Posted on 01/17/2006 2:32:51 PM PST by MensRightsActivist
"It's too bad that male sports are being eliminated on most college campuses. Except for Texas, USC, and a few other places, radical feminism rules in the athletic departments at the expense of popular male sports.
Feminists oppose anything that is all-male or all-female unless it's gay marriage. They won't be able to ban the Rose Bowl anytime soon, but the Feminist Majority Foundation posts this warning on its website: "By encouraging boys to become aggressive, violent athletes, and by encouraging girls to cheer for them, we perpetuate the cycle of male aggression and violence against women."
Meanwhile, the feminists are censoring out hundreds of traditional manly college sports teams. If your favorite college once had a wrestling, baseball or track team, check again: there's a good chance it has been eliminated."
(Excerpt) Read more at eagleforum.org ...
I'm sorry, but if young men aren't going to college in such numbers simply because the school doesn't have a wrestling team, or a football team, or whatever, then we've got deeper problems than Title IX.
And, if people are
going to college for sports,
that's a problem, too!
When Malcolm X was in Junior High, a teacher told him he should not expect to become a lawyer and instead he should plan to work in a trade. This incident created the sad life he ended up living, it scarred him. Now, today, all young men, no matter what race, need to think about whether their own dreams are realistic. Even if they are the most qualified candidate, they might get passed over for a quota hire / promo. Why bother?
I've always wondered what kind of graduates a university would turn out if they put all their money and efforts into teaching.
What a novel idea! :-) Pity it'll never catch on.
Ping
I agree. College is not about sports (unless you plans a career in sports)
4 years of your life and $100,000-$ 160,000 to get a degree for something that a person in India will do for one tenth the wage--yeah, there's a ticket for success.
Unless you plan to be a professional(including teaching), why bother with college. The social paradigm has chnged, and the social contract of long term corporate employment is over. That's why boomers went to college--for the social contract that existed.
Those days are gone. A liberal arts degree, except for very few, has no value, especially in the realm of outsourcing.
Learning is great, but it isn't the guaranteed ticket it once was.
As long as the sport makes money, it isn't in any danger.
Certainly, we do have much deeper problems than just the elimination of educational motivators for males. I would say the feminazification of the whole educational process is a much bigger problem. Taxpayer Funded - Women's Studies Programs, Departments, & Research Centers
There are no comparable Men's Studies Programs anywhere in the U.S. that I know of, and each Women's Studies Program has numerous classes that are taught under each program. Why doesn't Title IX address the inequities in that? Why doesn't Title IX address the inequities in enrollment, now that males are significantly in the minority?
Many Women's Studies Programs offer "internships" to train young women how to get more taxpayer money for "women's programs." Males are being segregated out of the educational process one insidious, gender feminist law and policy at a time.
I don't think there is any proven correlation between education spending and quality of education, past the minimums - some land, buildings, laboratories and books. Washington DC spends the most per capita on their students and they have the worst SAT scores. Some midwestern state spends among the least and has the highest SAT scores.
Most schools overfund. They just overfund sports even more than they overfund teaching. I think the solution would be to have the consumers of the product (students) pay for the product (education). The way university professors were paid in the distant past was that tickets to their lectures were sold. The student got to decide how to allocate his (no "hers" went to college at the time) resources among food, beer, books and lectures. Not a bad idea, really.
I would take it a step further. If professional sports wants institutions for the selection of training of potential professional athletes then they should fund university programs, in total, much like they do with farm league teams.
The scarring was due to being told that in spite of having all of the essential skills to become a lawyer, because he was black, he would never be (at least according to that teacher). For the many young men today who will be passed over due to so called "Afirmative Action" perpetrated by the feminags, they might as well be told similar things.
You'd think so wouldn't you? Sound business practice should have a bearing, but it doesn't figure in when equal participation in women's sports can't be found. In such cases "profitable" male sports programs are just eliminated to establish the gender feminist's view of equality in sports programs.
Sport programs have long been a tool in the eudcational process that have helped males to endure to boredom of education. Sports have served as a constructive outlet for the restlessness of young men. For many males, sportsmanship and respect for rules are learned. Unfortunately, it is the high dollar earning exceptions we sometimes read about in the newspapers.
... and no, colleges and universities do not bother to look at female heavy enrollments like dance, music, etc. Title IX really only looks at programs (like athletics) where males are disproportionately enrolled and seeks to destroy those programs when women can't be induced to enroll in equal numbers.
The entire college experience is one long, incredibly dull narrative on the evils of white people, the West, and America.
Do you really think Title IX just applies to athletics? If Hillary were to be elected President, don't be surprised if it starts getting applied to math, physics, and computer science classes. It was never intended for Title IX to created quotas on athletes, but that's what it has been twisted into. In the future, the federal govenment could start enforcing gender quotas on academic classes. Some of Bill Clinton's underlings were openly advocating such policies.
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.