Title IX's Faulty Assumption
 

This article about James Madison dropping certain male sports ends with the following:

My biggest problem with Title IX is that demanding "equality as measured by individual participation" assumes that men and women are equally interested in all aspects of athletics/sports. Why can't the man-haters just accept the fact that women and men are different?

Well said...well said.

I'm in the process of raising 3 daughters. Have coached teams they've played in, etc. I grew up a sporting fool...was competitive in everything I played.

I believe in what you say, in that I personally feel that men & women are NOT equally interested in sports.

There are some GREAT female sports fans, competitive athlete etc. But on the whole, I think there is a vast difference in interest level between the sexes.

Even worse than men's sports being cut in order to give an equal number of athletic scholarships to women is that if a women's team is unable to have enough interest to have a team and the school has to get rid of it, the school has to eliminate the same number of men's athletic scholarships.

Title IX is all about providing the same number of scholarships and it's a farce. The only thing that is worse for college sports than Title IX is the BCS.

I agree with what you are saying on this. There are actually other ways to comply with Title IX other than the proportionality rule. Problem is those are all subjective standards and no University is going to take the chance to comply under the subjective standard.

Title IX is a joke.

I hate Title IX.

I just get pissed thinking about it.

can't comment rationally.

It sucks away valuable funds from the mens programs that actually produce profits to use on women's sports that operate in the red. Why would anyone think that's a good idea?

It is also not about equality or equal opportunity. It has been the death of olympic sports in this nation.

But we have the WNBA

Oh, in THAT case . . .

Does the "cream rising to the top" metaphor apply here? I think it does.

Can somebody tell me what that means?

I can't tell if it's sexist or obscene.

Yes, it is.

I apologize. I was a bad boy, and now I've probably offended a librarian superhero. Not a good position to be in.

DB, I thought you were being clever and so I responded in kind. Obviously I misjudged you.

I'm not sure why, but that made me LOL.

It may stop a girl from getting obese. But in doing so, how many opportunities for boys are being dropped? At what point is the trade-off worth it?

wow.

Girl sports are fun to watch? As fun as boys sports? Clearly you don't watch much of sports.

Look, I'm all for equality of opportunity, but it's no victory if you aid the obesity problem among one gender by doubly exaserbating it among the other.

It may surprise you, but women's athletics are nothing but a financial black hole. This is an article from 5 years ago, but it proves just that:

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m...5/ai_n10837045

No, you're wrong. Women's sports will always be a complete waste of money. And college men will always suffer because of it as well.

Title IX started out with the right idea, but when it comes to sports, it's time to get rid of it.

"What it does for women" comes at the expense of men's sports, which bear a cost that is greater than the benefit to the women. That is NOT equality. What's more, it is choking off the source of its own support, effectively engaging in cannibalism.

Actually, it is. Equality is when everything balances.

But even if you don't accept that premise, what do you suppose provides and pays for the opportunities for women via sports programs? It is the funding derived from men's sports. Many universities find themselves forced to drop revenue-earning men's sports under pressure from various sources, of which Title IX is not insignificant.

A healthy men's sports program enables a healthy women's sports program.

Here's the problem: if "a few men's programs suffer in the present," they don't generate revenue for the women. The majority of the casualties amongst men's programs have been non-revenue sports, but not always is it so. The lifeblood of women's sports is dollars generated from men's sports. If you hurt men's sports, women's sports will be worse off in the long run.

Agreed. Without mens sports, there would be no womens sports.

Title IX needs to be amended by removing collegiate athletics from under it's control.

Women's athletics will never make money. It never has. The only way I would ever attend any kind of women's collegiate athletic event is if one of my daughters was participating.

In the stock market, a wise investor dumps the stocks that are decreasing his portfolio.

The purpose of sports in the larger mission?

It's all about the money. Money generated from mens sports go to the university and is used to help fund other sports programs and also to help funding for academic areas on campus. College sports is a huge business and womens sports are a debit.

And it provides women an opportunity to participate on a collegiate level that wasn't there to begin with.

Now answer this: How about addressing the original point of this thread? Why is it forced upon mens programs when there is not as much interest in the participation on the womens' part? I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on that and explain why it's still a good idea.

Three big ones:

1. It allows for students to participate as athletes.
2. It enables students to go to college, through scholarships which provide opportunities that may not have otherwise been available.
3. It contributes to a college atmosphere by contributing to a fundamental aspect of American culture.

Title IX definitely opens the doors for many women, per factors 1 and 2. I question whether the costs to men are presently worth the benefits being given to women. That's not to say that Title IX has not done a lot of good. I don't think the idea should be altogether discarded, but it should be modified to provide a greater benefit to both men and women.

Let's just for a moment assume everything you say is true.

Why is coercion needed to enforce it then?

The only women's athletic programs in the nation that aren't sucking away funds from their athletic deparments are marketing directly to the lesbian populations in the area. Bottom line, women do not share the same interest as men in sports, and they cannot physically perform at the same level as men in sports. Therefore, women's sports can't draw an audience that will support the cost, without marketing thems as a sexual commodity. I don't see that as an improvement.

Title IX has not caused "a few mens' programs [to] suffer in the present." It has made some men's programs completely obsolete.

Title IX defies the basic laws of supply and demand, and flies in the face of all logic. IMO there is not ONE VALID REASON for limiting funds for a profit producing sport to feed funds into a program that actually costs money to operate.

If women want to have equal funding for athletics then they need to be able to put on a performance that brings in a profit. Otherwise we're looking at an attitude of: "I want what I didn't earn, what I can't produce on my own, and I'm going to take it, regardless of the harm that may be inflicted on others, because I think it's not fair that I don't have EXACTLY as much as someone else." If they had required at least 15%, even 25% of funds to go to women's programs that would have been more palatable but HALF? HALF of the money to programs that can't produce EVEN ONE CENT IN PROFIT? That's what I call greed, and coveting.