I want to start this post with a disclaimer: If you are a feminist, disregard this post, and come back next time.
So now that all the feminists are gone, we can begin. Most people at least have a vague idea of what title nine is. But for those of you who don't, it's basically an attempt to eliminate sexism. However, today, we really only see examples of this law in place in high school and college sports. In an effort to create gender equality, schools must provide as much funding for women's sports as men's sports.
So right there, there is the first puzzling example of title IX. Besides the phenomenon which was the Connecticut women's basketball team, and people like Danica Patrick, who doesn't even really play a sport, women's sports are meaningless. Yet schools are expected the spend as much money on these so called "sports" as men's sports. Subsequently, teams like women's gymnastics, and swimming, receive unrealistically large funding, to compensate for large spending sports such as football and men's basketball. Meanwhile, the men's equivalents of women's sports, which are usually less popular in large schools, suffer. This is a 'hot-button' issue lately, across the nation, as many schools are being forced to eliminate men's sports, to comply with Title IX.
Seriously, what the fuck. We all know that football is more exciting than field hockey, and baseball is much better than softball. Yet many schools, such as the University of California, Berkeley, were forced to cut sports very recently. Due to their want to continue their football program, Cal had to cut its baseball team and faced the possibility of having to reduce the men's rugby team (several time national champions) to a club status.
Now, it is true that sports do provide education for many people, and have managed to help both men and women, but it is ridiculous to think that funding should be equal among genders. Before the economy was this bad, overspending was more acceptable, but in the current state of this country, funding has to be cut. Whereas I have heard people say women's sports at Cal used to get golf carts and iPods to account for men's spending, the case now, causes cuts in men's sports and no iPods for the women.
Realistically, the best option is simple. Title IX can still exist, but make it exempt to sports which really matter (i.e. football and men's basketball). Thus, equal spending would still happen, but football and basketball spending wouldn't be included in the equation, making all women's spending equal to men's sports such as baseball, rugby, swimming, and the other sports no one cares about. Subsequently, football and basketball programs would thrive, and possible draw more money to the University.
But despite any attempt to change things, just think about: Does it really make sense to spend as much money on women's sports as men's? I think anyone who has lasted through this whole post knows the real answer: We want more of this: except with Cal on the other side of the equation.
So now that all the feminists are gone, we can begin. Most people at least have a vague idea of what title nine is. But for those of you who don't, it's basically an attempt to eliminate sexism. However, today, we really only see examples of this law in place in high school and college sports. In an effort to create gender equality, schools must provide as much funding for women's sports as men's sports.
Seriously, what the fuck. We all know that football is more exciting than field hockey, and baseball is much better than softball. Yet many schools, such as the University of California, Berkeley, were forced to cut sports very recently. Due to their want to continue their football program, Cal had to cut its baseball team and faced the possibility of having to reduce the men's rugby team (several time national champions) to a club status.
Now, it is true that sports do provide education for many people, and have managed to help both men and women, but it is ridiculous to think that funding should be equal among genders. Before the economy was this bad, overspending was more acceptable, but in the current state of this country, funding has to be cut. Whereas I have heard people say women's sports at Cal used to get golf carts and iPods to account for men's spending, the case now, causes cuts in men's sports and no iPods for the women.
Realistically, the best option is simple. Title IX can still exist, but make it exempt to sports which really matter (i.e. football and men's basketball). Thus, equal spending would still happen, but football and basketball spending wouldn't be included in the equation, making all women's spending equal to men's sports such as baseball, rugby, swimming, and the other sports no one cares about. Subsequently, football and basketball programs would thrive, and possible draw more money to the University.
But despite any attempt to change things, just think about: Does it really make sense to spend as much money on women's sports as men's? I think anyone who has lasted through this whole post knows the real answer: We want more of this: except with Cal on the other side of the equation.
Comments
Post a Comment