Dark side of Title IX starts to show
J
Dark side of Title IX starts to show
Jim Brown - OneNewsNow - 8/9/2008 4:05:00 AM
A conservative columnist says the Olympics serve as a great reminder of the
"dark side" of Title IX - its "assault" on men's non-revenue sports programs
on college campuses.
Passed in 1972 as an education amendment, Title IX bans sex discrimination
in college athletics. In order to comply with Title IX, colleges have tried
to attain what's called "proportionality," where a school's gender breakdown
among athletes reflects the gender breakdown of the student body.
Alison Kasic, director of the Center for College Studies at the Independent
Women's Forum, says Olympic sports like swimming, track and field, wrestling
and gymnastics have been the hardest hit in the Title IX era.
"Basically Title IX has been sort of two tales. On the women's side it's
done a lot of good and really dramatically increased participation numbers,
but on the men's side we've just seen countless programs get cut and where
programs aren't cut you also see roster caps basically limiting the amount
of participants that can participate in these men's sports. So it's been
overall a positive story for women and unfortunately, a negative story for
men."
Kasic notes there's been a more than 18% decline in the number of male
swimmers at the Division I level since 1984, a statistic that leads her to
wonder how many other potentially elite male athletes have been denied the
opportunity to compete as a result of Title IX.
"Copyright 2007 American Family News Network - Used by permission."
--
J Young
Jvis...@live.com
Owner of 'LC'
jemcd
>http://www.onenewsnow.com/Culture/Default.aspx?id=205708
>
>
>
>
>Dark side of Title IX starts to show
>
>
After 35 years you are whining about it?
What a dickhead, you think that trying to be fair to female athletes
is wrong because they are getting more opportunities than misogynist
pricks like you think they deserve?
I have a neice that is thriving on an athletic scholarship that
probably wouldn't exist without Title IX.
fuck you
Spartakus
Title IX provides women with the same benefits of participating in
intercollegiate sports as men. For that reason, rightwing throwbacks
like JYoung/IBen *hate* Title IX, because to them, sports is primarily
a *male* endeavor. But you'd be surprised to learn what is really
killing men's track, swimming, gymnastics programs. It's not Title IX
- it's colleges pouring money into so-called "revenue sports" like
football and basketball. It's those 6- and 7-figure salaries paid to
high-profile coaches that's killing "non-revenue" sports, not Title IX.
Grizzlie Antagonist
> On Sat, 9 Aug 2008 20:30:23 -0400, "J" <Jvis...@live.com> wrote:
>
>>http://www.onenewsnow.com/Culture/Default.aspx?id=205708
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>Dark side of Title IX starts to show
>>
>>
>
> After 35 years you are whining about it?
> What a dickhead, you think that trying to be fair to female athletes
> is wrong because they are getting more opportunities than misogynist
> pricks like you think they deserve?
That's exactly what I think. Female athletes should not get more
opportunities than misogynist pricks like me.
> I have a neice that is thriving on an athletic scholarship that
> probably wouldn't exist without Title IX.
> fuck you
Your niece should be slaving over a hot stove for a man.
Grizzlie Antagonist
"Spartakus" <spar...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:966a7488-13a5-4106...@p31g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
"J" <Jvisi...@live.com> wrote:
Sports IS primarily a male endeavor, and in the ideal world, it should be
EXCLUSIVELY a male endeavor.
> you'd be surprised to learn what is really
> killing men's track, swimming, gymnastics programs. It's not Title IX
Yes, it IS Title IX that's killing them.
> - it's colleges pouring money into so-called "revenue sports" like
> football and basketball. It's those 6- and 7-figure salaries paid to
> high-profile coaches that's killing "non-revenue" sports, not Title IX.
Those ARE revenue sports and they pay for themselves. Duh.
Anyway, a six and seven figure salary paid to a high-profile male coach is a
more worthwhile expenditure of money than it would be on ANY female athlete.
John Baker
His niece could probably kick your ass.
>
Spartakus
[--a lot of sexist drivel, ending with the following--]
> Anyway, a six and seven figure salary paid to a high-profile male coach is
> a more worthwhile expenditure of money than it would be on ANY female
> athlete.
The Internet - so simple that even a caveman can use it.
Now, be nice to your Mom and maybe she'll make you a sandwich.
