If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Mother Jones)   If the U.S. female Olympians were their own country, they'd be 5th in the medal rankings. Happy 40th Birthday, Title IX   (motherjones.com) divider line 79
    More: Interesting, United States, rankings, female olympians  
•       •       •

1197 clicks; posted to Sports » on 12 Aug 2012 at 2:47 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



79 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-08-12 12:59:28 PM
Actually they'd be #4, since the U.S. would no longer be #1 without them.
 
2012-08-12 01:53:05 PM
How would they reproduce?
 
2012-08-12 02:06:10 PM

revrendjim: How would they reproduce?


I don't know, but I'd like to watch them try.
 
2012-08-12 03:01:09 PM

rumpelstiltskin: revrendjim: How would they reproduce?

I don't know, but I'd like to watch them try.


death by snu snu

/yes please
 
2012-08-12 03:05:19 PM
We need to get this Olympics crap over. There's a lot of housework and cooking and babymaking that isn't getting done...
 
2012-08-12 03:10:45 PM
How has this not become the field hockey, college volleyball, and cheerleader thread already? There are like the whole 6 posts already!

Also as the matter of the curiosity are the cheerleaders consider the sport for the Title IX purposes of things? I genuinely do not know the answer to this and am hoping one of you can do the answering of this so I do not have to use the goggle.coms.
 
2012-08-12 03:11:16 PM
You have to wonder how little encouragement and equality other countries give their female athletes. Anyways way to go ladies, that 4 by one was incredible
 
2012-08-12 03:18:47 PM

jaylectricity: Actually they'd be #4, since the U.S. would no longer be #1 without them.


Correct. A count from yesterday had 59 medals for US women and 43 for US men.

Link
 
2012-08-12 03:25:14 PM
I was waiting for this topic. I mentioned title IX to a coworker last week, and all he could do was stand there and and be confused. He is from Florida, though.
 
2012-08-12 03:25:53 PM

whither_apophis: rumpelstiltskin: revrendjim: How would they reproduce?

I don't know, but I'd like to watch them try.

death by snu snu

/yes please


No can dunk, but good fundamentals

/they just laugh harder
 
2012-08-12 03:27:06 PM
In before the Fark Misogyny Brigade
 
2012-08-12 03:27:19 PM
Well they have a horse to plow the fields in Missy Franklin.
 
2012-08-12 03:32:01 PM
If the old Soviet Union still existed. The USSR would be in the medal lead over the US by more than 50. And that includes adding in Puerto Rico's 2 medals.
 
2012-08-12 03:37:51 PM
How does that compare to 40 years ago?
 
2012-08-12 03:43:38 PM
Thirty percent of female American athletes have medaled so far, compared to 15 percent of male American athletes.

Man, that's some creative accounting to make the numbers look more impressive.
 
2012-08-12 03:44:47 PM
Makes you wonder how the US men would have done if Title IX hadn't killed off any sports that don't support women's sports.

gymnastics, wrestling, track, soccer...
 
2012-08-12 03:47:27 PM
And meanwhile I'm sure, even before looking, that someone has already popped in with the goofy idea that somehow Title IX has harmed men's athletics, as if this was a zero sum game.

(Hint: colleges acting as for-profit institutions and insisting sports pay their own way, and pay a LOT, harmed men's athletics.)
 
2012-08-12 03:49:17 PM

meow said the dog: Also as the matter of the curiosity are the cheerleaders consider the sport for the Title IX purposes of things?


No. Quinnipiac University tried this in 2009 in replacing a volleyball squad and have been slapped down by the courts.
 
2012-08-12 03:51:02 PM

MrsGsboy: If the old Soviet Union still existed. The USSR would be in the medal lead over the US by more than 50. And that includes adding in Puerto Rico's 2 medals.


Not really, since they couldn't have all their republics competing in the same event to win multiple medals.
 
2012-08-12 03:54:33 PM
 
2012-08-12 03:54:43 PM

IAmRight: MrsGsboy: If the old Soviet Union still existed. The USSR would be in the medal lead over the US by more than 50. And that includes adding in Puerto Rico's 2 medals.

