebrating Title IX.
Jun 22, 2012, 11:13 AM
|
|
I think Title IX is necessary, but the way it's implememnted is unfortunate.
I think it should be a 50/50 split on NON-Revenue generating sports. So Football and basketball do NOT count towards Title IX. If your sport makes the university money, then you get a pass. If your sport is in the red, and needs funding from the University, then it should fall under Title IX.
That's fair IMO.
-ZA
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [53]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 35
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Only football needs exempted. If that were the case pretty
Jun 22, 2012, 1:26 PM
|
|
much everyone would gladly support Title IX. Even those that feel government has no real grounds to be involved in this and is artificially created something not really wanted or needed based on desire and participation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [53]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 35
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Feminazis always claim all they want is equality, but every
Jun 22, 2012, 1:22 PM
[ in reply to Re: It makes me sick that ESPN is celebrating Title IX. ] |
|
time they successfully got legislation pushed through it went beyond equality and hurt men, which is part of their agenda, but they will never admit it.
When Title IX was being litigated college presidents, ADs, academic and sports experts, etc. all lobbied for football to be exempt. They explained to the feminazis the economics and realities of college athletics. They said, look, football is the goose that lays the golden eggs. It pays for everything else. And it is unique in that 1. it has far more scholarships than many other sports combined, and 2. it has no female equivalent. They told the feminists and the courts that they agreed there should be equality AND that they had no real issues with Title IX. Their only issue was how Title IX would be interpreted and enforced. They said make football exempt and everyone would be a winner and be happy.
But nooooooooooo NOW and their feminazi leaders and uber liberal government supporters demanded absolute equality, which is actually nothing more than a liberal/progressive utopian myth. The courts and women knew including football would not benefit women or do anything to help girls and women in any way but symbolic. They also knew, however, that it would harm males and male athletics in very real ways. And that's part of what they wanted.
America is about equal "opportunity", but liberals/progressives want equal results/outcomes. The only way to achieve those is via force, repressive government policies, and income redistribution.
I have a baby sister and 2 nieces. I ABSOLUTELY WANT THEM HAVING EQUAL OPPORTUNITY. I know all the benefits of athletics. BUT I think these things should be based on demand and interest, not forced by the government to please a small minority of women and progressives.
Lets be totally honest. This is not about girls and sports. It's about power. It's about money, expanding government, and liberals pushing their unwanted and unpopular progressive agenda.
If girls and women loved sports like men and boys there would have been more opportunities long ago. Everyone knows women and girls don't care about sports. Some do, but not a lot percentage-wise. The main reason Title IX has increased interest in female participation in sports is because parents saw sports scholarships and free college as a motivator to push girls into athletics.
The Williams sisters were pushed into tennis by their dad for his ego and money. Yea, that happens with boys too, but most boys would play sports anyway. When I was a kid almost every boy in my town played sports in the back yard. I knew 1 girl that played Little League baseball, a few that played tennis, a few that ran track, and the girls basketball team. That's it.
The WNBA only exists because the NBA subsidizes it. The only female pro sports that exist purely on merit and their own revenues are tennis and golf. And the prize money for the LPGA is a fraction of that on the PGA and they are struggling to survive. Womens tennis is successful and they make more money than men, but that was created artificially via a lot of politics, not via market conditions.
I had friends that played tennis at Clemson. They said a good college male tennis player could beat the best female pros. They said it's not even close. But the media and women love to brag about Billie Jean King beating Bobby Riggs, but they all ignore a few facts. Riggs was 55, smoked, drank, and hadn't played competitive tennis in over 2 decades, whereas King was arguably the best female tennis player ever until the 80s and she was in her prime when they played. People also forget that Riggs destroyed Margret Court a few months earlier 6-1, 6-2, and Court, not King, was the top ranked womens player at that time. King won, but the matches were competitive - 6-4, 6-3, 6-3.
