<p>
[quote]
At my college, there was more and better housing available on campus for girls than for boys. As a result, pretty much no girl ever had to risk being forced to live off campus if she didn't want to. No matter how bad her number was.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>You're right lskinner, it is not fair. And when boys start being attacked and raped by girls on campus, I'm sure the boys will be offered more and better housing, too.</p>
<p>
[quote]
They seem to have 2 prinicples:</p>
<ol>
<li><p>Women are the same as men, and must be treated equally.</p></li>
<li><p>Women are different from men, and must be given special treatment.
[/quote]
</p></li>
</ol>
<p>This is not a feminist issue at all - it is a gender issue in college sports - and there IS another option</p>
<ol>
<li>Women are different from - and must be treated equally :)</li>
</ol>
<p>No one has addressed the problem of school district's being sued because some teams work/improve their own facilities.<br>
When people work to help themselves, there will never be true "equity". Those that help themselves will always be better off.<br>
Anyone ever read "The Little Red Hen"?</p>
<p>
[quote]
You're right lskinner, it is not fair. And when boys start being attacked and raped by girls on campus, I'm sure the boys will be offered more and better housing, too.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I'm not sure what your point is. </p>
<p>As I said in my post, "At the time, it seemed unfair, but the reality is that girls and boys are different and have different values and needs."</p>
<p>I have no problem with a policy that favors girls over boys in terms of housing. </p>
<p>My problem is with people who wave the banner of equality only when it suits their purposes.</p>
<hr>
<p>My other problem is with people who feel that equality should trump individual choices. For example, I recently learned that my synagogue has two sub-organizations: The "Sisterhood," and the "Brotherhood." The former group is for adult women who are members of the synagogue. The latter group is for adult men who are members of the synagogue.</p>
<p>Put aside for the moment that the whole concept of separate clubs for boys and for girls is a little passe. (As I told my wife, the 50s are over and the synagogue needs to move into the 21st century.)</p>
<p>Anyway, the Sisterhood has a lot of active members who get involved, aggressively fundraise etc. The Brotherhood does not. So the Sisterhood is very powerful and influential and the Brotherhood is not.</p>
<p>The upshot of this is that the womens' group has a lot of money and influence. The men's group does not. However, I don't see this as a terrible injustice and I wouldn't lobby the synagogue to take money from one group and give it to the other. Because the imbalance is not the result of any official policy. It's just the result of individual actions.</p>
<p>JMHO.</p>
<p>"Do women get more scholarships in chorus, theater, and dance than men"</p>
<p>Probably. But I doubt anyone has the data. At many colleges women outnumber the men and thereby use more of the facilities, does that count?"</p>
<p>It's actually been studied to death ('cause there WERE men who wanted to sue under Title IX.) Just ain't so.</p>
<p>"The upshot of this is that the womens' group has a lot of money and influence. The men's group does not."</p>
<p>That's pretty funny. :)</p>
<p>Bay, yes it is based on evidence. Check out the College Sports Council. Also read the articles of Jessica Gavora.
<a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18758554/site/newsweek/%5B/url%5D">http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18758554/site/newsweek/</a>
<a href="http://www.savingsports.org/home/%5B/url%5D">http://www.savingsports.org/home/</a></p>
<p>The interest surveys conducted at some of the well known womens' colleges turned up very, very small numbers of girls who wanted sports opportunities. THere was no issue of men taking a slice of the pie -- the whole pie was being served to the women & they still didn't want it!</p>
<p>Bay, I think you misread my post. My town DOES have competitive girls' teams. The boys teams generally stink. Yet boys come out in FAR GREATER numbers than girls do & are often cut from the contact sports teams. (I send my 16 year old D to a Catholic, all-girl school, so we never have to worry about boys getting better coaches, facilities, or opportunities. She's a successful varsity athlete, by the way. I'm also an athlete -- albeit I've lost a few steps -- who lived through the chauvanistic '70s, so I lived the bad old days of inequity. I'm not advocating that we return there.) My point is that I see this pattern repeated quite often: girls are not as interested in taking the varsity sports opportunities that are given to them. As long as nobody is denying them these opportunities, and as long as they are interested in other wholesome activities, why should we send in a bunch of bean counters to agonize over the numbers? You speak of competitive teams as a measure of girls' interest. I'm speaking of opportunities to play sports & the turnout at tryouts, regardless of how successful those teams are.</p>
<p>Doubleplay, I must have missed the part of "The Little Red Hen" where the hen's dad, convinced that she was going to strike it rich in the lucrative bakery big leagues, plopped down 5 G's for a special high-tech oven for her to showcase her talents with....</p>
<p>No, but lots of parents spend small fortunes on their girls to compete in pageants to showcase their talents in ???.
