Re: howbouta men's soccer team That's why I am an ardent anti-Title IX guy. Title IX, like affirmative action, may have been needed a long time ago, but not anymore. It has served it's purpose, and now should be tossed into history's wastebasket where it belongs. Among the numerous problems with it; 1. It doesn't take into account men's only contact sports (football and wrestling) and exempt them. As long as these sports are around, there will never be Title IX parity. 2. Title IX states that the male/female ratio of scholarship athletes must be proportional to the general student body (ie., since LSU is 52% female and 48% male, Title IXers want 52% of our scholarship athletes to be female. This was one issue in the lawsuit a few years back. I got two words for them: AIN'T HAPPENIN'!) 3. Most small schools, private schools, and even big BCS boys operating on a limited budget are often forced to cut men's sports instead of adding women's sports. Case in point; a few years ago Miami was very nearly forced to eliminate their top-notch men's swimming and diving program, which has produced Olympians like Greg Louganis. The absolute carnage of college wrestling programs since Title IX became law has prompted a lawsuit by the National Collegiate Wrestling Coaches Association. Title IX feminazis simply don't understand that in the real world, schools operate on a fixed budget and that spending gobs of money on non-revenue producing sports just so the poor young ladies can "feel good about themselves" just isn't practical. I am all for keeping the basic ladies sports (basketball, softball, soccer, track and field, cross-country running, golf, tennis, swimming/diving, and a few others as demand allows) as long as we can also have new men's sports like soccer and wrestling (sports for which there is REAL demand for on this campus. I've talked to at least a dozen guys on campus who would try out tomorrow if LSU got a men's soccer team). True equality should be measured in equality of OPPURTUNITY, not numbers on paper to satisfy some bureaucrat. The new ladies rowing team is a prime example of what I'm talking about and how far over the edge we have gone with Title IX. Abolish this draconian rule NOW!
Great points Jetstorm. I never really thought about the fact that some sports are men only and how that throws off the equation. I can't really think of any sports that are women only. Maybe synchronized swimming.
Title IX was thought up of in the 60's to allow women a chance to play college athletics. I think people feel that if Title IX is dropped then shortly after schools would unload some womens sports. Because there would be no laws requiring equality schools would rid themselves of the women sports that are not doing anything. That assumption is crazy and even if Title IX is dropped womens sports along with me's will be helped. There are a couple of mens sports that would do great here at LSU but since Title IX is in effect we cannot have them. Wrestling, Mens's Soccer, and mabey even Men's Volleyball to name a few. Title IX is not really helping womens sports too much but is effecting men's in a big way. Right now I think with Title IX you have to have two more womens sports than men's. LSU Men's Sports-Football, Basketball, Baseball, Track and Field, Cross Country, Golf, Tennis, Swimming and Diving 8 Teams LSU Women's Sports-Volleyball, Softball, Gymnastics,Cross Country, Track and Field, Soccer,Golf, Basketball, Tennis, Swimming and Diving 10Teams
Mike D you are correct. Synchronized swimming is the only "sport" that I can think of that women play that men don't. Spirit groups are not factored into Title IX as they are not recognized by the NCAA (oddly enough, the same feminists who rail about Title IX equality oppose the recognition of cheerleaders and dance lines as women's sports. Women are only held back by other women, not men, but that is another discussion for another time.) You are right on Death Valley. Each school should make it's decision about what sports it will have based on common sense factors like student demand and participation, fan support, cost, and practicality. Feminazis have long predicted complete and utter DOOM for women's collegiate athletics if Title IX were repealed. This is ridiculous. Women's basketball and softball are now firmly entrenched in American sports culture all the way down to the pee-wee level. Women's golf now has the LPGA and Junior LPGA to feed both the tour and colleges. And don't forget the significance of the Olympic sports in women's college sports. As long as we have those, there will be a need for collegiate women's sports like volleyball and gymnastics. Title IX is no longer needed to advance women's sports. They have advanced enough. It's time to take the training wheels off and for the ladies to make it on their own. All Title IX is doing now is preventing thousands of young men from achieving their dreams of playing college sports. If Title IX were repealed tomorrow, LSU would be keeping all 10 of our women's sports and might still look to add more, while adding the same men's sports (men's gymnastics, men's volleyball, men's soccer) that they ALREADY HAVE. True equality is about equality of oppurtunity. The women have theirs already. Let's give it to everyone.
The dancing teams are another good point. I pretty sure that the cheerleaders get scholarships from the school. Why shouldn't that be considered into the equation when considering Title IX complianec? It is a way for girls to improve their self esteem and be active - both goals of Title IX - and is paid for by the school. On other equality issues: how do yall feel about the Masters/Augusta debate; the woman playing in an upcoming PGA tour event; and the guy trying to play in the US Women's Open in golf? IMO, Augusta=no women, Sorenstam=good for her, Guy in Open=moron trying to get attention
I beleive Cheerleading shoudl be considered a scholarship sport. There is as much risk for injury as any other sport. They put in considerable time and training into it too, along with the many competitions they compete in. Augusta and Masters, I beleive Augusta has every right to admit who they see fit. Woman playing on PGA tour event, I saw go ahead, women's golf is different from men's, they use the tea that is further back for men. As far as the man wanting to play on the LPGA, go right ahead, although it's a lame attempt at attention.
I think if women want on the mens tour then men should be allowed on the women. Their the ones screaming equaility so give it to us too. jmo though.
It's the same thing in the scouts. Women can be leaders in the Boy Scouts but men can't be a leader in the Girl Scouts. What gives?
I think it's different in this case though. The PGA stands for the Professional Golfers Association. There is nothing in the rules that says anything about sex. In other words, it was made for the best golfers in the world, not just the best male golfers in the world. Otherwise it would be called the MPGA. I say if a woman can qualify, more power to her. Conversely, the LPGA was specifically designed for women. In its rules, it says you have to be born a woman.