Message was edited by: Lowcountry_Raconteur®
|
|
|
|
|
|
Amateur [37]
TigerPulse: 86%
Posts: 80
Joined: 7/1/09
|
Re: Feminazis always claim all they want is equality, but every
Jun 22, 2012, 1:32 PM
|
|
Starting your post with "feminazis" ruins the rest of your argument (for me). I'd comment on the rest of your post, but I stopped reading after the subject.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [53]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 35
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Sorry you fail to recognize they are what they are. A few
Jun 22, 2012, 1:54 PM
|
|
angry women that forced their beliefs on others and used the government to do it. They ate their own to further their agenda and over the past 20 years there has been a huge feminist backlash because they were exposed for the frauds they are.
NOW is NOT for women, they only support liberal women and they have proven that repeatedly with their own words and actions. Just like the NAACP doesn't support blacks, just liberal or democratic voting blacks. The actions of organizations like NOW and the NAACP are why there are many high profile conservatives that were once staunch liberals.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Amateur [37]
TigerPulse: 86%
Posts: 80
Joined: 7/1/09
|
Re: Sorry you fail to recognize they are what they are. A few
Jun 22, 2012, 2:01 PM
|
|
You won't hear me argue that there are women out there who want to do more than level the playing field. Plenty of them don't look at it as "I want things to be equal", they view it as though we're in the middle of a basketball game, and at halftime the men were leading by 50. They want to outscore us by 50 in the 3rd quarter, then have us end in a tie in the 4th quarter.
But invoking Godwin's Law into your argument, at least for me, ruins your point. Throwing "nazi" into the discussion ruins any good points that you may make. Plus, I haven't heard of any women petitioning for us to be sent to death camps (my ex-girlfriends excluded).
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [53]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 35
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Oh come on, you know it is an expression. It's used
Jun 22, 2012, 2:23 PM
|
|
b/c those women are Fascists by definition in their beliefs and how they want those beliefs espoused - via government edict despite being unpopular.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Amateur [37]
TigerPulse: 86%
Posts: 80
Joined: 7/1/09
|
Re: Oh come on, you know it is an expression. It's used
Jun 22, 2012, 2:37 PM
|
|
Yes, but if your point is that they are Fascists, call them that. Nazism has a little bit more of a negative connotation, which I believe is the purpose of that "expression".
Since Clemson and FSU asked the ACC for 50% of their bowl revenue as a way of rewarding football-focused schools, since the majority of the conference would not be OK with that, does that make us Clemsonazis?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [53]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 35
Joined: 11/30/98
|
dude you're stretching more n more with each point. What
Jun 22, 2012, 3:01 PM
|
|
Clemson and FSU are asking for is more than fair and democratic since they are in fact dealing with a socialist system. The ACC is a socialist organization that harms the winners and tries to artificially create parity via wealth redistribution. It's another form of social engineering.
I didn't create the term Feminazi, I used it b/c it already exists and represents them and their beliefs. It's my opinion and my right to express it, but you are trying to censor that. Don't tread on me bro!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Amateur [37]
TigerPulse: 86%
Posts: 80
Joined: 7/1/09
|
Re: dude you're stretching more n more with each point. What
Jun 22, 2012, 3:05 PM
|
|
haha I'm aware you didn't create it (didn't Limbaugh? not sure on that), and you can use it all you want. I never said you can't. All I said is that I stopped reading after you used it, and that to me (and I made sure to say "to me") it takes away from your point(s).
But yes, the Clemson/FSU thing was meant to be absurd. You've got me there.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [53]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 35
Joined: 11/30/98
|
1st Feminazi has been around a lot longer than Rush. Funny
Jun 22, 2012, 3:58 PM
|
|
you keep saying things that portray you as a conservative but keep doing things that make you look liberal.
You stopped reading what I wrote because I used a common term, you took a shot at Rush, and you keep making false assumptions based on emotional arguments.
Here's the bottom line. The Civil Rights Act was a gross over reach by the Federal government. The only people not given equal rights under the Constitution were blacks. The CRA, however, blew wayyyy past that, which opened the door for the Equal Rights Amendment, which is what was used as the foundation for Title IX.
