You might have thought that as research accumulates on the biological aspect of human conduct, radical feminists would have lightened up a bit on their charge of widespread institutionalized sexism, especially since they have dominated the institutions that they finger as major sexist offenders for decades now. Today’s front-page article in the New York Times claiming discrimination against girl athletes in college depressingly shows the opposite. The evidence provided for ongoing violations of Title IX is even more tendentious than usual: astoundingly, the fact that schools are virtually kidnapping girls to get them to participate on sports teams is presented as proof of discrimination against females, rather than as discrimination in their favor.
The schools can’t find enough girls interested in sports to create a proportional number of female athletes, and so instead, writes the Times in outrage:
many [colleges] are padding women’s team rosters with underqualified, even unwitting, athletes. They are counting male practice players as women. And they are trimming the rosters of men’s teams.
How does this demonstrate discrimination? The Times provides not one example of a school stiffing eager female athletes. And of course, college bureaucracies are now almost as female-heavy as the participants in Orgasm Night at the Womyn’s Center. Yet the Times presumes some phantom source of sexism that never needs to be located but that explains why “women make up 53 percent of the student body at Division I institutions yet only 46 percent of all athletes.” I’m actually surprised that the ratios are that close.
It is long past clear: Title IX is by now nothing other than a powerful weapon in the male-hater’s tool chest. This vapid article kicks off an entire Times series on Title IX; presumably they’re leading with their strongest suit. Gird yourselves for further demonstration of the desperate intellectual condition of contemporary feminism.
And of course, college bureaucracies are now almost as female-heavy as the participants in Orgasm Night at the Womyn’s Center.
And both make for equally horrifying mental images.
Excluding people because they are members of a certain group is just one form of discrimination. The other, more insidious form, is tokenism, which is the unfortunate side effect Title IX has had on female athletics. Both forms are a disservice to true female athletes.
What do you suggest as a better solution than Title IX? If it were to be repealed outright, would schools still compete for genuinely interested and talented female athletes to participate on its teams, or would they slash almost all women’s sport programs in favor of more men’s sports?
I would think there has to be a happy medium somewhere, allowing for the maximum number of both male and female student athletes to play their sports and be taken seriously.
These ‘desperate measures’ show only that government regulation of personal choice is not in all cases a completely efficient means of ameliorating historical inequalities. That adherence to Title IX requirements now has some schools jumping through some silly hoops, does not mean that the original function of the law was ineffective, or that “contemporary feminism” is at fault for the silliness. There are many substantial points that may be made as part of a constructive criticism of Title IX — this post does not present them; rather, it takes a few black swan anecdotes as evidence to indict the entire enterprise. Ms. MacDonald is not depicting the reality of the situation accurately.
You have to remember, these radical feminists have to keep claiming discrimination so they keep getting paid. They have to find places and practices to whine about, otherwise they become irrelevant. Their entire existence is based on women being abused, the same is true of many black activists, who have to continually find places they can claim racism occurs, or they don’t get to drive their fancy cars anymore.
It’s all political.
As a school librarian it is interesting to view such nonsense. In my profession there is a constant wailing and gnashing of teeth over discrimination against girls in children’s literature. But the reality is that almost every new piece of children’s or young adult literature features a female protagonist who is not only smarter than the boys, but also physically stronger than the boys as well (I wonder if this plays into girl’s expectations in the athletic arena). Most of the boys are either stupid-good or stupid-evil. This is why we were so excited over Harry Potter; finally a boy gets to be intelligent.
More and more boys don’t like to read (I know, there are also other factors at work here). At least in athletics there will always be a place for the boys. That is, unless the feminist solution is to pair-down male athletics in order to achieve gender parity.
“More and more boys don’t like to read (I know, there are also other factors at work here).”
I remember in elementary school realizing that most of the stories we read in class were oriented toward girls. Most of the protagonists were girls, and they were generally doing girly stuff.
War stories or science fiction? fuggedaboutit
Apart from a badly worded title (probably from an editor), where does the article “claim discrimination against girl athletes” and claim proof of discrimination? Or quote a feminist (or anyone) who makes that claim?
I read it when it came out, and skimmed it again now, and I don’t read a claim of discrimination in it at all.
If anything, as you later say, it does the exact opposite.
A bit quick to the invective, no?
There’s a simple solution: Get rid of men’s and women’s teams. Have a football team – all 240 lb women who can run a 10.8 100 please try out. Have a water polo team – all women who like to have their faces rearranged by the ball while their shorts are torn off by someone’s toenails – please apply.
(Ya know, this could get positively amusing w a little imagination.)