Grizzlie Antagonist
news:5tks949f9ig7dvhap...@4ax.com...
I'd probably catch some sort of communicable disease just from looking at
her.
Grizzlie Antagonist
> "Grizzlie Antagonist" <lloydsofhanf...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> [--a lot of sexist drivel, ending with the following--]
>
>> Anyway, a six and seven figure salary paid to a high-profile male coach
>> is
>> a more worthwhile expenditure of money than it would be on ANY female
>> athlete.
>
> The Internet - so simple that even a caveman can use it.
How do you know?
> Now, be nice to your Mom and maybe she'll make you a sandwich.
I was nice to your Mom last night, and she BECAME my sandwich.
Andrew Usher
Incredibly profound ...
Andrew Usher
Douglas Berry
<lloydso...@yahoo.com> carved the following into the hard stone
of alt.atheism
Dude, you're into 72 year old women? Ew. Just, Ew.
--
Douglas Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail
Atheist #2147, Atheist Vet #5
Jason Gastrich is praying for me on 8 January 2011
"The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the
source of all true art and all science. He to whom this emotion is a
stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as
good as dead: his eyes are closed." - Albert Einstein
Grizzlie Antagonist
"Douglas Berry" <pengu...@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote in message
news:8fts94dkede2ph4qk...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 9 Aug 2008 19:44:07 -0700 "Grizzlie Antagonist"
> <lloydso...@yahoo.com> carved the following into the hard stone
> of alt.atheism
>>"Spartakus" <spar...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
>>news:6fe0b3f8-7f35-425e...@p10g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>>> "Grizzlie Antagonist" <lloydsofhanf...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> [--a lot of sexist drivel, ending with the following--]
>>>
>>>> Anyway, a six and seven figure salary paid to a high-profile male coach
>>>> is
>>>> a more worthwhile expenditure of money than it would be on ANY female
>>>> athlete.
>>>
>>> The Internet - so simple that even a caveman can use it.
>>
>>
>>How do you know?
>>
>>
>>> Now, be nice to your Mom and maybe she'll make you a sandwich.
>>
>>
>>I was nice to your Mom last night, and she BECAME my sandwich.
>
> Dude, you're into 72 year old women? Ew. Just, Ew.
As an athiest, you are the last person in the world who would be
"judgmental" about it, I'm sure. I know that athiests have an allergy to
the idea of passing judgment on matters of private morality.
DanielSan
What the heck is an "athiest"?
--
****************************************************
* DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226 *
*--------------------------------------------------*
* Can God create a Thai dish so spicy that even He *
* can't eat it? *
****************************************************
Grizzlie Antagonist
news:1ZCdnZ9poNed5APV...@speakeasy.net...
> Grizzlie Antagonist wrote:
>> "Douglas Berry" <pengu...@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote in message
>> news:8fts94dkede2ph4qk...@4ax.com...
>>> On Sat, 9 Aug 2008 19:44:07 -0700 "Grizzlie Antagonist"
>>> <lloydso...@yahoo.com> carved the following into the hard stone
>>> of alt.atheism
>>>> "Spartakus" <spar...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:6fe0b3f8-7f35-425e...@p10g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>>>>> "Grizzlie Antagonist" <lloydsofhanf...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> [--a lot of sexist drivel, ending with the following--]
>>>>>
>>>>>> Anyway, a six and seven figure salary paid to a high-profile male
>>>>>> coach
>>>>>> is
>>>>>> a more worthwhile expenditure of money than it would be on ANY female
>>>>>> athlete.
>>>>> The Internet - so simple that even a caveman can use it.
>>>>
>>>> How do you know?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Now, be nice to your Mom and maybe she'll make you a sandwich.
>>>>
>>>> I was nice to your Mom last night, and she BECAME my sandwich.
>>> Dude, you're into 72 year old women? Ew. Just, Ew.
>>
>>
>> As an athiest, you are the last person in the world who would be
>> "judgmental" about it, I'm sure. I know that athiests have an allergy to
>> the idea of passing judgment on matters of private morality.
>
> What the heck is an "athiest"?
What the hell is "heck"?
DanielSan
What the fuck is "hell"?
65ja...@gmail.com
> http://www.onenewsnow.com/Culture/Default.aspx?id=205708
Use serious sources if you want to be taken seriously, bitch.
