Sure, and there aren't more female CEO's because they don't apply and aren't qualified....
My point being that it is a regrettable situation that is slowly changing. Not "blaming" anyone.
It remains the great irony (or bitter injustice) of the "abortion debate" that almost all of the principals are men. More women in Congress, people who themselves may have had to have an abortion or might be obliged to consider one in the future would allow for a little more nuance in regulating the procedure, don't you think? Like if you watched form the sidelines while a bunch of woman expounded on the pros and cons of circumcision, waxing elequent on the sancity of the foreskin, god's plan for the penis, etc. Look at that picture up top again and imagine it consists of Barbara Boxer, Diane Feinstien, etc. beaming as they sign the "Foreskin Control Act of 2003". Cool with that?
There are women in CEO positions, but you have to understand that it's not all a bunch of crap.
These observations are all empirical. Whine if you want, you know it's true.
1) The average man is more competitive, less forgiving, and more direct than the average woman, hence on the average is a better exec.
2) Men don't have to deal with babies. maternity leave doesn't help you climb up the corporate ladder. This is a fact of life, and it's practical.
3) The big kicker: MORE MEN ARE INTERESTED IN BEING CEOs!!!
The same is true in many respects with other structures of authority, for example the legislature. The same is also true with the military, at least to some extent. That is, fewer women volunteer.
Your proposed foreskin control act is a poor example. A circumcision has little affect on anyone else's life other than the male in question. There is so much debate to the sanctity of abortion. There's really nothing I know of (aside from stem cell reseach, go figure) where there's so much uncertainty.
Keep also in mind that we don't live in a democracy. The US is a republic, and women have voted in these men to represent them. I'm a big fan of direct democracy, but I admit it would be difficult to implement.
Before screaming "equal opportunity," you should consider that equal opportunity should grant equality to everyone who wants to do the task, and not just everyone in the population.
There are women in CEO positions, but you have to understand that it's not all a bunch of crap.
These observations are all empirical. Whine if you want, you know it's true.
1) The average man is more competitive, less forgiving, and more direct than the average woman, hence on the average is a better exec.
2) Men don't have to deal with babies. maternity leave doesn't help you climb up the corporate ladder. This is a fact of life, and it's practical.
3) The big kicker: MORE MEN ARE INTERESTED IN BEING CEOs!!!
The same is true in many respects with other structures of authority, for example the legislature. The same is also true with the military, at least to some extent. That is, fewer women volunteer.
Your proposed foreskin control act is a poor example. A circumcision has little affect on anyone else's life other than the male in question. There is so much debate to the sanctity of abortion. There's really nothing I know of (aside from stem cell reseach, go figure) where there's so much uncertainty.
Keep also in mind that we don't live in a democracy. The US is a republic, and women have voted in these men to represent them. I'm a big fan of direct democracy, but I admit it would be difficult to implement.
Before screaming "equal opportunity," you should consider that equal opportunity should grant equality to everyone who wants to do the task, and not just everyone in the population.
First, I neither whined nor screamed. Apparently you want to debate someone else.
None of your speculations on the character of women are the least bit empirical, and I would say that they are, in fact not true.
The perception that a woman's competiveness, directness, etc. makes for a worse CEO is just raw sexism. A woman in an executive world shaped by men will bring something different to the table, sure, and it might be great. Ask the share holders of Enron about the wonders of male competitiveness.
Men don't have to deal with babies because men set it up that way. Wanna bet if woman got to decide, maternity leave would be for both parents and childbearing would be structured into the corporate system? Seems like the family values thing to do.
Woman don't want to be CEO's? LOL! I gues they're more comfortable in the home, preparing meals and decorating. There's this little thing called the 21st century. Might want to check it out.
Anyway, there's been a steady drop in people who consider themselves pro-choice ever since this "partial birth" abortion debate has been stewing. People have begun to identify abortion with that issue, and most people are against it, so more people have been saying they are pro-life in the past 5-10 years. Now that they won't have that issue, the pro-lifers won't be happy.
I didn't know it was an either-or issue.
Whether you're alive or not has to be a measurable state of being. It should be based on something like a heartbeat, signs of cognition, etc. So up to a certain point yes, abortions should be absolutely legal, no questions asked. But after several weeks, it gets quite muddy. And no, I would hate an expanded law based on age (trimesters). That's opening the door to the 23rd hour issue.