Not really, since they couldn't have all their republics competing in the same event to win multiple medals.


That's exactly what happened up until the breakup of the USSR in the mid 1980's.
 
2012-08-12 03:58:09 PM

MrsGsboy: That's exactly what happened up until the breakup of the USSR in the mid 1980's.


The USSR got to count athletes from those countries, but they didn't get to have, say, Lithuania and Russia compete for a medal in team events. So there are events where multiple people from those countries won, and in those events, perhaps the person doesn't qualify in the USSR.
 
2012-08-12 03:58:52 PM

JosephFinn: And meanwhile I'm sure, even before looking, that someone has already popped in with the goofy idea that somehow Title IX has harmed men's athletics, as if this was a zero sum game.

(Hint: colleges acting as for-profit institutions and insisting sports pay their own way, and pay a LOT, harmed men's athletics.)


Except that "paying your own way" isn't what decides which sports get cut. It's "make the numbers match the gender ratio". And that IS a zero-sum game (e.g. North Dakota, which cut a men's wrestling team with full outside funding because they needed to get the gender ratios to match and the way to do it was to reduce the number of male athletes).
 
2012-08-12 04:00:19 PM

thecpt: You have to wonder how little encouragement and equality other countries give their female athletes.


I only have my familiarity with one socially regressive country (Japan) to go off of, which is to say. . . I don't know. But based on what I see, there's a huge gap between amateur and elite. Female participation in athletics among students is supported, but by junior high the emphasis is very much "recreational" as opposed to competitive. The media will blitz you in all sorts of derpy ways if you bring Olympic gold home, but there is nothing in between. If anything, every competitive woman has to go through their own private hell of social stigma and alienation until they actually qualify as an Olympic athlete. Actually, Homare Sawa and Abby Wambach were once teammates in the U.S. because this country was the only place Sawa could find a women's pro league (which has since folded).

The way the Japanese media treated the Women's World Cup Champions made me rageguy quite a bit.
 
2012-08-12 04:02:53 PM

kevinatilusa: JosephFinn: And meanwhile I'm sure, even before looking, that someone has already popped in with the goofy idea that somehow Title IX has harmed men's athletics, as if this was a zero sum game.

(Hint: colleges acting as for-profit institutions and insisting sports pay their own way, and pay a LOT, harmed men's athletics.)

Except that "paying your own way" isn't what decides which sports get cut. It's "make the numbers match the gender ratio". And that IS a zero-sum game (e.g. North Dakota, which cut a men's wrestling team with full outside funding because they needed to get the gender ratios to match and the way to do it was to reduce the number of male athletes).


The compliance testing for Title IX is pretty farked up too. It's not like you can pass one, ignore the other two, and be fully compliant. 80-90 scholarships for football doesn't exactly help out the other men's teams, but the inconsistent enforcement definitely hurts.
 
2012-08-12 04:03:56 PM
Everyone loves women's athletics.

Can't wait to play the new WNBA Jam, they just released the control configuration:

i.imgur.com
 
2012-08-12 04:12:35 PM

Bigger Leftist Intarweb Schlong: In before the Fark Misogyny Brigade


Inb4 someone mistook sports tab for politics ta....dammit
 
2012-08-12 04:12:42 PM

JosephFinn: meow said the dog: Also as the matter of the curiosity are the cheerleaders consider the sport for the Title IX purposes of things?

No. Quinnipiac University tried this in 2009 in replacing a volleyball squad and have been slapped down by the courts.


Thanks!
 
2012-08-12 04:16:30 PM

Britney Spear's Speculum: Bigger Leftist Intarweb Schlong: In before the Fark Misogyny Brigade

Inb4 someone mistook sports tab for politics ta....dammit


yeah that ship sailed some time ago - any Title 9 thread inevitably draws the "OMG female athletes are all just lesbian man-haters who think all heterosexual sex is rape and anyways, wow, like, men are, by and large, better athletes than women, howcouldtheynotknowthat?" crowd

/in more important news, where's the PGA Championship thread?
//pretty please?
 