>
> Dark side of Title IX starts to show
Why do you hate women so much, bitch: because you're a pathetic troll
in dire need of attention or because you're a closet gay?
Grizzlie Antagonist
<65ja...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:02c2f44c-6f91-481c...@a70g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
Why do you hate men so much, weenie: because you're a pathetic troll in dire
DanielSan
Oh, wow. Epic fail.
MCP
<65ja...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:02c2f44c-6f91-481c...@a70g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
Robibnikoff
"Douglas Berry" <pengu...@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote in message
news:8fts94dkede2ph4qk...@4ax.com...
> <lloydso...@yahoo.com> carved the following into the hard stone
> of alt.atheism
>>"Spartakus" <spar...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
>>news:6fe0b3f8-7f35-425e...@p10g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>>> "Grizzlie Antagonist" <lloydsofhanf...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> [--a lot of sexist drivel, ending with the following--]
>>>
>>>> Anyway, a six and seven figure salary paid to a high-profile male coach
>>>> is
>>>> a more worthwhile expenditure of money than it would be on ANY female
>>>> athlete.
>>>
>>> The Internet - so simple that even a caveman can use it.
>>
>>
>>How do you know?
>>
>>
>>> Now, be nice to your Mom and maybe she'll make you a sandwich.
>>
>>
>>I was nice to your Mom last night, and she BECAME my sandwich.
>
> Dude, you're into 72 year old women? Ew. Just, Ew.
Not even if she looked like this? ;)
http://www.hola.com/perfiles/carmendellorefice/porcarmen-1b.jpg
--
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
BAAWA Knight!
#1557
If you can't be a good example....
You'll just have to be a horrible warning.
jemcd
Is it possible you don't recognize sarcasm, even though you apparently
know how to use it?
jemcd
<lloydso...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>"John Baker" <nu...@bizniz.net> wrote in message
>news:5tks949f9ig7dvhap...@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 9 Aug 2008 18:56:37 -0700, "Grizzlie Antagonist"
>> <lloydso...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>><jemcd> wrote in message
>>>news:eces94hep60osq54c...@4ax.com...
>>>> On Sat, 9 Aug 2008 20:30:23 -0400, "J" <Jvis...@live.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>http://www.onenewsnow.com/Culture/Default.aspx?id=205708
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Dark side of Title IX starts to show
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> After 35 years you are whining about it?
>>>> What a dickhead, you think that trying to be fair to female athletes
>>>> is wrong because they are getting more opportunities than misogynist
>>>> pricks like you think they deserve?
>>>
>>>
>>>That's exactly what I think. Female athletes should not get more
>>>opportunities than misogynist pricks like me.
>>>
>>>
>>>> I have a neice that is thriving on an athletic scholarship that
>>>> probably wouldn't exist without Title IX.
>>>> fuck you
>>>
>>>
>>>Your niece should be slaving over a hot stove for a man.
Did you deliberately miss the point or might you be really that
stupid?
Just for review, female athletes deserve the SAME level of
opportunities that males do.
Clear enough?
>>
>>
>> His niece could probably kick your ass.
I don't know about that, but not many could outrun her.
>
>
>I'd probably catch some sort of communicable disease just from looking at
>her.
>
You'd be wrong believing that, contact {or no contact as your lame
joke goes).
If you like watching athletes, you'd like watching her break records
seemingly every game she plays. Assuming you can remove the bigotry
from your outlook.
If you like looking at girls ( I assume a misogynist does-by
definition) you'd very much like her appearance off the field.
She's also doing very well in her classes.
Does it really bother you that females can be winners in multiple
endeavours? Are you so insecure that other's success somehow offends
you? Especially if they are female? You apparently have some issues,
get help.
Sean_M...@yahoo.com
wrote:
> "Spartakus" <sparta...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
>
> news:966a7488-13a5-4106...@p31g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> "J" <Jvisi...@live.com> wrote:
> >http://www.onenewsnow.com/Culture/Default.aspx?id=205708
>
> > Dark side of Title IX starts to show
>
Death to democracy.
Sean_M...@yahoo.com
> STOP F****** CROSSPOSTING, PEEWEE!!
>
> <65jay...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> - Show quoted text -
Death to democracy
Ranting
<jemcd> wrote in message news:i7et949nib0ng2sln...@4ax.com...
