I don't disagree with that. And I hope you wouldn't disagree with the conjecture that there are some men who don't want women to play sports. And there are some ESPN employees that don't like soccer. And there are some soccer fans that hope that MLB and the NHL get into protracted labor disputes in the (I think misguided) hope that that will help soccer. But does that mean that ESPN hates soccer? Or that soccer fans, as a group, want baseball and hockey to fail? Or that radical feminists, as a group, want to destroy men's sports? No. You can't generalize from a small part of a group to the entire group and present that generalization as accurate. Heck, most radical feminists I know, don't like sports at all (men's or women's). But that doesn't mean that all radical feminists are aiming for the destruction of men's sports. It doesn't even mean that a specific women labeled as a radical feminist (e.g., Foudy, De Verona, or Lopiano) wants to eradicate men's sports. If you show me proof, I'll believe you. Until then.....
Ur_Land, did you follow Foudy and Lopiano's behavior during the Title IX reform hearings? During the proceedings, they voted in favor of some reforms, such as the one that would've allowed male walk-ons to participate, even without a proportional number of female walk-ons. At present, this rule forces a great number of men's teams to limit their roster size. Because male walk-ons are a minimal expense, this was an opportunity to facilitate male participation without hindering female participation. Once the hearings were over, Foudy and Lopiano promptly withdrew their support for this measure and began a vocal campaign against enacting any reform at all. They had paid lip service to giving fair opportunity to males, but when push came to shove, they worked against it.
beineke, I haven't been following the Title IX hearings. Do you have a citation or url that shows the alledged duplicitiousness?
http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/2003-02-27-title-ix-barbs_x.htm This doesn't discuss the walk-on rule specifically, but if you find their "Minority Report," I think it states that there shouldn't be any reforms.
I think they have a "slippery slope" mentality. They think that if they give an inch, other forces will take a mile. It's an unfortunate way of doing politics, contrary to the "let's make a deal" style that has its detractors but ultimately leaves everyone slightly less annoyed. But I have a hard time making the leap from a disagreement over Foudy's political style to everything said about her, the WUSA or Augustana.
Thanks for the article. I agree that it does seem iffy that Foudy and Lopiano reversed themselves after the report came out. ANd I also agree with Beau that a scorched earth political style (which seems to be increasingly adopted by politicians all over the spectrum) is not the best way to go. But the article didn't mention anything about walkons (or anything specifically about male athletes or teams)--the article mentions two provisions that they reversed themselves on: 1."One would allow Paige to allow for a "reasonable variance" in determining proportionality, which is the first part of a three-part test by which a school can comply with the participation requirements of Title IX. (A school complies if it passes one part.)" At issue, I believe, is what "reasonable" means. 2."a recommendation that he explore 'additional ways of demonstrating equity beyond the three-part test.'" At issue here is that what these additional ways are is left open to the Secretary's imagination. So again, it seems like the "radical feminists" are less concerned about eliminating men's sports than enhancing women's sports. (BTW, here's a text of Foudy's objections to the report: http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/2003-02-24-titleix-foudy-letter_x.htm )
Beineke is right about duplicity. By the way Ms. Foudy, captain of two teams, basically quit soccer training for almost 6 months to pursue the Title IX industry and other goals. Dr. Lopiano was not included on the panel. Ms. de Verona was. Dr. Lopiano is not the most diplomatic person and her involvement with many lesbian activist groups made Ms. de Verona a better choice for the Title IX crowd. http://www.exrx.net/Store/HK/StrongWomenDeepClosets.html Radical feminist warriors and their allies in the Senate made these appointments on this sham commission. I did not bother to attend the Chicago hearings. I thought it was rigged. The reason thousands of young males cannot walk on to play sports, something they love more than anything, is because of those two votes. The same two people kept issuing statements that are inconsistent with their ruthless, anti-male policies. So the press, ever subservient to the Title IX industry, prints the touchy-feely stuff and buries the nasty stuff. Just my opinions
There's a difference between inaccurate "facts" and opinions. I don't even know where to begin, so I'll unsubscribe again.
