Back by popular demand. A case of Title IX fever broke out while we were discussing the new contract terms for the USWNT, and a possible strike. I think one of the things that hurt the WUSA AND the USWNT is the shrill political message which often went hand in hand with the sport. It is never just about the game; it is always some baloney about breaking barriers, inclduing the ridiculaous lie that US women could not play team sports until the Founders came along. Thoughts?
For the record, Mr. Flannigan was the "Typhoid Mary" of said fever. Again. Feel free to enjoy the thread.
Tom you're level of self awareness is trully a beautiful thing. Posative rep for you there buddy. hillarious.
pathetic attempt at self flagellation Tom. Things must really suck at home for you to have come up with that title. Do me a favor and take a break. Your "looser" aroma is competing with my beautiful Thanksgiving dinner. Come back tomorrow.
I love it when someone flames me in a public forum and cannot spell "loser" right. Hope everyone had a nice Thanksgiving!
note I'm not taking side with this statement! this isn't about "play" but "money" (scholarships, costs of running teams) and the difficulty many schools have in supporting sports other than football & basketball for men, when before things "seemed" better
I find it really hard to believe that it would have made a wink of difference to the WUSA if there had been absolutely none of the supposed "baloney about breaking barriers." I just can't see how the "baloney about breaking barriers" could have hurt the WUSA in any way. Would more people have showed up to the games, or more companies have sponsored the league, if there were no such "baloney about breaking barriers"? How did the "shrill political message" end up hurting the WUSA?
Michael Jordan was asked once why he avoided political statements. He said: "Because Republicans buy shoes too." If you notice, every entertainment form, from the Chicago Symphony to the Circus to the NFL, scrupulously avoids politics. No matter what your stand it will cost you customers. Obviously, the WUSA had bigger prblems than the radical feminist screed it was wrapped up in. But all negatice factors hurt. I also think the Founders started believing their own press releases and this affected their thinking. The WUSA hired an executive who was a top assistant to Hillary Rodham-Clinton. The woman had never even seen a soccer game. Do you think she was a good choice for management? People want entertainment. They don't buy tickets to a sports match to be lectured about life's kinjustices, real or imagined. The same thing is happening with the USWNT. Remember that awful video they played before games at the 99 WWC? Remember all the grabage about it being a "great victory for women?" It was a women's tournament. A women's team was going to win it no matter what happened. JUst my opinions.
I agree with some of the things said by several different posters. Like Mr Flannigan, I could have done without some of the "I am woman, hear me roar stuff". I do understand the goals of inspiring young women and girls. They need role models too. Hell, I looked up to a lot of the WUSA players and I was a 35 y.o. guy. I don't think that it was "radical tiltle 1X femenisim". With all due respect to my friend, Mr Flannigan, I find that too be really quite amusing. I have to agree with my friend GLBryan, as well. Nothing revolutionary about the goal of equal access to scholarships (i.e. cash) at the university/college level. To me, it is basically about equity. I get annoyed when I feel like the propaganda machine goes overboard. On both sides. Is it really a "brave new world" when a school offers an equal amount of athletic scholarships and spots for female students as it does for male students. It's also not the end of the world... Having said all of that, I don't think that any sort of politics had anything to do with the WUSA going under. Budget, supply & demand and overestimation/underestimations had more to do with it than any sort of politics. I still miss the WUSA. Washington Freedom, RIP
yankiboy, what a nice, reasoble post. But Title IKX is not at all about equality. It is about a quaote that applied only to sports and helps widen the educational gap that already fabors women. Sixty percent of college freshpersons are female and the percentage grows every year. The Road to Seventy Per Cent is clear. No one makes a peep about women getting the lion's share of all other scholarship money, or calls for the cheerleading team or swing choir to get to equal numbers of males.
Thanks for the kind words Mr Flannigan. I guess that we will agree to disagree. Arguing about Title IX is a bit like discussing affirmative action, tuition vouchers, and No Child Left Behind. Most people already have a very strong feeling about them and it is unlikely that anyone will actually change their mind. Thanks again for the kind words...
Tell that to Barbara Streisand, The Dixie Chicks, Sean Penn, Alex Baldwin, Sheryl Crow, etc. They are very vocal about their political views and some are downright nasty with and about anyone who doesn't share their views. I've never gotten that same nastiness or shrillness as you call it from the WNT. Have they advanced themselves as role models for girls? Definitely and more power to them. Girls need role models and these girls have been excellent ones. To my knowledge no WNTer has been arrested for spouse abuse, rape, drugs, beating up a fan, etc. Thomas you probably did not experience not having a team to play on because of your sex when you were growing up. I did and I'm glad that it is not a concern for my daughter. I also have a son and so far I don't think he has missed out on any opportunities because of his gender. Title IX is probably not perfect but until something better comes along that can make sure that everyone has an equal chance to play its the best we've got and it has the support of this ultra-conversative republican.