> If you like watching athletes, you'd like watching her break records
> seemingly every game she plays. Assuming you can remove the bigotry
> from your outlook.
> If you like looking at girls ( I assume a misogynist does-by
> definition) you'd very much like her appearance off the field.
> She's also doing very well in her classes.
>
Well then I can tell you one thing. If she is breaking records everytime
she plays AND is doing well in school , then TITLE IX did nothing for her
because the oppurtunities would have been there anyway.
Sara Brum
>> "Douglas Berry" <pengu...@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote in message
>> news:8fts94dkede2ph4qk...@4ax.com...
>>> On Sat, 9 Aug 2008 19:44:07 -0700 "Grizzlie Antagonist"
>>> <lloydso...@yahoo.com> carved the following into the hard stone
>>> of alt.atheism
>>>> "Spartakus" <spar...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:6fe0b3f8-7f35-425e...@p10g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>>>>> "Grizzlie Antagonist" <lloydsofhanf...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> [--a lot of sexist drivel, ending with the following--]
>>>>>
>>>>>> Anyway, a six and seven figure salary paid to a high-profile male
>>>>>> coach
>>>>>> is
>>>>>> a more worthwhile expenditure of money than it would be on ANY female
>>>>>> athlete.
>>>>> The Internet - so simple that even a caveman can use it.
>>>>
>>>> How do you know?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Now, be nice to your Mom and maybe she'll make you a sandwich.
>>>>
>>>> I was nice to your Mom last night, and she BECAME my sandwich.
>>> Dude, you're into 72 year old women? Ew. Just, Ew.
>>
>>
>> As an athiest, you are the last person in the world who would be
>> "judgmental" about it, I'm sure. I know that athiests have an allergy to
>> the idea of passing judgment on matters of private morality.
>
> What the heck is an "athiest"?
Someone who is athier than any other athy person you know.
65ja...@gmail.com
wrote:
> <65jay...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Someone who writes "Sports IS primarily a male endeavor, and in the
ideal world, it should be
EXCLUSIVELY a male endeavor." should be sent to bed without dessert.
Does your mummy knows that you're using the family's computer?
65ja...@gmail.com
>
> - Zitierten Text anzeigen -
Gotta love being insulted by someone whose only interest in life is to
send offensive postings about feminists.
Must suck to be "him"...
jemcd
And I will tell you another:
That's possible but not likely, as very few athletic scholarships for
females were available period. It is only recent that many were
offered in her sport at all, especially to females (soccer).
If there are few or no scholarships for females to compete for, then
it hardly matters how good she is at anything, odds are stacked
against.
She would have gone to college anyway, but now she has more
possibilities than she would have had. She will have the possibility
to continue in sports, potential choice of professions, and will
certainly not have massive student loans to repay.
It's only fair that if 50% of students are female, then 50% of
programs/scholarships/sports/etc etc should be afforded to females.
Is fairness that difficult to fathom? Is equality a complicated
concept?
Can you not theoretically put yourself in a disadvantaged position and
get a grasp of what it might feel like? Do you like it when people are
rewarded with no merit, and merit reward but are virtually barred from
success?
Have you ever undeservedly been in the loser's position? If so, did
you like it?
Ranting
<jemcd> wrote in message news:4bnt94ht5dp2bdsu0...@4ax.com...
> It's only fair that if 50% of students are female, then 50% of
> programs/scholarships/sports/etc etc should be afforded to females.
> Is fairness that difficult to fathom? Is equality a complicated
> concept?
Actually, equility is not what this is about, this is about equity, don't
get the two confused.
The reason in the past that more sports were offered to men was because (and
still is) the fact remains that mens sports bring in way more money to the
schools than womens sports do.
> Can you not theoretically put yourself in a disadvantaged position and
> get a grasp of what it might feel like? Do you like it when people are
> rewarded with no merit, and merit reward but are virtually barred from
> success?
Ah, but you are making the assumption that the men who were getting money
before title and who aren't getting it now had no merit and that simply
isn't the case.
> Have you ever undeservedly been in the loser's position? If so, did
> you like it?
Sure I have, and in most cases it was because of things just like title xi,
or affirmative action. All we have done is substitued one form of
discrimination for another but since I am a white male, it doesn't really
count.
