The blaming of the shrew
Phyllis Schlafly, role model to young right-wing harpies everywhere, wades into the Title IX discussion and proves that any woman in America can be just as big an ass as a man if she puts her mind to it. She starts with a brief history of Title IX...and then goes off the deep end:
During the Clinton administration, Title IX was aggressively used to abolish college men's sports as well as to create women's teams. In line with feminist ideological goals, the teams abolished were those where men excel, i.e., men's wrestling, men's gymnastics, men's golf and football. [my emphasis....please note that men also excel at men’s baseball, men’s basketball, etc. Women have been known to excel at women's gymnastics, women's golf, women's basketball,...you get the idea]
Colleges have eliminated 171 wrestling teams (40 percent of the national total) plus hundreds of other sports in which men excel, many of them trophy-winning teams. The evidence is overwhelming that Title IX has been turned into a tool to punish men.
"to punish men". Really? Care to explain why?
Phyllis obliges:
The effect on men's sports, and specifically on wrestling teams, is not an unintended consequence. The feminists' intention is to eliminate everything that is masculine or macho, and to pretend that women are equal to men in physical prowess and desire. [my emphasis. again]
Oh.
Now, taking a few steps backward we are asked to connect the loss of men's golf and men's gymnastics* teams because they are too "masculine and macho"?
Yup. Nothing like a steroid-pumped, testosterone soaked, strapping young male carding a birdie on a particularly difficult par 3 to get the coed's swooning with, well, not desire, since Ms. Schlafly insists they can't match men when it comes to desire (speak for yourself, Phyllis). I have to confess she lost me right there, probably because she has no idea what she is talking about. Where she sees conspiracy, I see opportunity. Where she sees cheerleaders, I see athletes.
The fact is that female high school athletic participation is at an all time high and growing because sports have been encouraged for girls and because Title IX has made the possibility of a college education available to some whom might not have had a shot, financially or grades-wise. A popular argument is to point out the fact that there are more male high school athletes than girls, therefore girls aren’t as interested, while neglecting to point out that there is no female sport at the high school level that carries as many athletes as a football team (40 -60 players) at as many as three levels (varsity, JV, freshman). With a 120-180-person head start, is it any wonder the numbers look skewed?
I was at a recent tryout for the girl’s basketball team at a 4-year high school with 1300 students. Over one hundred and thirty girls, one tenth of the student body, showed up for spots on three teams (varsity, JV, freshman) that will carry a combined thirty-six players. The number of girls at basketball tryouts didn't include the 140 girls who were trying out for soccer, a sport that runs concurrent with basketball. I'm coaching a middle school girl’s basketball team this year with a class of 17 eighth grade girls eligible for varsity. I have 13 who have signed up to play and will play.
Phyllis Schlafly wouldn't know desire if it smacked her in the face with a behind-the-back pass.
*(Disclaimer: I was a two-time letterman in gymnastics in high school and taught gymnastics through the City Parks and Rec. department while going to college. I know first hand the perception of men's gymnastics. "Macho" doesn't leap readily to mind)
(Added: here is starting first baseman Casey in the Pony League championship game last year. Yeah. A girl. The only one in the league. Tell me again about ability and desire.)