Quote:
In the 50 years I've been alive I still don't understand everything about a woman's feelings. Anymore than a woman can fully understand a man. We're different that's just the way it is. Anyone who says anything else is selling something or just terribly naive
Which feeling are we talking about...the desire to kill your own unborn child? You can't do something just because you desire it. There are sometimes laws and ethics that get in your way.
There are women in CEO positions, but you have to understand that it's not all a bunch of crap.
These observations are all empirical. Whine if you want, you know it's true.
1) The average man is more competitive, less forgiving, and more direct than the average woman, hence on the average is a better exec.
2) Men don't have to deal with babies. maternity leave doesn't help you climb up the corporate ladder. This is a fact of life, and it's practical.
3) The big kicker: MORE MEN ARE INTERESTED IN BEING CEOs!!!
2) is quite correct
for 1) i am interested by your sources. I watch sport, and i never have the feeling that women where less competitive than man. Oh yes it's empirical observations. At my level the empirical observations of my parents, lead me to think that my mother is more interested in competition than my father, an observation that is worthless alone in a statistical point of vue.
for 3) more men are interested by CEO. Here again no sources. I will add that most women will certainly think that they can't become CEO. One hundred years ago, the school and universitty did not promote the ascension of the women for executive jobs. Some women reached this status, due to a high fighting spirit, showing the way for others. People of this time will have certainly explain that empiracally (but so obviously that no proofs where necessary) that a women was not suited for politic, CEO, or any jobs with high responsabilities. Anyway she was suited for keeping the house and the childs. A good education will bring her the necessarty brightness to enlight her husband, but it should no going further.
Time have changed, and luckily things have progressed. But the perfect equality of chances are not here right now. However the occidental word has reached a decent level, a level that unfortunately is far from existed in others countries.
for 1) i am interested by your sources. I watch sport, and i never have the feeling that women where less competitive than man. Oh yes it's empirical observations. At my level the empirical observations of my parents, lead me to think that my mother is more interested in competition than my father, an observation that is worthless alone in a statistical point of vue.
for 3) more men are interested by CEO. Here again no sources. I will add that most women will certainly think that they can't become CEO. One hundred years ago, the school and universitty did not promote the ascension of the women for executive jobs. Some women reached this status, due to a high fighting spirit, showing the way for others. People of this time will have certainly explain that empiracally (but so obviously that no proofs where necessary) that a women was not suited for politic, CEO, or any jobs with high responsabilities. Anyway she was suited for keeping the house and the childs. A good education will bring her the necessarty brightness to enlight her husband, but it should no going further.
Time have changed, and luckily things have progressed. But the perfect equality of chances are not here right now. However the occidental word has reached a decent level, a level that unfortunately is far from existed in others countries.
Thanks for the analysis, but your "sources" are no better than mine, and in fact are probably worse. There are more men interested in engineering, and there are more men interested in business. At least that's what I'd assume from looking at my class's stats.
Thanks for the analysis, but your "sources" are no better than mine, and in fact are probably worse. There are more men interested in engineering, and there are more men interested in business. At least that's what I'd assume from looking at my class's stats.
yep but if you follow the evolution of the statical analysis on the subject, you will notice, that more and more girls are interested in these aeras.
yep but if you follow the evolution of the statical analysis on the subject, you will notice, that more and more girls are interested in these aeras.
Exactly, which happened after Title IX started removing artifical barriers to girl's participation. At the time, there were plenty of conservative pundits that explained that girls weren't as interested in sports as boys, so leveling the playing field (so to speak) was just political correctness run amuck and a waste of money better spent on the boys that really wanted it.
All utter bullshit, of course, but damn don't that old time religion die hard?
As far as a fetus humanity starts at self awareness. Until then it's just tissue. There is also the issue of what kind of life will an unwanted child have?
the fetus is alive, despite not being self aware. you'd still be killed a living thing--all equal in my book.
issue of the life of an unwanted child?? umm...how about adoption?!?!?! plenty of sterile couples out there would gladly accept the children that all these women dont want.
the fetus is alive, despite not being self aware. you'd still be killed a living thing--all equal in my book.
issue of the life of an unwanted child?? umm...how about adoption?!?!?! plenty of sterile couples out there would gladly accept the children that all these women dont want.
Even worse, how can we on the exterior know for sure whether a fetus is self-aware? Does the lack of outward cognitive response tell us something *is not* self-aware?
As for child-adoption...it's really too bad the system in place sucks a fatty.
Even worse, how can we on the exterior know for sure whether a fetus is self-aware? Does the lack of outward cognitive response tell us something *is not* self-aware?
As for child-adoption...it's really too bad the system in place sucks a fatty.