John Baker
<k_over...@yahoo.com> wrote:
At least as much so as your response.
>
>Andrew Usher
John Baker
Brilliant response there, Skippy. But then, what can we expect from
somebody who'd side with 'J Young'?
>
John Baker
>On 10 Aug., 09:27, "MCP" <gf010w5...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>> STOP F****** CROSSPOSTING, PEEWEE!!
STFU, pencil dick.
Blue
<k_over...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Enemy combatant, pure and simple. Her tits are psychological weapons
(heh, imagine if Hitler had a set of these, they would have been
unstoppable). The best you'll ever get is a treaty and only when she's
been truly broken.
Pathology against women is not necessary.
Douglas Berry
>news:8fts94dkede2ph4qk...@4ax.com...
>> Dude, you're into 72 year old women? Ew. Just, Ew.
>
>As an athiest, you are the last person in the world who would be
>"judgmental" about it, I'm sure. I know that athiests have an allergy to
>the idea of passing judgment on matters of private morality.
Well, you're wrong. I can be quite judgmental about things, and feel
no shame in pointing and going "ick." at people like you.
Of course, you are just a sad little misogynist, desperate for
attention, so I'll show you a little mercy.
DanielSan
> "Douglas Berry" <pengu...@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote in message
> news:8fts94dkede2ph4qk...@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 9 Aug 2008 19:44:07 -0700 "Grizzlie Antagonist"
>> <lloydso...@yahoo.com> carved the following into the hard stone
>> of alt.atheism
>>> "Spartakus" <spar...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
>>> news:6fe0b3f8-7f35-425e...@p10g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>>>> "Grizzlie Antagonist" <lloydsofhanf...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> [--a lot of sexist drivel, ending with the following--]
>>>>
>>>>> Anyway, a six and seven figure salary paid to a high-profile male coach
>>>>> is
>>>>> a more worthwhile expenditure of money than it would be on ANY female
>>>>> athlete.
>>>> The Internet - so simple that even a caveman can use it.
>>>
>>> How do you know?
>>>
>>>
>>>> Now, be nice to your Mom and maybe she'll make you a sandwich.
>>>
>>> I was nice to your Mom last night, and she BECAME my sandwich.
>> Dude, you're into 72 year old women? Ew. Just, Ew.
>
> Not even if she looked like this? ;)
>
> http://www.hola.com/perfiles/carmendellorefice/porcarmen-1b.jpg
Ack! It's Cruella de Vil!
Spartakus
> "Spartakus" <sparta...@my-deja.com> wrote...
> > "Grizzlie Antagonist" <lloydsofhanf...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > [--a lot of sexist drivel, ending with the following--]
> >> Anyway, a six and seven figure salary paid to a high-profile male
> >> coach is a more worthwhile expenditure of money than it would be
> >> on ANY female athlete.
> > The Internet - so simple that even a caveman can use it.
> How do you know?
HTML was invented long before you were swimming around in your
amniotic sac, thickie.
> > Now, be nice to your Mom and maybe she'll make you a sandwich.
> I was nice to your Mom last night, and she BECAME my sandwich.
You have quite an imagination, but not in a good way.
Spartakus
> "Grizzlie Antagonist" <lloydsofhanf...@yahoo.com> carved the following into the hard stone
> of alt.atheism
> >"Spartakus" <sparta...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> >> Now, be nice to your Mom and maybe she'll make you a sandwich.
> >I was nice to your Mom last night, and she BECAME my sandwich.
> Dude, you're into 72 year old women? Ew. Just, Ew.
Worse than that - he's into *dead* women. I guess these soc.men
knuckle-draggers have to settle for what they can get.
Blue
Still better then secretly wanting to be told what to do and what to
think (by man, none the less). Vain cunts in gimp suits, believing
balance is struck because she grovels for dick behind closed doors.
Anyways, single mommies irrational exuberance places them and their
children in harms way far better then anything I could plan. It's a
shame they're toss aways, and a genuine shame they're only hope is the
father of their children.
Perhaps more legislation and money can fix it? (though I like the
"largest civil suit against governments in history on behalf of all
men" tid-bit the best). Generates interest and motivated by primal
greed.
