Quote:
Originally Posted by DarkBritches
But we are also talking about long term economic momentum. You can't look at the current state of things and say that it will always be that way.
And it just makes sense that the way to make the most money is to have a lot of successful programs in both men's and women's athletics.
The way to make the most money at any given moment is not necessarily the very best way to wring the most money out of the system. Like the increase of volume in trading on the stock market. We should build up women's sports as a growing market. We should be entrepreneurs. It isn't so often that we can be entrepreneurs in an area where we can also be making a good choice for our daughters and their daughters and their daughters' daughters. But the future will be better for all because of Title IX, even if a few mens' programs suffer in the present.
And if I am wrong, so what? We will have tried for a better future and lost out. But if you never try for a better future, then you will never have a better future. Just more of the same.
|
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.