2012-08-12 04:22:26 PM

kevinatilusa: Except that "paying your own way" isn't what decides which sports get cut. It's "make the numbers match the gender ratio". And that IS a zero-sum game (e.g. North Dakota, which cut a men's wrestling team with full outside funding because they needed to get the gender ratios to match and the way to do it was to reduce the number of male athletes).


I'd agree with this point if not for the fact that academia had well over a century to get its act together and never so much as lifted a finger when it counted. This wasn't a case of big, bad, meddling government fixing a problem that wasn't broken. It was a case of the government dragging old-school sexists kicking and screaming into the 20th century to end an emotional justice and to this day they haven't stopped screaming. I mean, when Richard Nixon is schooling you on liberalism, you're pretty farking far to the right. Title IX was enacted in 1972. NINETEEN SEVENTY-TWO. Not 1920, when women got the right to vote. Not the 1940s, the days of working women (because of WW2) and Eleanor Roosevelt. Not during the 1960s Civil Rights Movement. As late as 1970, there were so few women with athletic scholarships there are few stats on how many there even were. The schools had every chance in the world to lead by example and instead sat on their hands. The wording of Title IX may not be ideal for ADs but hey, if you act like a child for ONE HUNDRED FARKING YEARS (and four decades later are still whining), you can't exactly complain when you're treated like one.

The "we don't need them anymore" argument doesn't hold water because schools lobby to this day to repeal Title IX simply so they can throw more resources into football teams bleeding red ink. They're making the exact same tired arguments since the mid-70s. I hope one day we can do without Title IX so schools can structure their athletics according to willing participation instead of compliance, but the rhetoric against it only tells me ADs need to be grounded for at least another generation.
 
2012-08-12 04:23:13 PM

shotglasss: We need to get this Olympics crap over. There's a lot of housework and cooking and babymaking that isn't getting done...


Do you really want to make a bunch of women who can out run, out jump, out weight lift and out fight you mad?
 
2012-08-12 04:38:47 PM

dragonchild: simply so they can throw more resources into football teams bleeding red ink.


Just say: "I don't understand how athletic departments work."

/football is the main revenue generator - there are few athletic departments in the black, but that's largely because no one makes money on the other teams
//which is why those tickets are given away to anyone that'll take 'em
 
2012-08-12 04:44:44 PM

kevinatilusa: JosephFinn: And meanwhile I'm sure, even before looking, that someone has already popped in with the goofy idea that somehow Title IX has harmed men's athletics, as if this was a zero sum game.

(Hint: colleges acting as for-profit institutions and insisting sports pay their own way, and pay a LOT, harmed men's athletics.)

Except that "paying your own way" isn't what decides which sports get cut. It's "make the numbers match the gender ratio". And that IS a zero-sum game (e.g. North Dakota, which cut a men's wrestling team with full outside funding because they needed to get the gender ratios to match and the way to do it was to reduce the number of male athletes).


Except that they also had the option to increase the number of female athletes. It was their choice to do it destructively rather than constructively.
 
2012-08-12 04:46:27 PM

dragonchild: kevinatilusa: Except that "paying your own way" isn't what decides which sports get cut. It's "make the numbers match the gender ratio". And that IS a zero-sum game (e.g. North Dakota, which cut a men's wrestling team with full outside funding because they needed to get the gender ratios to match and the way to do it was to reduce the number of male athletes).

I'd agree with this point if not for the fact that academia had well over a century to get its act together and never so much as lifted a finger when it counted. This wasn't a case of big, bad, meddling government fixing a problem that wasn't broken. It was a case of the government dragging old-school sexists kicking and screaming into the 20th century to end an emotional justice and to this day they haven't stopped screaming. I mean, when Richard Nixon is schooling you on liberalism, you're pretty farking far to the right. Title IX was enacted in 1972. NINETEEN SEVENTY-TWO. Not 1920, when women got the right to vote. Not the 1940s, the days of working women (because of WW2) and Eleanor Roosevelt. Not during the 1960s Civil Rights Movement. As late as 1970, there were so few women with athletic scholarships there are few stats on how many there even were. The schools had every chance in the world to lead by example and instead sat on their hands. The wording of Title IX may not be ideal for ADs but hey, if you act like a child for ONE HUNDRED FARKING YEARS (and four decades later are still whining), you can't exactly complain when you're treated like one.