Grizzlie Antagonist
> Grizzlie Antagonist wrote:
>> <65ja...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:02c2f44c-6f91-481c...@a70g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>>> On 10 Aug., 02:30, "J" <Jvisi...@live.com> wrote:
>>>> http://www.onenewsnow.com/Culture/Default.aspx?id=205708
>>> Use serious sources if you want to be taken seriously, bitch.
>>>
>>>> Dark side of Title IX starts to show
>>> Why do you hate women so much, bitch: because you're a pathetic troll
>>> in dire need of attention or because you're a closet gay?
>>
>>
>> Why do you hate men so much, weenie: because you're a pathetic troll in
>> dire need of attention or because you're a closet gay?
>>
>>
>
> Oh, wow. Epic fail.
Is that an anagram? Fecial pi? I don't get it.
DanielSan
You're right. You don't.
Grizzlie Antagonist
<Sean_M...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:952119a8-d8a7-4f1f...@t54g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> Death to democracy.
I think so too.
Grizzlie Antagonist
> On Sat, 9 Aug 2008 19:42:38 -0700, "Grizzlie Antagonist"
> <lloydso...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>"John Baker" <nu...@bizniz.net> wrote in message
>>news:5tks949f9ig7dvhap...@4ax.com...
>>> On Sat, 9 Aug 2008 18:56:37 -0700, "Grizzlie Antagonist"
>>> <lloydso...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>><jemcd> wrote in message
>>>>news:eces94hep60osq54c...@4ax.com...
>>>>> On Sat, 9 Aug 2008 20:30:23 -0400, "J" <Jvis...@live.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>http://www.onenewsnow.com/Culture/Default.aspx?id=205708
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Dark side of Title IX starts to show
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> After 35 years you are whining about it?
>>>>> What a dickhead, you think that trying to be fair to female athletes
>>>>> is wrong because they are getting more opportunities than misogynist
>>>>> pricks like you think they deserve?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>That's exactly what I think. Female athletes should not get more
>>>>opportunities than misogynist pricks like me.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> I have a neice that is thriving on an athletic scholarship that
>>>>> probably wouldn't exist without Title IX.
>>>>> fuck you
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Your niece should be slaving over a hot stove for a man.
>
> Did you deliberately miss the point or might you be really that
> stupid?
Your niece is pretty stupid.
> Just for review, female athletes deserve the SAME level of
> opportunities that males do.
Just for review, female athleticism is a breeding grounds for homosexuality.
> Clear enough?
No, blow your nose.
>>> His niece could probably kick your ass.
>
> I don't know about that, but not many could outrun her.
There was probably a male cousin that she was unable to outrun earlier in
life.
>>I'd probably catch some sort of communicable disease just from looking at
>>her.
>>
>
> You'd be wrong believing that, contact {or no contact as your lame
> joke goes).
> If you like watching athletes, you'd like watching her break records
> seemingly every game she plays. Assuming you can remove the bigotry
> from your outlook.
I can't remove bigotry from my outlook.
> If you like looking at girls ( I assume a misogynist does-by
> definition) you'd very much like her appearance off the field.
> She's also doing very well in her classes.
> Does it really bother you that females can be winners in multiple
> endeavours?
Norman Mailer once said that women were like animals in the zoo. Deserving
of respect, but we want them kept in cages.
> Are you so insecure that other's success somehow offends
> you? Especially if they are female? You apparently have some issues,
> get help.
Do you have long hair and a beard?
Grizzlie Antagonist
<65ja...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:8b27a490-88b8-4390...@d1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
Doesn't it bother you that you can't do a thing about what I say?
> Does your mummy knows that you're using the family's computer?
There's nothing she can do about it. I've chained her in the attic.
jemcd
<lloydso...@yahoo.com> wrote:
OK, you answered the question, it's the latter.
>
>
>> Just for review, female athletes deserve the SAME level of
>> opportunities that males do.
>
>
>
>Just for review, female athleticism is a breeding grounds for homosexuality.
How about that, a homophobic misogynist. What a surprise.
>
>
>> Clear enough?
>
>
>
>No, blow your nose.
>
>
>
>>>> His niece could probably kick your ass.
>>
>> I don't know about that, but not many could outrun her.
>
>
>
>There was probably a male cousin that she was unable to outrun earlier in
>life.
>
Project much?
>
>
>>>I'd probably catch some sort of communicable disease just from looking at
>>>her.