This thread is chock full of opinion posted as fact. That's what this thread is about, actually. I don't know where to begin, either, which is why I wouldn't respond to some of this stuff in this thread on a bet. Don't unsubscribe; put this thread on your 'ignore list'. If I weren't a moderator of this forum, I'd do it in a heartbeat.
As I said previously, the thread title is accurate. Not much new has been said about Title IX in over 30 years. (Apparently, some people don't remember 30 years ago as well as I do) In addition, Title IX is off-topic in this forum. It has nothing to do with the WUSA. Unfortunately, Title IX discussion doesn't fit neatly into any forum on BigSoccer. If it did, this dicussion would have been moved a long time ago. Some aspects of Title IX have minor relevance in the Men's College or Women's College forums (maybe even Business and Media, although that's a stretch). General discussion of Title IX fits best in the Politics forum, because that's what it is, although even that is not a perfect fit. As far as this thread goes, it's difficult to hijack for two reasons: it already is a hijack. it has no topic to begin with. There has been some interesting (and even relevant) discussion in this thread, which is not the purpose of this thread (evidently, some of you didn't get the memo, or read the thread title). Maybe it's time to put "Title IX - OFF TOPIC" in the title of this thread, so people won't be confused, and they can avoid it if they want. I'd sure like to avoid it.
Title IX has a lot to do with the WUSA. How many times was it mentioned during WUSA broadcasts? Remember when Ms. Foudy was doing the commentary of a game she played in? She brought it up then, too. From the moment the commission started, Ms. Foudy and Ms. de Verona tried to hog the spotlight. It was like a filibuster. In the end, everyone was for the reform concerning walk-ons except these two. So they went to Senator Ted "Swimmer" Kennedy, Hilary Cinton and others, to apply more pressure. The press backed them of course. Doesn't Nancy Pelosi have anything better to do than keep males from walking on to wrestle in New York? Her state is bankrupt. Ms. Foudy, the co-captain of the USWNT, did not practice during this period or attend the Four Nations Tournament in China, a crucial preparation for the WWC. Unfortunately for American soccer fans, the German team was not involved in a crusade against males. They prepared for the World Cup. Now the USWNT is in a tailspin, BARELY beating Mexico this week, losing the WWC, with players quitting in disgust. The WUSA is in ruins. But the Quota is still there. Just my opinions.
That's about as stupid an argument as I've ever heard. Players "thanking Title IX for an opportunity to play" does not work in your favor on this. Tom, I love ya to death, but why do you even post in the WUSA forum? Do you want the league to succeed? Do you have any interest in the product on the field?
She isn't that far off. And I'm a wrestler who watched his program die (Division III Allegheny College. It died for several reasons, all of which I learned while covering the story for the school paper: 1. They wanted to add a women's sport that other schools in the conference had so that all teams playe din the conference. Our conference did not have wrestling. They went to a 50-50 M/F split of sports when they added women's lacrosse several years later. 2. The plans for the new athletic center were due and basketball felt they didn't have enough locker room space and football felt they needed more weight lifting space. 3. Wrestlers come from families with a lower median income than lacrosse players. Those are actually in reverse order of importance. The first factor was recruiting more New England students because the Pittsburghers were coming no matter what. The second factor was keeping the basketball coach, the AD (former hoops coach) and the football coach (now coaching at Iowa) happy. The third factor was being politically correct. Wrestling does have prohibitively high insurance costs and high injury rates. We were basically told we had too many injuries to be any good to the athletic department. Wrestling also has a high rate of crime. Wrestlers are nutjobs. They do stupid things. We didn't have that problem, but I know of a lot of other schools that did. Wrestling often wasn't worth the effort for schools. Don't take that as a defense of what has happened to the sport. I'm still royally pissed about what happened at Allegheny. I think changes need to be made. But to act like the sport itself isn't culpable to some degree is naive at best. Title IX has hurt wrestling. No doubt. But wrestling has hurt itself too. Bucknell paying Mike Garcia to attend school there. Oklahoma State using credit cards and team vehicles to entice JUCO recruits. Brain-dead "can't miss prospects" flunking out before their first match. The reason soccer isn't dying at the college level (last NCAA stats - however some people try to spin them - show the highest particpation rates ever at Division I and overall) is because the sport has a better vision for what it can be in the broad landscape. If that were her sole focus, her family would probably kick her ass. Her nephew Greg was a Baltimore private school champion and wrestled at F&M for a couple of years. Thankfully he went up a weight our senior year in HS so I didn't get my ass kicked. Just because people are for one thing doesn't mean they are against something else. But every needs their target, I guess.