The "we don't need them anymore" argument doesn't hold water because schools lobby to this day to repeal Title IX simply so they can throw more resources into football teams bleeding red ink. They're making the exact same tired arguments since the mid-70s. I hope one day we can do without Title IX so schools can structure their athletics according to willing participation instead of compliance, but the rhetoric against it only tells me ADs need ...


images.wikia.com
 
2012-08-12 04:55:15 PM

Theaetetus: Except that they also had the option to increase the number of female athletes. It was their choice to do it destructively rather than constructively.


Well, let's create a sport that no one else plays, recruit women on campus to play, get a bunch of other universities to do it, and fund it so that a team that is wholly privately funded can compete!
 
2012-08-12 05:02:10 PM
Yikes this is worse than the politics threads.
 
2012-08-12 05:11:35 PM

MrsGsboy: If the old Soviet Union still existed. The USSR would be in the medal lead over the US by more than 50. And that includes adding in Puerto Rico's 2 medals.


If.
 
2012-08-12 05:11:44 PM
I think they'd be happy if Fark spelled their names right:

www3.pictures.zimbio.com

Fark sidebar:
i.imgur.com
"Sara Peterson of Denmark adjusts her shorts before running in round one of the Women's 400M Hurdles in track and field at the London 2012 Summer Olympics on August 5, 2012 in London. UPI/Terry Schmitt"

PetersEn, not PetersOn.
 
2012-08-12 05:13:51 PM
Don't like Title IX? Then stop this whole fantasy about college athletics being about scholarship rather than money. Make athletes employees of the university with performance requirements. If a woman is a better linebacker than a man, she gets on the football team. But you've got to abide by all employment laws including minimum wage and right to work. Don't like sharing the wealth with the athletes and want to continue to hide behind academics? Then too bad, you've got to offer equal opportunity for the "scholars".
 
2012-08-12 05:15:52 PM

MrsGsboy: If the old Soviet Union still existed. The USSR would be in the medal lead over the US by more than 50. And that includes adding in Puerto Rico's 2 medals.


And if the European Union was considered one country, they'd be ahead of everyone. But that's not the reality of the situation.
 
2012-08-12 05:17:48 PM

MrsGsboy: If the old Soviet Union still existed. The USSR would be in the medal lead over the US by more than 50. And that includes adding in Puerto Rico's 2 medals.


Silly Metric.
Then England won with 305 over the USSR's 149.
 
2012-08-12 05:20:21 PM
159*
(Stupid Azerbaijan)
 
2012-08-12 05:28:03 PM

IAmRight: Just say: "I don't understand how athletic departments work."

/football is the main revenue generator


Just say, "I don't understand how budgets work."

Whether you're in the black or the red depends on whether your revenue exceeds your costs, not how much revenue you make. Though incidentally, it's not the big-name football programs that are in financial trouble. It's more the FCS schools trying to get some of that sweet big-conference money by investing heavily in their football program that make schools like USC or Ohio State look pristine. They're also the schools that complain most loudly about Title IX, because if they had their way they'd put 100% of their revenue into the football team to chase their ambitions.

I digress. It's not at all surprising that football would be the #1 revenue generator (within the athletics program overall) at just about any school in the country. But it's also invariably the #1 expense. Assuming increased revenue automatically takes care of costs is the single purest litmus test used to identify pointy-haired retards in management. There's a reason why "we'll make up for it with volume" is a famous joke in business. I'm rather amused someone was stupid enough to seriously make that argument today.
 
2012-08-12 05:28:23 PM

IAmRight: Theaetetus: Except that they also had the option to increase the number of female athletes. It was their choice to do it destructively rather than constructively.

