Title IX: Good, Good, but..., or Bad

[Mr. Ypsi]

What was his point? That I have a certain bad attitude? What attitude might that be, and where have I expressed it?

I don't think that was his point either.  You are right in what you said, and Mr. Ypsi was just pointing out that politics isn't always a bad thing.

I don't want to put words in his mouth, but that is the way I understood it.

Thanks - you've gotten it.

Emma, no, I do not think society would NOW revert to slavery or child labor.  But it was politics, not the marketplace, which eliminated those disgraces.

As I expressed earlier, I am agnostic as to whether or not Title IX is STILL necessary.  But I am absolutely convinced that it was necessary to getting women's sports opportunities in the first place.

[ExTartanPlayer]

I've beat this to death. I fear that if you remove Title IX, you remove women's sports. ADs already are doing insane things in the name of the holy football BCS dollar - basically ripping apart their entire athletics departments rivalries and continuity, increasing travel and overhead just to play for something mythical.

+1

While I'm a huge fan of one of the sports that's a common "victim" of Title IX (wrestling), I generally agree with this viewpoint.  I think it's a shame that so many niche sports have been cut at the collegiate level to remain in Title IX compliance, but I'm even more afraid of what might happen if it were removed.  As smedindy said, the BCS football dollars have already shredded a lot of wonderful tradition at the D-I level in other sports.

[NCF]

I've beat this to death. I fear that if you remove Title IX, you remove women's sports. ADs already are doing insane things in the name of the holy football BCS dollar - basically ripping apart their entire athletics departments rivalries and continuity, increasing travel and overhead just to play for something mythical.

+1

While I'm a huge fan of one of the sports that's a common "victim" of Title IX (wrestling), I generally agree with this viewpoint.  I think it's a shame that so many niche sports have been cut at the collegiate level to remain in Title IX compliance, but I'm even more afraid of what might happen if it were removed.  As smedindy said, the BCS football dollars have already shredded a lot of wonderful tradition at the D-I level in other sports.

As the parent of four daughters and one son,I understand the concerns on both sides of the issue. That said, without title IX, my daughters would not have/had the same opportunities for competition as my son did. On the other side of the coin if my son wanted to play volleyball or wrestle in colllege his choices would be limited. I don't think it would be a good idea to get rid of Title IX, but I don't see why it can't be amended.  As a coach of both female and male athletes-it has been awesome to see members of both sexes be able to continue their sport(s) and have successful college careers. I would never want to see the door shut on athletic competition to anyone based on their gender.

[emma17]

What was his point? That I have a certain bad attitude? What attitude might that be, and where have I expressed it?

I don't think that was his point either.  You are right in what you said, and Mr. Ypsi was just pointing out that politics isn't always a bad thing.

I don't want to put words in his mouth, but that is the way I understood it.

Thanks - you've gotten it.

Emma, no, I do not think society would NOW revert to slavery or child labor.  But it was politics, not the marketplace, which eliminated those disgraces.

As I expressed earlier, I am agnostic as to whether or not Title IX is STILL necessary.  But I am absolutely convinced that it was necessary to getting women's sports opportunities in the first place.

But Mr Ypsi, politics is supposed to represent the will of the people.
Perhaps politics pushed the agenda front and center at some point, but at the end of the day it's still the desire of the people. Greater collegiate sports offerings for women would continue without Title IX because the demand exists for it.
That's not to say that everything would be perfect and "equal" to everyone's liking, but it would work.

Full disclosure- I have two sons and a daughter. My daughter is far more involved in her sport and dreams of playing college volleyball. If the school of her choice didn't offer volleyball for whatever reason, we would find one that does- I surely wouldn't demand political action to force her first choice.

[Jonny Utah]

What was his point? That I have a certain bad attitude? What attitude might that be, and where have I expressed it?

I don't think that was his point either.  You are right in what you said, and Mr. Ypsi was just pointing out that politics isn't always a bad thing.

I don't want to put words in his mouth, but that is the way I understood it.

Thanks - you've gotten it.

Emma, no, I do not think society would NOW revert to slavery or child labor.  But it was politics, not the marketplace, which eliminated those disgraces.

As I expressed earlier, I am agnostic as to whether or not Title IX is STILL necessary.  But I am absolutely convinced that it was necessary to getting women's sports opportunities in the first place.

But Mr Ypsi, politics is supposed to represent the will of the people.
Perhaps politics pushed the agenda front and center at some point, but at the end of the day it's still the desire of the people. Greater collegiate sports offerings for women would continue without Title IX because the demand exists for it.
That's not to say that everything would be perfect and "equal" to everyone's liking, but it would work.

Full disclosure- I have two sons and a daughter. My daughter is far more involved in her sport and dreams of playing college volleyball. If the school of her choice didn't offer volleyball for whatever reason, we would find one that does- I surely wouldn't demand political action to force her first choice.

Emma politics is not always about the will of the people, not in the United States anyway.  We have a Constitution here, and the constitution has protections for various freedoms, groups of peoples, and ideas.  These protections should stand firm regardless of what the majority of the people want.

