So much for Title IX increasing opportunities...


Main message board: for the discussion of topical track & field items only.

Re: So much for Title IX increasing opportunities...

Postby BillVol » Sat Nov 01, 2003 12:30 pm

What I'm saying, t, is that based on your logic of applying the rules of the corporate world to everyday life, I would be "right" every time my wittle feelings were hurt. Which is absurd.
BillVol
 
Posts: 3759
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: Chattanooga

Re: So much for Title IX increasing opportunities...

Postby Guest » Sat Nov 01, 2003 12:56 pm

I actually forgot to make my intended point. Until such time as women complain that THEIR programs are being hurt, you won't get much sympathy from them. And I was NOT talking about this forum, I was talking about institutional sexism (collegiate programs). When females complain, people have to listen now. We men think sports are our purview (gross overgeneralization, but still basically true) and all Title IX was trying to do was show us that women's sports are inherently equal to ours. Since my daughter is an athlete my heart says that's true, but, BV, and other neanderthals like myself(!), my brain says it hasn't happened yet. gh had it right: it is the best of times; it is the worst of times. Hopefully in 20 years we'll look back at this mess and wonder what the hell was wrong with us (meaning true equality in sports has been achieved without sacrificing men's rights on the altar of egalitarianism)!

Bottom line to BV and the many like us: KWITCHERBELYAKIN.
Guest
 

Re: So much for Title IX increasing opportunities...

Postby Pego » Sat Nov 01, 2003 1:15 pm

I think this is pretty close to keep Title IX essentially intact with women having all the access to competitive sports without hurting male programs such as T&F or wrestling. Remove football numbers from the equation and I think you'll come pretty close.
Pego
 
Posts: 10198
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: beyond help

Re: So much for Title IX increasing opportunities...

Postby BillVol » Sat Nov 01, 2003 9:41 pm

Bill, I don't think the line is fine at
>all. Perhaps this is a heavy-handed analogy, but
>suppose you had written, "Civil Rights
>legislation was driven by a bunch of white-hating
>negroes"? Both of these great advances in
>societal came to be because forward-thinking
>members of the oppressive class finally realized
>the error of their ways and opened up more
>opportunities for all.

I think this makes me appear to be against Title IX altogether. I am not. When President Nixon signed Title IX into law, I don't think anybody in the nation at that time was remotely thinking about women's athletics.

Some friends and I were talking about the situation in Iraq and with the Muslims. We concluded that one reason they are 500 years behind us is because women are involved in our socitety. We have double the amount of talent that they do. We also concluded that women are better than men. Some wise-acre suggested that if women ruled the world, we wouldn't have internet chat rooms. LOL

Point is, I am a supporter of Title IX, as it was originally intended to work.

I'm not expert, but I
>believe that Title IX as written was not what we
>see in action today. It's the interpretation of
>Title IX (and what,90% of those in the role of
>interpteters are men?) that has been bastardized
>and has wreaked such havoc on men.

Yes, we all agree on this.

Name for me
>some women--men lovers or haters--who have the
>juice to influence anything that happens at the
>NCAA-governance level.

Donna Lopiano for one. I don't think she ever dreamed that she would have been as successful with her movement. But people are too afraid to challenge her. The pols at least.

My post said that Title IX "as it applies to college sports" is "driven" by men-hating women. I didn't say that ALL of Title IX is driven by men-hating women. I am a supporter of the original intent of Title IX -- and I'm not a man-hating woman. I'm not even a woman.

And I didn't say that all women who support Title IX as it applies to college sports are men-haters. Joan Cronan, women's AD at Tennessee, never says a word about Title IX, but she probably supports it. But she doesn't "drive" the movement. She is an observer of it.

I said that this movement is "driven" by men-hating women. And I believe that. How the Donna Lopianos of the world -- the women who DRIVE Title IX as it applies to college sports -- can sit there and watch these men's program being dropped is hard to comprehend. I think they are men-hating women, these women who drive Title IX as it applies to college sports.

As somebody whose life
>revolves around athletics I think Title IX is the
>worst thing that ever happened to collegiate
>sports. But when I step back and think like a
>common citizen, it's one of the great things that
>has ever happened. Given the choice between the
>landscape in 1975 and now, I'd chose now in a
>heartbeat. But there's a in-between that we
>should be at, and I hope we can get to someday.

Amen.
BillVol
 
Posts: 3759
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: Chattanooga

Re: So much for Title IX increasing opportunities...

Postby Pego » Sun Nov 02, 2003 6:11 am

<Donna Lopiano >

Is she the same as Donna DeVarona (spelling?), the swimming champ turned a Title IX advocate?
Pego
 
Posts: 10198
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: beyond help

Re: So much for Title IX increasing opportunities...

Postby Skeets » Sun Nov 02, 2003 7:15 am

It wasn't Stony Point that I was referring too. Geographically the school is not far away though. I'm sure this happens in many places.
Skeets
 
Posts: 5
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: So much for Title IX increasing opportunities...

Postby BillVol » Sun Nov 02, 2003 9:06 am

BillVol
 
Posts: 3759
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: Chattanooga

Re: So much for Title IX increasing opportunities...

Postby Guest » Mon Nov 03, 2003 1:40 pm

When my wife
>picks at me, she says, "You can't take a joke."
>Who is right or wrong in this situation? I'm
>offended sometimes, but maybe I'm the one who is
>too sensitive. On the other hand, maybe she
>goes too far sometimes. It's a matter of
>opinion what is acceptable and what isn't. I
>suppose in a corporate environment, it is
>different.

I don't remember where this came from, but it applies:
"The boys shoot the frogs in jest.
The frogs die in earnest."

Intent and acceptance are often far apart.
Guest
 


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: eldanielfire, Google [Bot] and 12 guests