Well, let's create a sport that no one else plays, recruit women on campus to play, get a bunch of other universities to do it, and fund it so that a team that is wholly privately funded can compete!


At first I thought you were taking the piss out of 'competitive cheerleading', but I think you're actually trying to claim that whatever school this is had a full stable of female athletes in all the NCAA-accredited sports, and couldn't possibly add any more. But you're probably not, because that would be silly.

/Why not just add female wrestlers?
//UFIAs for all!
 
2012-08-12 05:44:18 PM

IAmRight: Theaetetus: Except that they also had the option to increase the number of female athletes. It was their choice to do it destructively rather than constructively.

Well, let's create a sport that no one else plays, recruit women on campus to play, get a bunch of other universities to do it, and fund it so that a team that is wholly privately funded can compete!


Or, instead, you could simply add a team based on asking women on campus what they'd like to play. That's a lot easier than recruiting, and is actually more effective at complying with Title IX.
 
2012-08-12 05:44:49 PM
The ladies are good enough and athletic enough to have earned their own olympics just like the paralympics and special olympics..
 
2012-08-12 05:46:06 PM

Theaetetus: IAmRight: Theaetetus: Except that they also had the option to increase the number of female athletes. It was their choice to do it destructively rather than constructively.

Well, let's create a sport that no one else plays, recruit women on campus to play, get a bunch of other universities to do it, and fund it so that a team that is wholly privately funded can compete!

Or, instead, you could simply add a team based on asking women on campus what they'd like to play. That's a lot easier than recruiting, and is actually more effective at complying with Title IX.


Extreme Ironing.
 
2012-08-12 05:47:25 PM

IAmRight: Well, let's create a sport that no one else plays, recruit women on campus to play, get a bunch of other universities to do it, and fund it so that a team that is wholly privately funded can compete!


That is precisely how progress was made. The "a sport that no one else plays" argument is like saying a segregated school doesn't need to be integrated because the historical 0% acceptance rate of minorities is proof that they're either unqualified or not interested in attending. Discrimination is second to none at manufacturing its own evidence, and that's what was ended by force of law. If a college isn't interested in recruiting female athletes, the law doesn't give a fark if they whine about not finding them. That's precisely the point; we're not expecting a spoiled child who hates vegetables to be growing broccoli in his backyard. We make him eat his veggies anyway because he's too immature to be trusted with his own decisions.
 
2012-08-12 05:49:45 PM

dragonchild: IAmRight: Well, let's create a sport that no one else plays, recruit women on campus to play, get a bunch of other universities to do it, and fund it so that a team that is wholly privately funded can compete!

That is precisely how progress was made. The "a sport that no one else plays" argument is like saying a segregated school doesn't need to be integrated because the historical 0% acceptance rate of minorities is proof that they're either unqualified or not interested in attending. Discrimination is second to none at manufacturing its own evidence, and that's what was ended by force of law. If a college isn't interested in recruiting female athletes, the law doesn't give a fark if they whine about not finding them. That's precisely the point; we're not expecting a spoiled child who hates vegetables to be growing broccoli in his backyard. We make him eat his veggies anyway because he's too immature to be trusted with his own decisions.


And thus was born the sport of synchronised swimming.
 
2012-08-12 05:58:04 PM

mikaloyd: And thus was born the sport of synchronised swimming.


Heh, whatever. If it gets women involved in collegiate athletics, it's not for us to judge importance based on popularity. After all, these are student-athletes, right?

Or we can make the revenue argument which is really just a hypocritical way of saying they're unpaid professionals, in which case ALL non-intramural collegiate athletics should be banned due to labor code violations and force the NFL to make their own damned minor league.

I'm happy with one or the other. Just not the case that Title IX discriminates against men because an athletic department wants to invest all its scholarships to football, leaving them with a "tragic" choice to fund and recruit for women's curling or kill the men's wrestling team. That's a self-absorbed argument for a culture war the sexists should've lost decades before Title IX became necessary.
 
Displayed 50 of 79 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report