[NCF]

What was his point? That I have a certain bad attitude? What attitude might that be, and where have I expressed it?

I don't think that was his point either.  You are right in what you said, and Mr. Ypsi was just pointing out that politics isn't always a bad thing.

I don't want to put words in his mouth, but that is the way I understood it.

Thanks - you've gotten it.

Emma, no, I do not think society would NOW revert to slavery or child labor.  But it was politics, not the marketplace, which eliminated those disgraces.

As I expressed earlier, I am agnostic as to whether or not Title IX is STILL necessary.  But I am absolutely convinced that it was necessary to getting women's sports opportunities in the first place.

But Mr Ypsi, politics is supposed to represent the will of the people.
Perhaps politics pushed the agenda front and center at some point, but at the end of the day it's still the desire of the people. Greater collegiate sports offerings for women would continue without Title IX because the demand exists for it.
That's not to say that everything would be perfect and "equal" to everyone's liking, but it would work.

Full disclosure- I have two sons and a daughter. My daughter is far more involved in her sport and dreams of playing college volleyball. If the school of her choice didn't offer volleyball for whatever reason, we would find one that does- I surely wouldn't demand political action to force her first choice.

Isn't that what student-athletes do now? If you want to participate in a certain sport, you choose your school from a list of those that offer the sport? I wouldn't expect every school to offer every sport-it is nice however, to see every school offer something for both men and women.

[smedindy]

I'm reading a book on the ratification of the US Constitution, and the framers were very smart in their compromises to protect the minority from absolute power grabs by the majority.

Schools can offer whatever sports they want as long as they follow Title IX. It so happens that there's not a high-scholarship sport like football (a flaw in the legislation) for women, but that meant more niche sports for women.

Here's another item to chew on - what would happen to many of our women's Olympic sports without Title IX in this day and age? Some sports have always had the private club culture but the growth in basketball, volleyball, swimming and track & field have been helped by Title IX.

[Jonny Utah]

I'm reading a book on the ratification of the US Constitution, and the framers were very smart in their compromises to protect the minority from absolute power grabs by the majority.

Schools can offer whatever sports they want as long as they follow Title IX. It so happens that there's not a high-scholarship sport like football (a flaw in the legislation) for women, but that meant more niche sports for women.

Here's another item to chew on - what would happen to many of our women's Olympic sports without Title IX in this day and age? Some sports have always had the private club culture but the growth in basketball, volleyball, swimming and track & field have been helped by Title IX.

The olympics issue is interesting smed.  I think there is a market for many female sports in the olympics and there always has been.  Competition between women, especially in individual sports breeds more interest than team sports do.  I'm saying this is because the team sports simply don't have the same competition as the men's sports do.

[ExTartanPlayer]

I'm reading a book on the ratification of the US Constitution, and the framers were very smart in their compromises to protect the minority from absolute power grabs by the majority.

Schools can offer whatever sports they want as long as they follow Title IX. It so happens that there's not a high-scholarship sport like football (a flaw in the legislation) for women, but that meant more niche sports for women.

Here's another item to chew on - what would happen to many of our women's Olympic sports without Title IX in this day and age? Some sports have always had the private club culture but the growth in basketball, volleyball, swimming and track & field have been helped by Title IX.

The olympics issue is interesting smed.  I think there is a market for many female sports in the olympics and there always has been.  Competition between women, especially in individual sports breeds more interest than team sports do.  I'm saying this is because the team sports simply don't have the same competition as the men's sports do.

I don't think that smed is arguing that there is no market for those sports in the Olympics - I think his point was that, without Title IX, it would be a lot more difficult for women to find a place to train & compete in those sports through their adolescent and teenage years.  I know that this may vary depending on what region of the country you live in, but in Pennsylvania virtually every high school (and most colleges) have a women's basketball team, track team, swim team, and so forth.  I'm sure that there's still a market for those sports in the Olympics with or without Title IX, but I'm not sure that they're so readily accessible to everyone without Title IX.  Make sense?

[Jonny Utah]

I'm reading a book on the ratification of the US Constitution, and the framers were very smart in their compromises to protect the minority from absolute power grabs by the majority.

Schools can offer whatever sports they want as long as they follow Title IX. It so happens that there's not a high-scholarship sport like football (a flaw in the legislation) for women, but that meant more niche sports for women.

Here's another item to chew on - what would happen to many of our women's Olympic sports without Title IX in this day and age? Some sports have always had the private club culture but the growth in basketball, volleyball, swimming and track & field have been helped by Title IX.

The olympics issue is interesting smed.  I think there is a market for many female sports in the olympics and there always has been.  Competition between women, especially in individual sports breeds more interest than team sports do.  I'm saying this is because the team sports simply don't have the same competition as the men's sports do.

I don't think that smed is arguing that there is no market for those sports in the Olympics - I think his point was that, without Title IX, it would be a lot more difficult for women to find a place to train & compete in those sports through their adolescent and teenage years.  I know that this may vary depending on what region of the country you live in, but in Pennsylvania virtually every high school (and most colleges) have a women's basketball team, track team, swim team, and so forth.  I'm sure that there's still a market for those sports in the Olympics with or without Title IX, but I'm not sure that they're so readily accessible to everyone without Title IX.  Make sense?

