I had a quick Twitter exchange with one co-author of a piece written at The Atlantic about Title IX legislation which I covered last week.
Almost all of the commenters at The Atlantic interpreted the piece as a criticism of the feminist-inspired legislation. I argued that the commenters completely missed the point of the article (the title of which belied the content) in that it wasn’t arguing for a rollback of Title IX but rather an improvement of it. It’s not enough that Title IX creates a supply of sports programs that aren’t met by much demand (compared to men’s sports). The article’s authors wanted the equality of supply and improved medical care and other types of supports for the various problems that female athletes tend to experience more often than male athletes – eating disorders, missed menstruation, ACL injuries, sexual abuse, and a decrease in female coaches were the biggies. Here’s my exchange with one of the authors who previously worked as an editor at Newsweek:
I can’t really add much more than that. What this is about is what Sandra Fluke’s piracy is about: the “needs and desires” of female athletes. It’s not about equal opportunity anymore; it’s about that and so much more. This argument – and I am harping on it because an article like this is the canary in the coalmine – wants to deny human nature. Coming from feminists we shouldn’t be surprised. The authors explicitly state that female athletes suffer four to five times more ACL injuries than male athletes. This occurs because menstruation causes women to become more “quadricep-dependent” which places greater strain on the ligament and leads to more tears. But the authors want us to ignore that fact of nature in the name of an arbitrary emphasis on a female presence in sports activities. We must jump through hoops to make the glass slipper fit.
Most people often see obstacles as signals for not pushing forward; feminists see obstacles as things that require an infinite amount of spending and mind-wringing to overcome. In order to ensure the feminist dream, we will go broke – either financially or as a species.
And it’s just pure lulz that Greenberg commiserates with me that most of the commenters who were defending the status quo Title IX were men. I’m not sure if she had this idea of progress in her mind and saw the men as new dialectical chauvinists, or if she was surprised that so many men would defend Title IX, or maybe she was implying that men are just dumb for misreading the article. Thus my vague response.
Like this:
Like Loading...
Kudos to that glass slipper analogy. Perfect!
Have always wondered how to improve women sports. Seems like to improve them you have to market them – and that would mean “sexist.” Can’t just hand ‘em a basketball, and expect ANY revenue. Softball is not a real popular sport to watch either. Ice skating? Gymnastics? Hard to see sports catching on that you have to be under 5 feet and 15 years old to excell in.
She doesn’t seem very bright.
“the needs and desires of the 21st century woman”
This statement is embarrassing to me.
She’s a nerd. I’m not trying to be mean, but she just is.
Seems like to improve them you have to market them – and that would mean “sexist.”
Women’s college voleyball can be fun to watch — they wear very tight shorts.
Title IX should be rolled back and fundamentally reformed. Does France or Britain have a title IX that works the same way, towards equality of results not opportunity? No.
Title IX forces universities to unfairly cut back on men’s secondary sports, when there’s much more demand from better athlete men to play in them than in female sports. Title IX requires universities to always be working towards and being able to prove it, having a proportional to the number of female students, female athletes on organized sports teams. However, not as many women as men in college want to be on or work hard to be on women’s teams. That forces universities to begin eliminating e.g. male wrestling and so on.
It’s grossly unfair. Yet another of the lefts equality of outcome instead of opportunity laws.
There will never be anywhere near the amount of interest in most women’s team sports as in mens.
That’s based upon wired into us sex differences.
” Does France or Britain have a title IX that works the same way, towards equality of results not opportunity? No.”
Will France and Britain get their own tile IX shoved down their throats by using cherry picked stats from the US, courtesy of the usual suspects? Oh my, yes.
Will the whole of Western Civilization go down in flames while cultures not infected by those particularly vile memes takes over? Kind of looks like it.
Men’s sports thrive because of the excitement which is a function of strong competition. Women’s sports thrive financially if the outfits and athletes are sexy. Thus, women’s tennis is the only pro sport in which the athletes earn about as much as men. As Tusten says, if we’re talking just about revenue or creating a demand for the sport, we’d be labeled sexist as well. Can’t win for trying.
Doug1: That forces universities to begin eliminating e.g. male wrestling and so on.
As I said in a previous comment, I was offered a partial by a coach (a long time ago) to play soccer for a small NAIA school, had I chosen that school to attend I would not have ended up receiving anything. The men’s soccer was eliminated in order to reduce the disparity between the number of male and female athletes.
