Bizarrely, you seem not to have read your own article. You could have addressed this discussion, talked about the subsequent paragraphs dealing with intramural sports, and open-mindedly discussed the issue about how to define interest. Instead, you just typed that girls aren't interested in sports. Either you're biased, you didn't read your own article, or you didn't understand your own article. Let me know which.
The men's sports that "cost" money also earn an awful lot of revenue. Is that so hard to factor into your reasoning? By the way, I'm glad that you finally came out of the closet with your name-calling. Clearly, you believe that anybody who opposes the feminist leadership must be a woman-hater. It explains why you won't concede the simple point that Title IX's current interpretation is stupid and very costly. I'm sick to death of reading you blame men's basketball programs for not making a big enough profit. For the record, I'm not a "woman-hater." I've been a volunteer girls' soccer coach, and I bought tickets to the WWC in 1999. I'm happily married, and I do my share of work around the house. I'm politically very liberal, but I'm an honest liberal, and that's why I'll state my disgust at my own side's handling of this issue. I understand why my honesty might make you uncomfortable, but if you have any class at all, you'll apologize for those insults.
Actually, I don't believe that it's a silly burden to encourage everyone to play sports, especially considering our national epidemic of obesity. But when I see a men's track team getting cut in favor of a women's field hockey team, I can only conclude that we're narrowing the pool of opportunity, not broadening it.
I posted the article for the benfit of those on this thread, not to make an opinion on. Your taking the same anti-woman view that other liberals take. Your sterotypical attitude only hurts debate, not help it.
No, but if I draw up a petition accusing one-eyed Martians for chunky peanut butter is it true because it collects signatures? Title IX never killed anything. It just happens to be the first thing that people point to, but it never killed anything. Reverse discrimination does not exist at even a small fraction of the supposedly alarming numbers that critics claim, and that which does exist is either justified historical reciprocity or confused with economic circumstances.
In other news, a woman scored two points in a Division I college football game yesterday. An early birthday present for Mr. Flannigan.
Does it bother you when you post an article that contradicts things you state as facts in the same post? In other news, the Dallas Burn are really coming on strong at the end of this season. http://www.mlsnet.com/games/03/tracker.php?gamename=08302003_DALLA&version=recap
So? She played. She played last year in the Vegas Bowl against UCLA. Does that not mean football, at least at UNM, is now a coed sport? And should those massive numbers of scholarships now be reserved for men only?
I just meant that you can't tell whether scholarships are now non-gender specific by her because she doesn't have a scholarship. In theory, I don't think there's a prohibition against giving a woman a football scholarship. I just would be hard-pressed to think of who would be the first D1 coach to give it a try.
Short-term memory loss? From the article: What you asserted as fact is contradicted by the article you posted. Apparently, this doesn't bother you.
I hould year not to be bothered by ignorant liberals like yourself. I posted that article for the benfit of everyone? It's obvious you don't get that.