I can tell you don't really understand the history of Title IX and how it came about. Title IX was a discrimination lawsuit brought about as a violation of the Equal Rights Amendment. But there was no discrimination. Parents and girls were not asking for more female sports programs and being denied. There was no demand at all. That was the ruse the Feminazis used to bring about the lawsuit.
Like I said, read this, and watch the video, then you'll understand better the BS we're fed by the liberal media and progressive groups like NOW, aka the Feminazis!
http://www.wnd.com/2011/03/276193/
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [6321]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 5728
Joined: 11/2/08
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [53]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 35
Joined: 11/30/98
|
LOL OK then here, read and watch this .....
Jun 22, 2012, 4:00 PM
|
|
http://www.wnd.com/2011/03/276193/
Maybe a highly successful female opinion voiced far stronger than mine will be seen differently.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Amateur [37]
TigerPulse: 86%
Posts: 80
Joined: 7/1/09
|
Re: LOL OK then here, read and watch this .....
Jun 22, 2012, 4:14 PM
|
|
Ok, so she and her mother are good examples of how in the past women did have avenues to get themselves educated. But that's like saying there were black men who weren't slaves back in the 1700/1800s. Yeah, there were ways to freedom, but it wasn't quite as easy as it should have been (and if you think that's a ridiculous stance to take, perhaps you should reference Schlafly's pro-segregation stances back in the 60s).
But your whole argument has been about how women can't succeed in the workplace. So at least Schlafly's pulling from the tons of experience she had in the private sector, right? Oh wait, she did nothing in business, she's always been in politics. Hm.
But that's not fair, you have to be tough to succeed in politics, right? It's a man's world, tough for a woman to break into. So for that, she gets a ton of credit, but she is not "highly successful" in anything other than a career in politics. Her viewpoints are interesting, and I agree with a lot of them - but that doesn't change the fact that the playing field hasn't been level until very recent history. Even you have to admit that her argument of "I got a college degree back in the 40s, so women can only blame themselves for things not being equal" is a bit ridiculous.
All that being said, women nowadays can't hide behind things being unequal. If a woman works hard, she'll succeed, which is the way it should be.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [53]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 35
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Dude, just stop. It's fail after fail with you..........
Jun 22, 2012, 4:28 PM
|
|
1st it's her niece, not her daughter, which is clearly indicated.
2nd I've been debating Title IX, not female success in business. That was a minor side bar tossed in as a supporting analogy.
3rd you have agreed women have not been nearly as successful in business as men, but used different reasons. You made excuses for them. All the usually politically correct ones.
4th I didn't actually say women were not successful in business, my point was clearly that they are not successful running traditional Fortune 500 companies. They have been good at running niche companies or as entrepreneurs, which I stated several times, but they still lag men in a major way, even in areas where there are NO barriers.
Have a nice weekend.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4098]
TigerPulse: 94%
Posts: 10336
Joined: 7/1/97
|
Re: Feminazis always claim all they want is equality, but every
Jun 22, 2012, 1:38 PM
[ in reply to Feminazis always claim all they want is equality, but every ] |
|
WONDERFUL POST!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1 your first statement covers the entire matter!!!thats what they were after and as usual they got lots more than they should have!!typical lib results!!!!!!!!!!!!
11
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4787]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 9986
Joined: 6/12/10
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [15748]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 17371
Joined: 2/1/99
|
Yes. Poooooor college football. How will it survive?
Jun 22, 2012, 10:05 AM
|
|
Oh yeah...with its gobs and gobs of money.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [53]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 35
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Thats not the point. Football survives at the expense of
Jun 22, 2012, 1:29 PM
|
|
other sports that men/boys WANT to play so girls/women can play sports they wouldn't play if it were not for a free college education, which is why mom n dad push many girls into sports.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Amateur [37]
TigerPulse: 86%
Posts: 80
Joined: 7/1/09
|
Re: Thats not the point. Football survives at the expense of
Jun 22, 2012, 1:31 PM
|
|
You think the majority of women play sports because of a chance to earn a scholarship? You must have gone to a much different high school than me, because I didn't meet any of those girls back then.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [53]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 35
Joined: 11/30/98
|
If you take away all the college scholarships created by
Jun 22, 2012, 1:47 PM
|
|
Title IX for female athletics you would see far far less girls in sports.
