Two indepth articles appear on www.cybersoccernews.com discussing the latest on Title IX and how future decisions could impact women's sports in the USA. Ed
Reckless scare-mongering At the present moment, there are serious feminist issues at stake. Title IX reform is not one of them. In terms of women's soccer, Title IX has done its job, adding over 700 programs. The proposed reforms are not going to take them away.
CybersoccerNews should at least make an attempt to label one-sided opinion artcles as such. There's certainly room for debate on this issue, and more than enoough room for interpretaton and honest differences of opinon. This "The Evil Anti-Female Bush Administration is Attacking Women's Soccer in a Blatent Attempt to Send Women Back to the Kitchen" article contributes nothing but an excellent example of how a some people's ideological bias makes it impossible to rationally discuss topics like this. CSN should be ashamed. They had been making strides toward being recognized as a responsible news source. This sort of crap just proves how far they have to go.
Cybersoccer News ought to stick to soccer. Ed's main interest here is bashing Geaorge Bush. The "Bush Administration" hasn't proposed anything, let alone "debilitating" changes which will "ravish" soccer "in the US" Unbelieveable. There has been a long, loud clamor about some of the provisions in Title IX for years. The federal governemnt, rather than simply ignore a very large, maybe a majority, of the opinions expressed, agreed to a BI-PARTISAN commission of Americans from accrosss the political, educational and athletic spectrum to at least listen to some of these complaints from REAL LIVE AMERICAN citizens. They are getting ready to release a report. At present, nobody knows what it will say. Nobody, that is, but CyberSoccerNews: It's clear to them - "THE TRUTH" they bellow, as if they were Pravda, and then proceed to claim that "The Bush Adminsitration" is proposing to trash the whole thing. Which is patently untrue. Why don't we wait and see what this INDEPENDENT COMMISSION comes up with, and the administrations' repsponse, before we go screaming likelunatics about "Bush" Frighteningly biased, no basis in fact, pure speculation and absolutely unprofessional. Good job, Ed.
Oh, you mean like get some actual facts first? Why bother? Never stopped CSN before. Should have had Dan Loney write it. At least would have gotten some entertainment in return for slogging through the mindless Bush bashing. I'm no big fan of the current administration, but stuff like this only makes people who have legitimate issues look ridiculous.
One truth about Title IX is that it doesn't apply to the WUSA, (or the national team for that matter). Title IX's affect on the WUSA is very indirect, and only due to the fact that many WUSA players have been to high school and/or college. Title IX is a little more relevant in the Women's College forum, (at least it applies to colleges), so I'm going to move this thread there.
"Proposed Bush Administration changes to Title IX would have debilitating effects on the future of soccer in the U.S." Just one probelm here: There ARE no "proposed Bush Administration changes to Title IX". None. Zip. Zilch. Nada. But CSN is sure that, whatever these non-existent proposals are, they come straight from George Bush and will have a "debilitating effect" on US Soccer. What a crock. There's a committee report about to come out that may PROPOSE that the Congress change some provisions of the law. Or it may not. So why doesn't CSN take a pill here and wait until someone proposes something before they start personally attacking the President? Just a suggestion.
Daer Ed and attendant leftist clowns at CyberSoccerNews: Well, the report came out today. The results from the committee of right wing Bush Administration fascists (including among the 14 voting members Julie Foudy and Debbie Yow, among other female hating animals) consists of about one proposed change: They've decided to recommend not counting walk-on athletes against the final totals. Now would you be so kind as to explain, please, how this will constitute the "debilitating" destruction of Title IX ? Thanks Bill
grr . . . 1. Debbie Yow HAS been bad for women's sports at UMD and got the job because she's more of a "good ol' boy" than some of the good ol' boys. She can sell the university to football and say, "but I'm a woman and I think it's ok." It's called "cover." 1a. did you know that more than 2/3rds of schools don't even try to meet proportionality? (the SCHOOL gets to pick whether it wants to meet Title IX through proportionality, a history of improvement, or meeting student interest). 2. the committee DID give the Bush administration cover (by refusing to allow a "minority report" when the committee is made up of 10 D1 AD's - football guys/gals all - and 5 women's sports advocates) to substantially weaken an already toothless law. 3. how the commission report is used by the Bush administration is the key - clearly the report will be open to interpretation and it is certainly likely that the Bush administration education people will not be looking out for the rights of women when they are doing the interpreting. I'm afraid we're not even to the interval on this yet. "The commission has opened the barn door for the Bush administration to weaken Title IX. This gives the education secretary license to do pretty much anything he wants." - Donna Lopiano's interpretation of the proceedings.
You're right that this is the main point. It doesn't actually matter how the kangaroo commission voted. They're just recommendations for Ed Sec Ron Paige, who is free to adopt or reject any of them as the Bush admin pleases. As for Deborah Yow, you've got to feel embarrassed for her sister - Basketball Hall of Fame Coach Kay Yow, who has been a true women's sports pioneer and advocate. As for Bill Archer, don't waste your time arguing. I was curious about his misogynist citation in the dorrance lawsuit thread so checked into his "personal forum" -- https://www.bigsoccer.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?forumid=395 . Apparently Mr. Archer prefers his female athletes topless or "on cam", which really boosts his credibility inTitle IX discussions.
Because clearly anyone who likes both sex and sport is a "misogynist" Name calling. The last resort of those without rational arguments.
I didn't say YOU were misogynist, Bill, I said you cited a misogynist article in a different thead. Which you did. If you think "liking sex and sport" is the problem, though, that's kind of sad.
If I were you, I'd pray VERY hard that Fred's wife doesn't find out you're over here implying he's some lind of pig. She will carve you a brand new one. You have no idea what you're talking about. And the whole point here is the ASSUMPTION that the Administration wants to strip out Title IX. There is literally no indication, other than typically shrill, hysterical nonsense, that this is the case. Why is it so difficult for you to understand that if a large number of citizens are complaining about something that the government has an OBLIGATION to look into it. If you have complaints about the results, fine. Then you can object, fight, demonstrate, whatever you want. But until then, you're just whining about nothing.
Re: grr . . . This is completely ridiculous. Deborah Yow is nothing short of a trail-blazer for women's sports. In particular, her career as an administrator has been remarkably successful, and Maryland now satisfies the Title IX proportionality quota. She's no friend of the current Title IX regulations, but as an Athletic Director, she's well qualified to assess their consequences. You may disagree with her opinions, but spare us the ad hominem attacks.