Bryan, I did not have a team to play on when I was growing up. The reason? I was not good enough. Only a small percentage of males are good enough to get a spot on a high school team. The competition is fierce. We now have a situation where men's sports are being eliminated while just about any woman can make some team at her school, whether she is any good at the sport or not, or whether she has ever played it or not. You don't see the men asking that the entire string section at the student orchestra get canned because it is 80 per cent female, and have men replace them even if they have never touched a violin. This Quota business only applies to sports, totally contrary to the legislative history of Title IX. Women's intercollegiate basketball started in 1896, and they have had a national championship since 1929. Women have had the chance to play intercollegiate sports way before any of the USWNT players came along. But I appreciate your reasonable tone and absence of hostility.
I was good enough and didn't get the chance to play organized sports until I was a freshman. The boys started in the 6th grade (at school, earlier if you count rec ball). I don't think men should be punished because of that but there has to be something in place to make sure that there are equitable opportunities. Do you have a plan apart from Title IX? Agreed, womens' basketball has been around for a long time but not in equal proportion to men's. I went to a college with no women's sports (and I'm not that old). I'm five or six years older than the Title IXers. I will also agree that the Wnt'ers are not the first sports role models for women. I had a few. Chris Evert and Nancy Liebermen come to mind. But they are definitely the most visible. And other than individual athletes like Evert have had the most media coverage and tv time. They have become a symbol or a rallying point for women like me who didn't have a chance to play or who have daughters that they want to have opportunities. That doesn't mean that they or we hate men and want to take away their opportunities. Shoot, I have a husband and a son and I will fight to make sure my son has every opportunity that my daughter does. So far he has had the opportunity to do and play whatever he wants. Also, regarding the band or symphony illustration, I don't think men are being denied the opportunity to play. If they want to play, I'm sure they can. In fact my husband went to college on a band scholarship.
Well now at least we have an explanation for your "illness." You really wanted to be a woman so you could play sports in second class facilities. Thanks for sharing. Sorry you missed out!
I am all in favor of Title IX. I am opposed to the Quota. If they applied a quota to all aspects of unvisersity activities it would be a disaster for women, since they would lose scholarship money, even places in school, let alone lesser items such as a seat in the choir. Instead, it is selectively applied only to sports, the only extracurricular activity NOT dominated by women. Bryan is right, men are not denied the opportunity to sing in the choir or join the debate team. A number of factors make the numbers so skewed in favor of women. I am opposed to a Quota in the student band or orchestra or financial aid budget. I am also opposed to a quota in sports.
I can't believe I am saying this but in theory I agree with you. I am not a big fan of quotas. However, how else do you make sure women get a fair shake? I think (hope) we can all agree that pre-Title IX women were under-represented in sports and did not get a fair shake. Most women (even us radical feminists) do not wish to see mens sports suffer in order for ours to prosper. We just want a fair chance to play. Universities spending 75 cents of every $1 of mens programs is not fair. And on equality and gender issues in general I feel the same. I don't want preferential treatment just equal. I don't want to get a job or scholarship to meet a quota but if I am the most qualified I want the job regardless of my gender.
I don't think we are that far apart, either, Bryan. I agree that in the past women were less likely to participate in intercollegiate sports than men. But a lot of that is because they aren't as interested in sports as men. In intramural sports, there is no quota in college. Eighty per cent of the participants are men, 20 per cent women. No one is turned away. All students are elligible. But not that many women bother to participate. At all women's colleges, you have NCAA teams, but not too many. The levels of participation there are lower than at coed schools in many cases. You can't blame men for that. You can't blame money either. In every other extracurricular activity, men are the minority. They have the opportunity to play music, or dance, or debate but they aren't as interested in many of these activities as women are. So you have a symphony orchestra with 85 per cent females and no one is screaming about scholarships there. I don't have an easy answer but I would get rid of the Quota, and keep the other two prongs of the 3 part test. The radical feminists would never stand for this but it certainly is fairer than what we have now. If a young woman wants to play sports, she can write her own ticket at most schools. They are begging women to participate. But what if she is more interested in music and budget probllems are making it harder and harder for her to get financial aid and playing time? Have you helped women with the Quota? I don't think so.
I'm thinking there is a big difference at most schools in an atheletic scholarship especially in football or basketball and almost any music scholarship.