The percentage of girls playing sports is still much lower compared to boys. The viewership and interest is far lower. Women don't even support female sports which is why there are only 2 successful pro sports and one of them is struggling. Women simply don't like sports, generally speaking. And everyone knows it.
In many ways, girls athletics are like soccer. There is a big interest at the youth level with a steady decline as age increases. Pretty much the only guys that watch or play soccer after college are the ones that played in high school or college.
I don't have a problem with girls playing sports. In fact, I think its great. That has never been the issue. The issue is creating an industry that was not created by demand, but by the government via social engineering. While also hurting males and male athletics to do it, which Title IX does in a big way.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Amateur [37]
TigerPulse: 86%
Posts: 80
Joined: 7/1/09
|
Re: If you take away all the college scholarships created by
Jun 22, 2012, 1:57 PM
|
|
"The issue is creating an industry "
This is where we are going to disagree. The purpose of college athletics is not to create "industry". How many times have you heard a football coach use the phrase "we're going to turn these boys into men"? It's not just about playing the sport, it's about the life lessons you learn in sports (which is a big reason why parents want their kids to take part in sports).
If your kid plays baseball, you want him to learn how to properly lay down a bunt. You want it partially because it is an important skill to have when trying to make a team, but also because the lesson of bunting is an important one to give a child - that sacrificing oneself for the overall gain of the group/team/society is a worthwhile endeavour. Same can be said for blocking in football (where we are only as good as our o-line).
Sports build character, and regardless of how the NCAA/BCS/Networks have turned them into money making machines, the core purpose of sports is to build teamwork and commitment to a goal (whether in a team or individual sport). And as a public university, it is the responsibility of the school to make sure that everyone has a fair shot at getting that experience.
That's not to say Title IX is without flaws. It should be written that any sport that does not have a female equivalent should be excempt (for example, football - but conversely, if we have baseball, we should have softball as well), but that's just if you ask me.
I don't watch women's sports, and it's unfortunate that there isn't a better law on the books on how to handle this issue. But bottom line is that as long as you take tax-payer money at your school, you have to offer the same curiculum/activities to all students, regardless of their sex (or any other distinguishing characteristic).
/soapbox
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [53]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 35
Joined: 11/30/98
|
If that was so important where were the women, the moms,
Jun 22, 2012, 2:16 PM
|
|
the parents demanding more opportunities for girls? They were not demanding it because it wasn't wanted. And most liberal and progressive forces are now doing the opposite. PE is no longer required when kids need it most and progressives want to eliminate keeping score in the few child sports left b/c losing hurts self-esteem in their deluded world.
How many women would go to high school sporting events if their children were not involved? Almost none.
And come on, you cannot compare football to other sports. Football is violent. The biggest reason usc owns Dabo is b/c Spurrier is now playing smash mouth power football while we are playing a finesse game. Football is about being tougher, stronger, more aggressive far more than other sports.
The whole attitude and approach to athletics is different among girls than boys.
Wanna know why women are far less successful in business than men? Men know its war, women want to be nice and collaborate. There was a great town hall meeting on entrepreneurship on CNBC the other night. The difference in how men vs women approach business is astounding. And the select women that do well in business are the ones that know how to play the game. The ones that get it. Most women successful in big business are in niche industries or female oriented industries. There's actually a great debate among women going on right now because of recent public comments by high profile successful women on both ends of the argument.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/22/us/elite-women-put-a-new-spin-on-work-life-debate.html?_r=2&hp
|
|
|
|
|
|
Amateur [37]
TigerPulse: 86%
Posts: 80
Joined: 7/1/09
|
Re: If that was so important where were the women, the moms,
Jun 22, 2012, 2:29 PM
|
|
So your point is that liberals suck, yes? We agree on that.
You brought up how many moms would go to high school games if their kids weren't involved - you're making my argument for me. Again, it isn't about putting butts in the seats or who has interest in it. It's supposed to be about kids (and yes, people in college are still working on becoming adults) gaining life skills.
