Ben Flickinger wrote:
 
> Oh gimme a break, colleges did not create men's sports at the expense of
> women's sports. Back in the early 1900's, sports were a male only domain and
> female had little to no interest in getting involved. Now they have somewhat
> of an interest, and they have some of the sports. Be glad you live in the
> USA and not some 2nd or 3rd world country where women still have zero
> opportunity and males still rule completely.
 
Sports were a male-only domain because women were systematically denied the
opportunity to participate in sports.  It often becomes difficult to sort out what
is an individual choice, and to what extent these individual choices are the product
of the society in which they are made.  (I hope the anthropologists I sometimes hang
out with would approve of the way I finessed that sentence.)  But in a culture where
women were sometimes institutionalized for exhibiting too many "manly" traits, it's
pretty obvious that female athletes were not given a fair amount of opportunity.
 
> And it is a FACT that there will always be more male athletes than female
> athletes until society changes. That is not sexism, that is truth.
 
With a really big qualifier, yes it is.
 
> It's pathetic that since UNO started its hockey team, it's had to add not 1,
> not 2, but 3 women's sports for title ix reasons. For every 8,314 fans that
> goto a hockey game, maybe 100 or so will attend each of those sports, if that.
>
> And that in and of itself prove more people are interested in male sports
> overall. When a women's sport brings in sizeable crowds for a majority of
> its teams, we'll talk (I'm not talking Tennessee women's basketball, I'm
> talking women's basketball overall compared to men's). Until then Title IX
> has outlived its usefullness, it no longer is adding opportunity for women
> but cutting it for men.
 
I'm just curious: does anyone read my posts?  And if not, could you let me know so
that I don't bother?  No one has yet responded to the point that it's the *choice*
of football dominated athletic programs that this is an entirely irrelevant point.
If they wanted to make fan interest a point in their anti-Title IX position, they
could do so.  But they don't, because they like the consequences of that even less.
 
Until they do, you shouldn't be taking shots at those who are trying to enforce
Title IX for living with the consequences.  Aim the vitriol where it belongs.
 
> Well gee, life ain't fair. I read a short story for english class about a
> supposed utopia society where everyone was equal. Turns out everyone was
> equal - they all had handicaps to make them dumb, clumsy, and no one was
> improving anything. This is what Title IX will eventually do, instead of
> making everyone better, it'll drag everyone into the gutter.
 
Okay, I nearly busted a gut laughing at this paragraph.  If it can be summed up
with, "Life ain't fair," then what in the world are you doing all this complaining
about?  Physician, heal thyself.
 
And as long as college athletics is defined as providing an opportunity to broaden
the educational experience, as those in charge would like us to believe, then what
gutter is Title IX going to drag us into?  Whether men are better athletes, or
whether more people want to watch them makes no difference under this mission
statement; the women are having their educational experience broadened at least as
much (and, given societal conditions, probably much more) than the male athletes.
You're still pointing fingers in the wrong direction if you're looking for a
scapegoat to blame some men's sports on.
 
J. Michael Neal
 
HOCKEY-L is for discussion of college ice hockey;  send information to
[log in to unmask], The College Hockey Information List.