Well see I'm not so sure about that one in regards to the olympics.  The USA doesn't have great men's basketball because of opportunities in high school and college for boys and men.  The USA has a great men's basketball team because boys in the USA love to play basketball at a young age.  This interest starts with the playgrounds I mentioned earlier in the discussion.  To be a great olympic basketball player, you have to play a lot of basketball at a young age.  You could eliminate college mens basketball and you would still have playgrounds packed with boys and men playing the sport because we love it so much.  We organize it ourselves, and make up leagues and conferences where competition expands and expands (why we have college bball and the NBA).

Girls in the USA do not for the most part show that interest at an early age.  Now we can ask ourselves why girls do not have that interest.  Is it because they don't see female NBA players?  Is it because they like to do other things?  Is it because they don't have the opportunity to do what boys do?  Is it because the ones that are interested are excluded by the boys?

At the early ages, sports start out on the playground.  Kids organize these games by themselves, based on what they see on TV, and from what they see older kids and their parents do.

I dunno.  It is hard to explain in words but this interest from boys at a young age accounts for something in my book.

[Knightstalker]

There are more girls basketball teams in the youth association that my daughter is playing in than boys teams.  These are 3-4 grade, 5-6 grade and middle school aged kids.  In fact her first game is tonight, she is the starting center and at 10 is already 5' 1" and as tall as her mother and her coach and a head taller than almost every other girl in the league.

[smedindy]

At the early ages, sports start out on the playground.  Kids organize these games by themselves, based on what they see on TV, and from what they see older kids and their parents do

Not now they don't. Not where I've lived. Everything is organized. Soccer and hoops at 5, 6, and 7. I think that's your flaw in your interest argument.

[Knightstalker]

At the early ages, sports start out on the playground.  Kids organize these games by themselves, based on what they see on TV, and from what they see older kids and their parents do

Not now they don't. Not where I've lived. Everything is organized. Soccer and hoops at 5, 6, and 7. I think that's your flaw in your interest argument.

This still happens in places like Jersey City but in the suburban and rural areas it is leagues and associations.  Parents don't let their kids just go out and play anymore and people don't let kids play sports on their property anymore.  I think my daughter is a throwback, when the weather is nice she wants to be outside playing with the dog, playing ball, riding her bike.  She plays video games and such but would actually rather read when she has to stay inside.

[ExTartanPlayer]

Jonny,

I disagree with much of your previous post re: basketball, but even if that's all true, you can't generalize that to most of the other Olympic sports.  You can play basketball at any playground with a ball and a net - as you've alluded, kids can practically teach themselves the game from what they see on TV. 

Where are you going to learn to pole vault?  Swim the butterfly?  What about team sports like field hockey and volleyball?  Again - without continuation of these sports at the high school and collegiate level - who is ever going to play them?  Sure, not every high school field-hockey player makes the Olympic team, but if you got rid of high-school field hockey then you would dilute the available pool of talent so badly that we'd struggle to even field a team in a few decades.

Yes, in some sports the skills are developed at an early age, but high-school sports are a key part of the overall culture that even encourages children to pursue sports from their childhood.  This might be just me, but I really believe that in the absence of high school sports, you'd see a lot fewer children out there playing sports.  The reason that I started playing football as a little kid wasn't because I dreamed of NFL millions - it was because my dad took me to our high school's games and I thought the guys were just the coolest thing around (so big, so tough, so fast!).  Many kids play sports because of what they see on TV, but many more play because their parents want to get them involved in some activities or becuase their friends do, or because it's just a cool thing to do in high school.

[Jonny Utah]

At the early ages, sports start out on the playground.  Kids organize these games by themselves, based on what they see on TV, and from what they see older kids and their parents do

Not now they don't. Not where I've lived. Everything is organized. Soccer and hoops at 5, 6, and 7. I think that's your flaw in your interest argument.

This still happens in places like Jersey City but in the suburban and rural areas it is leagues and associations.  Parents don't let their kids just go out and play anymore and people don't let kids play sports on their property anymore.  I think my daughter is a throwback, when the weather is nice she wants to be outside playing with the dog, playing ball, riding her bike.  She plays video games and such but would actually rather read when she has to stay inside.

Yea but I was talking about the best of the best here.  The Olympics.  Brazil has good soccer because kids play in the street for 10,000 hours from the ages of 3-15.  Hockey in Canada for the same reason, Basketball in the US, Nordic Skiing in Finland, baseball in Cuba, etc, etc. 

I can orgainze anything but if there isn't enough interest, the kids aren't going to be good at those sports when they turn 16.  You need more than parents setting up leagues for kids to excell in sports.  Are those kids still going to be interested when they get to the high school age?  Are they playing sports when they are kids because they want to or because the parents want them to?  Basically adults are generating interest based on what they think is important, which it could be at an early age (excerise, teamwork, competetiviness, dedication, etc)