And I can compare football to other sports, as it is relevant to my point - the violence isn't a factor. Football absolutely requires a level of teamwork where every player has a vital role, which builds teamwork, which builds self-esteem, which builds character - which is what non-professional sports are about (oh, and having "fun"). Yes, people are competitive, and yes sports provide an outlet for that - but there is much more to it than just that.
And what does women's success in the work place have anything to do with this argument? For one, that's a rather inane statement to make that women "aren't as successful" as men. My boss is a woman, I don't have a problem with it.
And after that statement, you say the women that do well in business know how to play the game. So either you are making the argument that those women (who play "tough") must have played sports, thus proving my point, or you're stating that women who are good at their job succeed, which is also true for men and kind of refutes your generalistic statement that women are "far less" successful in the workplace than men.
The article you linked is an interesting one, although both sides of the debate are right - it's really about personal choice. The argument is "do I want to do whatever it takes to succeed professionally" vs. "do I want to sacrifice some professional success in order to better balance my family life". You know who makes those decisions? Both men and women. That's why there's the stereotype of the man who is committed to his career but neglects his kids. This is not a problem unique to women, nor is it a new problem. It's just that nowadays women are having the OPPORTUNITY to get to those same positions, and only a few of them feel like it's a fair trade off to sacrifice their family. Can't fault them either way for that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [53]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 35
Joined: 11/30/98
|
You are missing the big picture. I understand on the root
Jun 22, 2012, 2:53 PM
|
|
level its about participation and the benefits. I've never said otherwise. I agree there are many benefits, BUT THE GOVERNMENT SHOULDN'T BE INVOLVED IN SOCIAL ENGINEERING.
Studies have shown the correlation between girls participation rate in sports and the economic and education level of their parents and the community they live in, which brings into question how much of today's participation is actually a result of Title IX beyond college scholarship opportunities.
Exercise and diet are beneficial, but based on your logic the government should be mandating diet and exercise, like Bloomburg with sodas in NY.
Had there not been Title IX the participation rate and growth of girls and sports would have happened anyway, organically. Just at a slower and lower pace.
And again, it's not even Title IX that's the real issue. It's how it was implemented and how it's enforced.
I brought up women in business b/c sports and business are used all the time as an analogy. And again, you didn't read what I wrote and get my point. I have no issue with women in business. I was pointing out that they are very different in their approach and how that impacts success.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Amateur [37]
TigerPulse: 86%
Posts: 80
Joined: 7/1/09
|
Re: You are missing the big picture. I understand on the root
Jun 22, 2012, 3:03 PM
|
|
You're putting words in my mouth, we're not talking about social engineering. Your whole point is that there aren't AS MANY women interested in sports as there are men, yes? I think we'd all agree with that. However, there are still women who ARE interested in sports AND interested in playing them at the collegiate level. Just because there isn't an equal amount of interest doesn't mean that opportunities shouldn't be given to those in the minority. Title IX was never meant to increase women's interest in sports - it was to make sure that those sports were available for the women who ARE interested in it, even if they aren't the majority of women. Which then leads to your point about women's sports (professional and amateur) growth rate being unaffected by Title IX - you're absolutely right, because that was never the intention.
I never said anything about diet or exercise, so I'm not sure what connection you're trying to make there - other than your assumption that I'm for big government controlling everything.
You didn't say you have a "problem" with them being in business, but your exact quote was that they are "far less successful" than men. You can't make that statement and then neglect to take into account that the playing field has just recently become level, so it'll take time for those women to reach the level of success as men (which will take time - the fact that women are pissed that 50% of CEOs aren't women is ridiculous, it'll happen once this generation gains more experience in the level-playing-field work place).
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [53]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 35
Joined: 11/30/98
|
You're making a lot of assumptions. If the interest had been
Jun 22, 2012, 3:38 PM
|
|
there, more opportunities would have been there without the government getting involved. Feminazis used the government to promote their agenda, and hurt men, for a problem that in many ways didn't exist and would have in many ways resolved itself over time.