Nope. Did you count them? Got a count for us? Considering how good your memory is, based on things you've said you remember clearly and which are proven to be incorrect, color me skeptical. In a meaningless game when both teams had already clinched a spot in the semis. Okay. Was it more than one? Who still has a turntable? You know when you get to the end of the record and if you don't turn it over, it plays the same thing over and over and over and over and over? That's what you're like. You think everything is rigged. Everything that doesn't turn out in your favor is rigged. Every game a US soccer team has ever lost is rigged. Every FIFA draw is rigged. I'll bet you think American Idol is rigged. Shut up already. You're embarassing yourself.
aleager, a couple more posts like that and I will ignore you too. Most games are not rigged. Some are. I am not the only one who thinks the game with Hugh Dallas as ref, among othes, did not even meet the smell test. There was a thread here about the remarkable broadcast where Ms. Foudy did the play by play of game that she had played in a few days earlier. I was not the only one who was amazed by this. Even supporters of Ms. Foudy called her out on this. Do we really need to hear about the Title IX commission for the umpteenth time while we are trying to watch a football game? Andy, of course I support the WUSA. I would love to see it come back in some form. I had my daughters watch the games when I had time to tape them and watch them. But the WUSA was terribly mismanaged and the people who did that are still in control. We need new management and a fresh start.
This point is interesting, because I remember reading reports of how the definition of "reasonable" was debated by the commission. It is actually an important reform issue because the current quota guidelines are unclear on this matter. At one point, the U of Wisconsin was judged to have failed the quota when they fell something like five female participants short. Frankly, it's unreasonable to require such precise control of the numbers. What I'd like to know is the exact wording of the proposals that Foudy and Lopiano supported. Are these shortcomings sufficient to justify their opposition to all reform of Title IX? Foudy: "The report does not address, or even acknowledge, the central issue which Title IX is designed to address — continuing discrimination against women and girls in athletics." Actually, Title IX was designed to address discrimination against either gender in education. As I understand it, it wasn't until years after its passage that people realized it might be applied to athletics. It is also troubling that Foudy uses under-representation as the centerpiece for her claim of discrimination. The text of Title IX explicitly states that under-representation is not to be considered proof of discrimination.