Doug1: There will never be anywhere near the amount of interest in most women’s team sports as in mens.
In schools with aggressive programs most female athletes are not attractive, except for a few programs that would by chance be almost all white. I went to a small college and actually enjoyed watching the women’s bball games before evening French classes, course the team was 100% white and comprised of attractive women who had good skills but lacked the size to play at larger (more successful) schools.
We must jump through hoops to make the glass slipper fit.
Just when I’m about to compliment you on your writing skill, you come up with a whopper of a mixed metaphor like this…
Women tear their ACL 4 times more then men not soley because of menstrual cycle issues but because the carrying angle of the femur is greater meaning the potential shear force during medial collapse of the knee is far higher.
The incidence of ACL tears is atrociously high all around because we specialize athletes in sport to early without building fundamental strength, mobility and proper biomechanics. I train athletes and when I get a kid who has spent 6-9 months playing soccer its guaranteed his ankle flexibility will have regressed he will be weaker, he will have lost upper body strength especialy.
Basic physical education is almost completely neglected while specialized sport practice is pushed more and more and earlier and earlier.
I went to a small college and actually enjoyed watching the women’s bball games before evening French classes, course the team was 100% white and comprised of attractive women who had good skills but lacked the size to play at larger (more successful) schools.
Oh so true.
I attended a big Southern Sports university and the female athletes at the bigtime level (especially basketball) always have a funny, broad shape to them. Even the gals that are considered the “speedy point guard” are still far bulkier and hippish than what I would generally consider attractive.
Plus, they behave rather unladylike, wearing ugly ass braids and walking around in baggy hip hop clothes that aren’t very becoming to the female body. (thus the Don Imus comment about Nappy Headed Hos)
The center on our women’s basketball team was all-conference and played in the WNBA for a while. She was 6-6 and 280 pounds. Prior to that we had another forward on the team that was 6-3 and 200+.
Even Sue Bird is 150+ pounds, and she’s the only decent looking current WNBA star that I can name now that Lisa Leslie is out of the league.
Stepping back for the Really Big-Picture View™ for a moment:
So, like, when does this stuff stop? The fiddling and tinkering and tweaking and attempts to choreograph society, I mean. Does anyone ever ask this of leftists? Do they have an answer? At what point, exactly, would they finally be satisfied that society has been perfected? Do we have to have a “Title IX” for the rest of human existence? How about the thing called “Social Security”? Is it just assumed that these particular acts of arbitrary fiddling are now permanent features of human life?
What do they see as the endgame, precisely? Is there an endgame? Do they envision that human relations will always be carefully and precisely shaped by government edict — i.e., by the force of guns? Or are the Title IXs of the world regarded merely as stopgap measures on the way to some transformation of human nature in which, for instance, “women” are exactly like “men”?
Do they even think in these sorts of macro terms? Or is the time horizon simply: “I happen to be here on earth for a certain number of years, and I’d like for shit to work such-and-such way during that time”?
I genuinely don’t get it. I genuinely don’t get the left’s longterm conception of human society, or if such a conception even exists.
From UK 2007:
Schools have been told to encourage boys to play netball and take dancing lessons in a bid to promote “gender equality”.
The move which sees boys moving on to the traditionally female netball court is part of a Government drive to ensure that school children are more ‘gender balanced’.
Every local authority in the country had to publish a “gender equality scheme” earlier this year to meet new anti-discrimination legislation.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-504753/Schools-told-encourage-boys-play-netball-dance-balance-gender.html
“What this is about is what Sandra Fluke’s piracy is about: the “needs and desires” of female athletes. ”
Had a similar experience with a commentator on some military issue, she said something to the effect of “it’s about a woman’s choice”.
@rjp
Agreed. I kicked it with my school’s track & field chicks and they were some of the sexiest chicks on campus. Basically, they were all the really cute and athletic chicks in high school that were your stereotypical 3rd or 4th best chick on teams. Fun times there.
My school’s girls track recruitment- Coaches combing the dining halls early fall semester for interested chicks.
But the price of having sexy girls track team, along with (ew) girls swimming and tennis? Our men’s baseball team. Fucking sucked. Lost a couple buddies when they had to scatter to new schools after it got eliminated
It’s all about the ideology of absolute gender parity.
Good luck with that.