The playing field has been just fine in business for a long time. Study after study has proven that for almost 30 years now the lack of success and/or equal pay for women in business is complex, but not because of an unlevel playing field the way the "liberal" media would have people believe.
There are tons of women in business, but the are either the founder of the company or in niche industries. Highly successful CEOs are not a plentiful commodity even among men, but women, when given the opportunity at Fortune 500 companies have failed miserably. Primarily b/c they approach business in a fundamentally different way and few women have the stomach for what it takes to be hugely successful in politics or business. I know what I'm saying is politically incorrect and unpopular, but that doesn't mean it' wrong. What's really odd is, women can be incredibly catty and vicious on a personal level and especially towards other women. If they thought and acted that way in business they could be more successful. Like I said earlier, there was a great show on CNBC about this just the other night.
You need to read this ....
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/22/us/elite-women-put-a-new-spin-on-work-life-debate.html?hp
And this ....
http://www.wnd.com/2011/03/276193/
Both articles are written by women and the people making the arguments are all women, so not me or men spinning things.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Amateur [37]
TigerPulse: 86%
Posts: 80
Joined: 7/1/09
|
Re: You're making a lot of assumptions. If the interest had been
Jun 22, 2012, 3:45 PM
|
|
I'm not making any assumptions at all - my points were:
1) Title IX was made to open up doors to women in college (both athletically and academically). It's intention was not to make girls like sports more.
2) There are fewer women that enjoy sports than men.
What about those are "assumptions"?
So far as the "level playing field" being there for a "long time", it takes generations for things like that to catch up to where both sexes have the same level of experience to compete for equal positions (also, are you saying that things have been level for 30 years or that studies have been done for 30 years? Because the former is not true). You and I are both making the argument that the playing field is level, and that there are multiple factors come into play in determining what makes one person more qualified for a job than the other.
Your opinion is incredibly politically incorrect, and while that part doesn't bother me, I diagree with the notion that women in the past have not succeeded as CEO's b/c women just "can't handle it". I think it comes from them not having any experience with that level of responsibility, and more often than not companies appointing women to that position so they can come across as progressive (even if the woman isn't necessarily qualified or prepared for the position). As time goes on and more women get involved in higher-ranking positions, their success rate will start to turn around. They just need to be exposed to what it takes to succeed in the work place, and that is a process that is still taking place.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [53]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 35
Joined: 11/30/98
|
See you have no idea what Title IX was for or about.
Jun 22, 2012, 3:56 PM
|
|
What you listed is NOT why or how Title IX was created!! What you are quoting as the genesis of Title IX is merely the part that gets public attention and was litigated recently.
And if you listen to female and male executives actually talk it's obvious why not a lot of women are successful CEOs.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [53]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 35
Joined: 11/30/98
|
BTW go re-read my posts. I'm not opposed to girls being
Jun 22, 2012, 2:36 PM
[ in reply to Re: If you take away all the college scholarships created by ] |
|
involved in and playing sports. I support it. That has never been at issue for me. What is at issue is that government is involved and the groups leading the push are hypocritical and disingenuous. They are using girls and sports to push their progressive agenda. It's a ruse to deflect attention from their real motives --- power money, an expanded liberal/progressive government.
If NOW were apolitical and supported ALL women it would be respected.
Likewise, despite the government involvement, pretty much everyone, including conservatives, would be generally OK with Title IX had football been exempted. By forcing football into the mix despite all the facts it proved women, NOW, and progressives wanted not just equal opportunity, but to hurt men. Which in turn hurts boys/children.
Yet turn on TV and all you hear about is the conservative war on women, This whole thing is a farce by those that hold themselves up as morally and intellectually superior. NOT!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Amateur [37]
TigerPulse: 86%
Posts: 80
Joined: 7/1/09
|
Re: BTW go re-read my posts. I'm not opposed to girls being
Jun 22, 2012, 2:39 PM
|
|
Well we agree that football should be exempted, since there is no equivalent that women play (although I'd be ok with the Lingerie Football League getting some colleges on board).