Re: I encourage anyone who has not as of yet read The Minority report by Julie Foudy and Donna DeVeronna to do so. It was a most interesting read, and they made their points very well. I Frankly agreed with their report. One of the most insightful things about it was that it said that colleges and universities were clearly never educated on Title IX. And that if when Title IX had first been instituted, educators had been appointed to a committee created for the purpose of educating these colleges and univeristies as well as highschools ETC. We might well have not had some of these problems. I beleive it is worth everyones time to get a copy of the Minority report. At the very least you get a real sense of where they are coming from. these women are not "Radical Feminist" But; they are people who have very strong convictions and beleive in what they are doing. But they do not do it because they hate or are against men or men's sports. It is rather that they are aware of the sercomstances that existed for women and girls pre-Title IX.....and the last thing anyone wants to do is take a step backwards. I am sure Abe lincoln was concidered Radical in his time. I am sure those that threw the tea into boston harbor were as well. Where do you draw the line. How do you define it. what is radical at one point in history, becomes nothing more then a show of courage and determination against something that is wrong in another. T.F. there is no conspiracy buddy. it is simply people doing what they beleive in. Jules does not weild ultimate power when it comes to the WUSA or anything else. She is just a person, not some evil entity out to destroy anything masculine. Those with the money did not throw it where ever she told them to. If they did that, they would never have had any money to even get involved with the WUSA and it's creation. these were smart Businessmen. She was only the Player Rep. Beleive me. they threw their money where their business Marketors told them to. the problem was we needed sports marketers, not business marketors. We needed specialists in how to market a sport. If anything they treated the WUSA too much like a business and forgot that you have to go out and find your clientel. You can not just blow a horn and announce hey we are here. in your own little community and expect to fill the store. You have to reach out 1 to 2 hours outside of that community. let those people know you are there as well./ because you are not like a giant wallmart with thousands of products. You are a specialty shop with only one product. and you need to reach anyone within a days outing who wants that product. you must build your clientel. The fans are there. but; a whole bunch of them were ignored and didn't even know there was a league. because the advertising was too Myopic in it's approach.
Re: Re: Re: ------------------------------------------------- yup, not bad for their first attempt eh?
Congress can’t really do much to change attitudes that women have about sports. That has to come from the women themselves. The stereotype in the media is ugly men preventing young, healthy girls from doing what they really want to do in life: Lift weights, wrestle and join the rugby team. In reality, men would love to have women more interested in sports. The real opposition comes from other women. Last summer, some friends of my wife stopped by on a Saturday. There was no MLS game on so I was watching the WUSA game. They began commenting on the game and two were VERY cruel about it. Not all of the players on WUSA teams are physically attractive. Same with men’s teams. They are selected for athletic ability, not looks. Nevertheless, there was a steady stream of catty comments most of it centering on lesbianism. When there were close-ups, they made very cruel comments which I will not repeat here. Most of the opposition to the WUSA comes from other women. Congress can’t change that. Only women can change that.
I'm glad I still check in on this thread from time to time. I didn't realize Tom was going to offer an accidental proof of the perils of bad focus-group research. Tom, I could just as easily convene a group of my female friends to watch a game, and you'll find that the only comments about lesbianism are coming from the lesbian contingent. I'm going to be nice and spare everyone a trip down the Freudian route.
Come on Beau, you know you can't escape. It's like a bad car wreck. We have to just keep looking for some reason. LOL Personally, I've watched games with both men and women and I don't think either gender mentioned the lesbian aspect. The only person I know who did mention it, and in fact has mentioned it more than once, is my teenage daughter. I found that interesting for some reason.
Re: Re: Re: Errr, if you are referring to the Tom Cruise movie, that wasn't written by them -- I think there is a bit of sarcasm going on here... With all the freudianism going on in this thread it's also a bit odd to point out that it was based on a book by a guy called P.K. DICK.... :L
Radical feminism helped kill the WUSA. The entitlement mentality coupled with the endless political overtones did nothing to help. Two years ago, Dr. Donna Lopiano was interviewed by the Chicago Tribune. This was an opportunity to pitch the league. At least ninety-five per cent of the people who read the sports section carefully are male. She was asked if Chicago would get a WUSA franschise. This came at a time when the WUSA expansion rumors were about. Dr. Lopiano said that Chicago had a particularly strong male-dominated culture, and that this had to change before Chicago would be considered. Dr. Lolpano went on and on about the reasons for Chicago's affliction. Evidently she did not know that the most famous radical feminist, Katherine MacKinnon, was teaching at the University of Chicago Claw School at the time and Chicago had been the headquarters for many feminist organizations, including the once-powerful WCTU. I was appalled, but I was not surprised. She had taken a golden opportunity to gain fans and did her best to alienate them. It seemed to me at times that the WUSA would rather go out of business than have anything to do with men. If true, they got their wish.