G.L.Piggy [at] gmail.com
Error: Twitter did not respond. Please wait a few minutes and refresh this page.
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.