But again, it comes back to you being opposed to the government having to get involved. Which I hate as well, but the fact is Clemson is a public university, so we are subject to government regulations. If we were Furman, we'd have more of a gripe (although we wouldn't care about sports at all).
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [53]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 35
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Title IX is not an NCAA thing, it's a Federal mandate that
Jun 22, 2012, 3:17 PM
|
|
all schools, public and private, must adhere to. Duke must abide by Title IX as well. The NCAA is nothing more than the facilitator of Title IX. If Clemson said screw Title IX, the NCAA and ACC would get involved, but the stick forcing Clemson to comply would be a lawsuit in Federal District Court.
You now have liberals trying to gain more control of private universities based on the fact that students use federally backed student loans.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Amateur [37]
TigerPulse: 86%
Posts: 80
Joined: 7/1/09
|
Re: Title IX is not an NCAA thing, it's a Federal mandate that
Jun 22, 2012, 3:20 PM
|
|
Yeah, I never said private schools are immune from Title IX, just that we'd have more of a gripe since we wouldn't be publically funded.
In the grand scheme of things, the bigger problem is that the federal gov't is involved in education at all. But that's a whole different conversation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [53]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 35
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Nice try, but you clearly implied it and its clear you
Jun 22, 2012, 4:02 PM
|
|
really don't understand Title IX, or why it exists.
We agree on the feds being involved in edumakation.
Nice debate, but you lose!
Have a nice weekend.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4098]
TigerPulse: 94%
Posts: 10336
Joined: 7/1/97
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [27366]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 26233
Joined: 9/19/11
|
Why don't you write a letter to ESPN and ask them why
Jun 22, 2012, 10:49 AM
|
|
they don't use 50% of their air time for women's sports?
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1838]
TigerPulse: 59%
Posts: 6249
Joined: 9/10/03
|
awesome analogy. Point Sir Billy***
Jun 22, 2012, 12:09 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [93662]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 95412
Joined: 12/25/09
|
"Because 99% of our sponsors would pull their advertisements
Jun 22, 2012, 3:21 PM
[ in reply to Why don't you write a letter to ESPN and ask them why ] |
|
and we'd be stuck with Tampax, Midol, Summer's Eve with some lesbian announcers. I mean you can only show replays of UcheaT vs Uconn wimmin's basketball so many times before the bulb burns a hole in the film."
Signed
ESPiN
|
|
|
|
|
|
Amateur [37]
TigerPulse: 86%
Posts: 80
Joined: 7/1/09
|
Re: "Because 99% of our sponsors would pull their advertisements
Jun 22, 2012, 3:28 PM
|
|
Actually, the opposite would happen. With lower viewership would come cheaper commercials, and since it's apparently common belief that no women watch sports, the commercials would mostly stay focused on the male demographic.
But even if they started airing nothing but tampon commercials, what would ESPN or anyone care? They air those all the time on Lifetime, but since I don't watch it that doesn't affect me or my TV viewing experience in one bit.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [93662]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 95412
Joined: 12/25/09
|
I have no intention of getting into this issue so I'll say..
Jun 22, 2012, 3:43 PM
|
|
what I have to say and you can have the last word.
If ESPiN dedicated half their airtime to female sports Fox Sports would displace them as the #1 network for sports news in two days. ESPiN would last through one football season without bankrupting.
The 99% sponsors post was a joke. The crippling effect of IX is not.
If they took the money and dedicated it to women's academic scholarships they would provide all those girls with education and save a ton on maintaining a farce of a sports program.
