Posted on 08/18/2016 12:32:54 PM PDT by Kaslin
My, my, there those feminists go, complaining again. This time the whining concerns supposedly “sexist” Olympics coverage. Their problem?
Many journalists are, we’re told, using different language when talking about female athletes than when speaking of male ones. Oh, the humanity!
There’s the guy who credited a female swimmer’s husband/coach for her success, the talk about a six-foot-three-inch South Korean woman volley ball player’s difficulty finding a boyfriend, and a reporter who called an equestrian rider “blondie.” Putting aside the female teacher who once called me blondie when I was 13, let’s have a reality check. Do you really think sports commentators don’t look for storylines, often infused with frivolity, relating to male athletes? And insofar as the treatment is different, so what? As even über-liberal Bill Maher once observed (I’m paraphrasing), “We have two standards because there are two sexes.” But speaking of standards and differences, let’s get to a quintessential feminist complaint in a recent (very) Lost Angeles Times piece about “sexist Olympics coverage.”
Citing a Cambridge University Press study, writer Julie Makinen tells us, “The research, which analyzed multibillion-word databases of written and spoken English language, found that in general, men are referenced twice as often as women, but when the topic is sports, the ratio is about 3 to 1.” Male athletes earn more money as well, which also irks the feminists.
Of course, this is much like complaining about how heavyweight boxers get more press than lightweights or, speaking of lightweights, like kvetching about Barack Obama getting more exposure than a state legislator from Lakeview. Has Makinen ever heard of “market forces”?
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
Where do you draw the line? A 6th round long snapper from North Dakota St. might sign a NFL contract and receive a $50,000 signing bonus and get cut during training camp versus the #1 draft pick that signs a multi-million dollar deal with guaranteed millions.
Women’s sports that are exciting/enjoyable to watch:
1. Gymnastics
2. Tennis
3. Swimming
4. Diving
5. Track and field mainly running races)
6. Ice skating
7. Speed skating
8. Equestrian events (women and men compete together)
Just today I was asking why we didn’t have Olympic Cannonball Diving or 100m Dash with Toddler and Mombag....
Another that I caught and enjoyed watching. Women’s handball. Mesmerized me as I watched the lasses from, if I recall correctly, the Netherlands.
Most female sports are played “technically” better than men. But men do more exciting things.
Most people do not want to see great basic skills.
“Title IX was the greatest thing that ever happened for women’s sports!”
Jumping in here with an opinion.
Title IX hurts more than it helps. Hurts men’s sports.
-Boston University dropped football program due to Title IX pressures after 91 years (http://www.nytimes.com/1997/11/02/sports/college-football-banned-boston-one-football-team-bu-century-pigskin-history.html?pagewanted=all)
-University of San Francisco cut football after 64 years (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Francisco_Dons_football)
-Colgate University eliminated men’s baseball after 107 years (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wGuul5uWKvU)
-Cornell University’s men’s fencing team was discontinued after 98 years. . .subsequently re-introduced
-Princeton University ended its wrestling program for fear of litigation due to an inability to satisfy “proportionality”. . .Princeton would have to eliminate 187 male athletes in addition to 106 football players to meet the gender quota and reach Title IX’s “safe harbor” for compliance, an action which would do nothing to advance women’s athletics. (http://www.princeton.edu/paw/web_exclusives/bonus_stories/bonus_060403_wrest.html)
-UCLA dropped its swimming and diving team in 1994 that had produced 16 Olympic Gold Medalists, 41 individual national titles, and a team title in 1982 (https://www.collegeswimming.com/news/2004/jul/27/ten-years-later-ucla-still-lacks-mens-team/)
-UCLA abandoned its men’s gymnastics team ten years after it had produced half of the United States team that won the gold medal in the 1984 Olympics (http://www.nytimes.com/2001/08/07/sports/gymnastics-colleges-reluctantly-drop-men-s-programs.html)
-Since 1982, over 64 schools discontinued male swimming and diving programs
-212 men’s gymnastics teams have been dropped since 1969 (2,544 roster positions lost); only 18 NCAA programs remain (216 roster positions)
-355 men’s college wrestling teams (22,000 roster positions) have been eliminated over the past decade
-James Madison University dropped men’s archery, indoor track, outdoor track, cross country, gymnastics, swimming and wrestling in 2006 (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/07/sports/othersports/07madison.html)
-Rutgers University eliminated men’s light weight crew, heavy weight crew, swimming, tennis, diving, and fencing in 2007
I think I disagree with your position that Title IX is a good thing.
If I want to watch the Williams sisters and their men counterparts play tennis, it will be on the Tennis Channel, not the olympics. The same goes for the NBA All Star Team.....
Then you must watch women’s tennis with the volume turned off. I can’t get past the loud grunt/scream combo noise they make every time they hit the ball.
“Then you must watch women’s tennis with the volume turned off.”
Womens’ sports have sound?? Next you will be telling me they keep score. Weird.
You're being ridiculous now........scholarships were intended to help those academically qualified for college or university but whose parents were financially unable to send them. After all, I'm sure you would agree that the purpose of universities was to provide an education.........NO?
We're talking about athletes here who are using college as a minor league to the pros and you know damn well.........so stay on topic!
Only if you swallow...........
Nice rebuttal. I guess you have no defense then.
You owe me a keyboard.
Where do you draw the line? I don't know, you tell me.
But it's obvious me that the #1 draft pick for the NFL was recruited at his respective university for his football skills, not his his intelligence.
As a side note, West Point and the Naval Academy don't seem to have a problem with this do they?
I'm going by the evidence of my own eyes, not my imagination.
Are you saying there isn't money to be made in women's sports?
Tell that to Serena Williams...
Estavana Polman
Scholarships exist to get a particular “group” (sometimes the under privileged, sometimes the very smart, sometimes the athletically gifted) into the university. I know a few folks who could afford college very easily that got scholarships, the Flinn is a nice ride if you can get it, but good luck getting it if you’re poor. In the end they’re about population control, the university wants some people enough to not charge them, and they get what they want from them. There’s no reason for a university to be reimbursed by athletes that make it into the pro version of their sport, that’s exactly what the university wanted from them, to be able to point to them when recruiting the NEXT group of athletes they’re going to give scholarships.
I'm glad you're so enthusiastic about government tyranny! Hooray!
I felt the response was appropriate............but I digress, do you swallow? Since you never answered the question, can I take that as a yes?
After all, I’m sure you would agree that the purpose of universities was to provide an education.........NO?
the purpose of universities was to prepare young people for gainful employment opportunities, of whatever type...
why are you claiming that employment through sport is any different from employment through business degree coursework...?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.