Maybe that's the ticket--a woman's pageant league. It's as much a sport as golf.</p>
<p>Here's another anecdote: My town has an incredible vocal program. Concert choir, madrigals, and even all-girl and non-audition offerings. They've sung at Carnegie Hall & have toured Europe several times. Winning all types of competition -- the whole shebang. Yet ten years ago the program was horrible. Why? No boys. They just didn't come out to sing. The energetic new director changed that by only allowing girls to audition if they brought along two guys who also would audition. The girls were able to persuade boys from all social networks to come out for choir & the program thrived. This director may have broken a law or two, for all I know. But it worked. Choir was suddenly cool. Boys who might have faced a bit of teasing for dressing up in velvet knickers & singing in madrigals could now claim they were helping out their girlfriends. Football players, hockey players, wrestlers -- all types of guys were actually competing for spots. This director did something smart & simple; he understood the different nature of boys & girls and exploited those differences to successfully build a fabulous choir program.</p>
<p>Yet with all the attention & travel & success the choir program has earned, there are STILL twice as many girls, perhaps theree times as many, taking part. I'm sure glad TItle IX isn't forcing equal numbers in choir programs, or well over 100 girls would be dropped in order to comply.</p>
<p>
[quote]
My point is that I see this pattern repeated quite often: girls are not as interested in taking the varsity sports opportunities that are given to them. As long as nobody is denying them these opportunities, and as long as they are interested in other wholesome activities, why should we send in a bunch of bean counters to agonize over the numbers? You speak of competitive teams as a measure of girls' interest. I'm speaking of opportunities to play sports & the turnout at tryouts, regardless of how successful those teams are.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>SS,</p>
<p>I did understand your post. My point was merely to counterpoint your generalization. At our local h.s, EVERY girls' sport has tryouts and many girls are cut from the teams (except for x-country, track, swimming and waterpolo, which are "no-cuts" teams for girls and boys along with football). In my experience, (which granted, is limited to our local h.s.), your assertion is just not true. Perhaps your experience is limited by the fact that your daughter attends an all-girls school. Maybe the girls who are attracted to such schools are less athletic? And by "competitive," I meant both in regards to other opposing teams and also among girls trying out for the team.</p>
<p>I (w/D's help) counted 19 girls going to Div. 1 athletics this fall, and we know of many others who would have played if the opportunity was offered.</p>
<p>(In your cited references, I didn't see any evidence that the interest was not there, rather just one woman's statement. Perhaps I missed it?)</p>
<p>
[quote]
"The upshot of this is that the womens' group has a lot of money and influence. The men's group does not."</p>
<p>That's pretty funny.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Perhaps, but I wonder if you would be as amused at a situation where it's the male group that ends up with a lot more resources than the female group.</p>
<p>My D's school sends girls to Div 1 programs & teams have won several state, county, and league championships. They're certainly not attracting less athletic girls than the publics around here. Perhaps the biggest girls' sports powerhouse in northern NJ is an all-girl Catholic.</p>
<p>Check out the College Sport Council site again. Here's a little bit from Neal McCluskey of the Cato Institue:
[quote]
It turns out that, contrary to what Title IX activists tell us, what women say does indeed translate into what they do. For instance, according to the Higher Education Research Institute's report "The American Freshman: National Norms for Fall 2004," between 2.7 and 5 percent of men (depending on the type of college in which they were enrolled) participated in no exercise or sports in a typical week of their senior year in high school. </p>
<p>In contrast, between 4.7 and 16.1 percent of women participated in no sports or exercise. On the high end, between 11.6 and 17 percent of men reported having spent more than 20 hours participating in exercise or sports as high school seniors, while only between 5.5 and 7.6 percent of females spent that much time. </p>
<p>The findings of "The American Freshman" are corroborated in Taking Sex Differences Seriously, by the University of Virginia's Steven Rhoads. Rhoads reports that despite the fact that anyone can play on college intramural teams, typically three to four times more men participate than women.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>SS-</p>
<p>I can't seem to find the quote in #152 in context (sorry, I guess its late!), but just addressing the portion you cite, it looks like 83.9-95.3% of women did in fact, participate in sports or exercise their senior year.</p>
<p>And the "20 hours" statement doesn't seem to prove a relevant point, since it doesn't address the number playing varsity sports, it just refers to the number "participating in exercise or sports" as seniors. (E.g., do hacky-sacking and air-soft wars count? :) )</p>
<p>Stickershock,
Our chorus in high school had a similar draw- our director took us on a weeklong international festival every other year (during the school year! France, Spain, Italy...). Guys who signed on as freshman or sophs were practically guaranteed at least two trips (it was always easier for guys to "make" the elite chorus). Plenty of jocks wanted to be in chorus.</p>
<p>The problem I see with including athletes in fine arts is when it comes to games vs. practices. Music directors have the power of the gradebook so if a kid doesn't want to flunk his elective, he'll miss games/meets for afterschool practice. Every year the number of kids signing up for performing arts gets smaller and smaller. Everyone scratches their heads and talks about why kids are dropping out and how to get more kids interested...</p>
<p>kluge,
I really don't know or care what difference it makes what someone's motivation is in donating to a team or school. So what if Johnnie's dad thinks he's going to buy Johnnie first base? It's the coach's responsibility to run that team. Our baseball coach did not bend to parental desires- as a result we've lost several players. So what? </p>
<p>I look at it this way- if someone thinks he's going to donate $50K to a ball team and his kid will then get an undeserved spot- he's a chump. He's going to lose his investment, at least with our coach, unless his kid is a standout player (but then if he is, who cares?). It's pretty much a win/win situation if you have the right coach.</p>
<p>doubleplay,</p>
<p>Our h.s. has the same problem with fine arts vs. athletics. Both are offered during the last period of the day and both practice/rehearse after school. It impossible for the kids to do both, which is why my former athletic dancer-singer-actress daughter is now just an athlete. Very unfortunate, I think.</p>