Title IX is a major waste of money that should be spent on education if the women really want a fair shot.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [53]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 35
Joined: 11/30/98
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [53]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 35
Joined: 11/30/98
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [13190]
TigerPulse: 98%
Posts: 19419
Joined: 9/27/04
|
We all know the problem with Title IX
Jun 22, 2012, 2:48 PM
|
|
It's football, if you take football out of the equation, then Title IX. There is not a sport women play that has an equivalent number of athletes on the roster. If football received was tossed out of the equation, everything would work out.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [13190]
TigerPulse: 98%
Posts: 19419
Joined: 9/27/04
|
Re: We all know the problem with Title IX
Jun 22, 2012, 2:50 PM
|
|
Should read, If you take football out of the equation title IX makes sense.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [53]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 35
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Exactly and that was argued and proven during the lawsuit
Jun 22, 2012, 4:11 PM
[ in reply to We all know the problem with Title IX ] |
|
brought challenging Title IX under Dubya. They showed how Title IX was hurting men/boys and college athletics. The Feminazis didn't care! It is VERY clear that NOW and progressives not only wanted equality, but to hurt men and male athletics. There is absolutely no doubt. Title IX can accomplish EVERYTHING it was intended even if football is exempt. Forcing football to be included reveals their true motives.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Letterman [282]
TigerPulse: 83%
Posts: 720
Joined: 11/17/00
|
Re: Exactly and that was argued and proven during the lawsuit
Jun 22, 2012, 4:39 PM
|
|
I think we should eliminate separate men's and women's teams for sports where superiority at the sport can be clearly and objectively determined.
Things like tennis, swimming, track, golf, etc.
By continuing to support gender divided teams, we as a society are continuing to imply that women are somehow less athletic and less physically capable than their male counterparts. As Title ix tells us, that simply isn't true, and the continuation of such a scheme is clearly damaging to girls' self esteem.
In sports such as those, it would be very easy to handle any suspected gender discrimination. If a girl feels she's being unfairly excluded, she can compete against the boy that she feels unfairly benefited from the alleged discrimination. If she wins the best of 7 or some such figure, she gets the spot. If not, its back to intramurals.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [53]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 35
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Ummm other than Hearts, chess, checkers, dressage, sailing,
Jun 22, 2012, 7:32 PM
|
|
and tiddly-winks, which sports do you think women can compete against men equally? Actually, even the best ll women sailing teams get waxed by the men. Do I need to check my meter, or are you being serious?
Every sport you mentioned, men would destroy women. Even in golf, the men are far better than the women. Men out drive women and putt better. Additionally, men typically play on courses with harder conditions. Some of the best women to ever pick up a club have gone head to head with men in tourneys where none of the top players were even in town and they still couldn't make the cut. Even if a few could make the cut every now and then, they'd never make enough cuts or win enough money to earn a PGA Tour card.
Look at the Citadel and the military. Women have to be judged on lower standards in the field, which hurts everyone.
Women are better at some things than men, and vice versa. Why do some women feel the need to deny that or think it belittles a woman? It's dumb. Nature made us different so we'd need each other. Our differences should be embraced, not denied and handicapped via government regulations, quotas, and mandates.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [7831]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 20489
Joined: 10/9/04
|
He makes good points about the competing parts
Jun 22, 2012, 7:56 PM
|
|
you left out weight lifting out.
And if women can compete with men in golf. Why don't they play from the same tees?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [53]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 35
Joined: 11/30/98
|
I wish they would let women compete against men using the
Jun 22, 2012, 9:43 PM
|
|
same rules. After one season of every sport when women were punk'd worse than WV punk'd us in the OB we could finally end this idiotic debate and liberals would be told "Score board! Now ####!!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4098]
TigerPulse: 94%
Posts: 10336
Joined: 7/1/97
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2112]
TigerPulse: 99%
Posts: 3058
Joined: 6/19/10
|
Re: It makes me sick that ESPN is celebrating Title IX.
Jun 22, 2012, 5:01 PM
|
|
There are more women in this country than men. If women would support women's athletics we wouldn't be having this conversation. Any sport that breaks even or makes its own money should not be counted including women's sports that is fair.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-American [574]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 179
Joined: 11/25/11
|
Re: It makes me sick that ESPN is celebrating Title IX.
Jun 22, 2012, 8:21 PM
|
|
Wonder whar the percentage of "walk ons" for all female sports is at all major colleges?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Scout Team [161]
TigerPulse: 94%
Posts: 409
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Schools have sports programs to develop team work***
Jun 22, 2012, 8:38 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Replies: 91
| visibility 1
|
|
|
50