>>>
>>
>> You'd be wrong believing that, contact {or no contact as your lame
>> joke goes).
>> If you like watching athletes, you'd like watching her break records
>> seemingly every game she plays. Assuming you can remove the bigotry
>> from your outlook.
>
>
>I can't remove bigotry from my outlook.
>
Maybe that's progress, recognizing it.
>
>
>
>> If you like looking at girls ( I assume a misogynist does-by
>> definition) you'd very much like her appearance off the field.
>> She's also doing very well in her classes.
>> Does it really bother you that females can be winners in multiple
>> endeavours?
>
>
>Norman Mailer once said that women were like animals in the zoo. Deserving
>of respect, but we want them kept in cages.
Perhaps he was criticizing people like you. In the nicest way he
could.
>
>
>> Are you so insecure that other's success somehow offends
>> you? Especially if they are female? You apparently have some issues,
>> get help.
>
>
>Do you have long hair and a beard?
>
Nope.
Do you have large scars on your head?
Syd M.
> Grizzlie Antagonist wrote:
> > "DanielSan" <daniel...@speakeasy.net> wrote in message
> >news:1ZCdnZ9poNed5APV...@speakeasy.net...
> >> Grizzlie Antagonist wrote:
> >>> "Douglas Berry" <penguin_...@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote in message
> >>>news:8fts94dkede2ph4qk...@4ax.com...
> >>>> On Sat, 9 Aug 2008 19:44:07 -0700 "Grizzlie Antagonist"
> >>>>>> "Grizzlie Antagonist" <lloydsofhanf...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>>> [--a lot of sexist drivel, ending with the following--]
>
> >>>>>>> Anyway, a six and seven figure salary paid to a high-profile male
> >>>>>>> coach
> >>>>>>> is
> >>>>>>> a more worthwhile expenditure of money than it would be on ANY female
> >>>>>>> athlete.
> >>>>>> The Internet - so simple that even a caveman can use it.
> >>>>> How do you know?
>
> >>>>> I was nice to your Mom last night, and she BECAME my sandwich.
> >>>> Dude, you're into 72 year old women? Ew. Just, Ew.
>
> >>> "judgmental" about it, I'm sure. I know that athiests have an allergy to
> >>> the idea of passing judgment on matters of private morality.
>
>
> What the fuck is "hell"?
>
A mythical, wish-fulfillment fantasy of eternal suffering for people
they hate?
PDW, stating the obvious, but hey...
Peacenik
news:23i2f8....@news.alt.net...
>
> Passed in 1972 as an education amendment, Title IX bans sex discrimination
> in college athletics.
And you want to lift the ban.
Yes, we know you hate women.
We also know you're a vicious homophobe. Add these together, and we know you
like to get it on with the guys secretly.
Blue
"Basically Title IX has been sort of two tales. On the women's side
it's done a lot of good and really dramatically increased
participation numbers, but on the men's side we've just seen
countless programs get cut and where programs aren't cut you also see
roster caps basically limiting the amount of participants that can
participate in these men's sports. So it's been overall a positive
story for women and unfortunately, a negative story for men."
Kinda says it all, don't you think?
Ray Fischer
> "Peacenik"
>>"J" <Jvis...@live.com> wrote in message
>>> Passed in 1972 as an education amendment, Title IX bans sex discrimination
>>> in college athletics.
>>
>>And you want to lift the ban.
>>
>>Yes, we know you hate women.
>>
>>We also know you're a vicious homophobe. Add these together, and we know you
>>like to get it on with the guys secretly.
>>
>"Basically Title IX has been sort of two tales. On the women's side
>it's done a lot of good and really dramatically increased
>participation numbers, but on the men's side we've just seen
>countless programs get cut and where programs aren't cut you also see
>roster caps basically limiting the amount of participants that can
>participate in these men's sports.
Given the vast amounts of money wasted on football and basketball and
baseball it's about time that universities got back into the business
of education.
> So it's been overall a positive
>story for women and unfortunately, a negative story for men."
>
>Kinda says it all, don't you think?
The end of slavery was a negative story for whites.
Boo hoo.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Andrew Usher
> >"Basically Title IX has been sort of two tales. On the women's side
> >it's done a lot of good and really dramatically increased
> >participation numbers, but on the men's side we've just seen
> >countless programs get cut and where programs aren't cut you also see
> >roster caps basically limiting the amount of participants that can
> >participate in these men's sports.
>
> Given the vast amounts of money wasted on football and basketball and
> baseball it's about time that universities got back into the business
> of education.
Women's sports are an even bigger waste, as you must know.
Besides the main reason they're not educating people is the
bullcrap you liberals put through.
Andrew Usher
Blue
I'm not crying about it. Peace either didn't understand or was
generating a lie. Not a big deal.
The end of slavery was positive, an undiscovered country and assisted
in the pursuit in finding our place in the universe. Most white men
fought to end it. Holdouts are to be expected in the US because we're
all equal to the King of England.
And exploiting the nigger route is a shortcut to the grave (the living
one). Wakey wakey, or else...
Ray Fischer
>On Aug 11, 9:26 pm, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>
>> >"Basically Title IX has been sort of two tales. On the women's side
>> >it's done a lot of good and really dramatically increased
>> >participation numbers, but on the men's side we've just seen
>> >countless programs get cut and where programs aren't cut you also see
>> >roster caps basically limiting the amount of participants that can
>> >participate in these men's sports.
>>
>> Given the vast amounts of money wasted on football and basketball and
>> baseball it's about time that universities got back into the business
>> of education.
>
>Women's sports are an even bigger waste, as you must know.
Because you say so?
>Besides the
An unsupported claim. What a surprise.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
jemcd
>
><jemcd> wrote in message news:4bnt94ht5dp2bdsu0...@4ax.com...
>> It's only fair that if 50% of students are female, then 50% of
>> programs/scholarships/sports/etc etc should be afforded to females.
>> Is fairness that difficult to fathom? Is equality a complicated
>> concept?
>
>Actually, equility is not what this is about, this is about equity, don't
>get the two confused.
Equity or equality, in the context of offering sports opportunities
fairly, the words can be interchangeable, close enough anyway.
If you are talking solely about stocks/markets/profits/etc then we are
not focused alike, okely dokely.
If schools must cut everything else to the bone to aggressively pursue
only profitable sports like a business, then we have fucked up our
priorities in the educational system and ought to fix it. It's not
like the USA is third world, there is money.
>
>The reason in the past that more sports were offered to men was because (and
>still is) the fact remains that mens sports bring in way more money to the
>schools than womens sports do.
So what? The primary purpose of educational facilities should not be
about profit. Obviously they need money to operate, but chasing bigger
money at the expense of fairness is unjust.
>
>> Can you not theoretically put yourself in a disadvantaged position and
>> get a grasp of what it might feel like? Do you like it when people are
>> rewarded with no merit, and merit reward but are virtually barred from
>> success?
>
>Ah, but you are making the assumption that the men who were getting money
>before title and who aren't getting it now had no merit and that simply
>isn't the case.
No I am not saying that male athletes before title ix did not merit
opportunity. At the same time, while males were getting the lion's
share, females were not given a fair shake. I was saying that the
unfairness was detrimental to the opportunities afforded to females.
If 80% of the athletes at one time were male, I generally assume those
were the deserving candidates for those spots available. If a group
loses ground (percentage-wise) due to correcting an unfairness or
imbalance, that's actually progress, not discrimination. In that case,
and if you are in the group that lost ground, suck it up, deal with
it, try harder or move on, whatever. It's not like they would be
dragging male athletes off the field in the middle of a game and
throwing them in the gutter.
>
>> Have you ever undeservedly been in the loser's position? If so, did
>> you like it?
>
>Sure I have, and in most cases it was because of things just like title xi,
>or affirmative action. All we have done is substitued one form of
>discrimination for another but since I am a white male, it doesn't really
>count.
>
I disagree, if it is generally fair across the board and you don't
make the cut that's probably not the system's fault. I am also a white
male and I don't want anything other than meritocracy. If you are the
best candidate for something and a less deserving candidate wins out,
then yes I agree that is unfair and should be corrected, and it will
never be perfect but it can always improve. Generally, white males are
not a disadvantaged group, and it appears that much of the noise about
'reverse discrimination' is exaggeration.
Professional sports is definitely dominated by males, and that may
accurately reflect the marketplace demand, but schools are not the
same thing.
>