Exactly, which happened after Title XIII started removing artifical barriers to girl's participation. At the time, there were plenty of conservative pundits that explained that girls weren't as interested in sports as boys, so leveling the playing field (so to speak) was just political correctness run amuck and a waste of money better spent on the boys that really wanted it.
All utter bullshit, of course, but damn don't that old time religion die hard?
Title IX sucks ass.
all schools did was cut mens teams to lower the male:female ratio because there arent enough women sports to equal male participation.
all schools did was cut mens teams to lower the male:female ratio because there arent enough women sports to equal male participation.
great job
Will all due respect, Mr. Moderator, you don't know what you're talking about. U.S. Gerneral Accounting stats show a tripling of female participation in sports at NCAA member institutions since Title IX took effect (1971-1974, I'm sure the figure is higher now). As a result, women made up about 80% of sports participation in 1994 at NCAA colleges, compared to less than 20% in 1971. How is that not good? Are you saying woman aren't entitled? That they're just pretending to like sports because they want to stick it to the guys?
The thing that usually happens is college football programs, which are sancrosact, suck up so much of the money for athletics that trying to even things out elsewhere requires spreading out relatively insignificant amounts of money.
So before you blame Title IX for a cut in the rugby program, take another look at the football locker room, workout area, stadium, uniforms, trainers, coaches, buses, et al.
Will all due respect, Mr. Moderator, you don't know what you're talking about. U.S. Gerneral Accounting stats show a tripling of female participation in sports at NCAA member institutions since Title IX took effect (1971-1974, I'm sure the figure is higher now). As a result, women made up about 80% of sports participation in 1994 at NCAA colleges, compared to less than 20% in 1971. How is that not good? Are you saying woman aren't entitled? That they're just pretending to like sports because they want to stick it to the guys?
The thing that usually happens is college football programs, which are sancrosact, suck up so much of the money for athletics that trying to even things out elsewhere requires spreading out relatively insignificant amounts of money.
So before you blame Title IX for a cut in the rugby program, take another look at the football locker room, workout area, stadium, uniforms, trainers, coaches, buses, et al.
you're not making any sense.
Title IX requires the male to women ratio of student athletes to be within 5 percent...... its near impossible to achieve without cutting mens teams....and yes....football is a big reason for that....why? Because a football team is the largest team on any campus and there is no women's equivalent.
Wresting, gymnastics, rugby and several other sports are endangered just here at Cal because of that.
The way Cal meets Title IX is via the requirement that we show "progress" towards achieving equality.
Title IX requires the male to women ratio of student athletes to be within 5 percent...... its near impossible to achieve without cutting mens teams....and yes....football is a big reason for that....why? Because a football team is the largest team on any campus and there is no women's equivalent.
Wresting, gymnastics, rugby and several other sports are endangered just here at Cal because of that.
The way Cal meets Title IX is via the requirement that we show "progress" towards achieving equality.
Well, actually, that is my point. Wrestling, gymnastics and rugby are endangered not because of woman taking something away but because the Bears are such an enormous part of the whole fabric of the school that "athletics" really means football and some other stuff. If the funding priorities were adjusted there would be money for both men and woman to participate in the sport of their choice, but football takes too much of the pie for that to happen.
So again, blame it on the Golden Bears but don't blame woman for wanting the same oportunities as men.
Well, actually, that is my point. Wrestling, gymnastics and rugby are endangered not because of woman taking something away but because the Bears are such an enormous part of the whole fabric of the school that "athletics" really means football and some other stuff. If the funding priorities were adjusted there would be money for both men and woman to participate in the sport of their choice, but football takes too much of the pie for that to happen.
So again, blame it on the Golden Bears but don't blame woman for wanting the same oportunities as men.
the funding is THERE. the methods of meeting the ridiculous requirements ARE NOT. gymnastics costs Cal nothing....rugby the same.....wrestling....nothing. these are non revenue sports but they also dont cost much at all....they all use existing facilities and have low costs...... but having them prevents us from meeting Title IX's ratio.
it's not the money, it's the amount of female athletes to male athletes.....and there just arent enough.
maybe thats why the women's water polo team has 60 members vs the men's 28 or so...... is packing a sport just to increase number really offering equal oppurtunity?
the funding is THERE. the methods of meeting the ridiculous requirements ARE NOT. gymnastics costs Cal nothing....rugby the same.....wrestling....nothing. these are non revenue sports but they also dont cost much at all....they all use existing facilities and have low costs...... but having them prevents us from meeting Title IX's ratio.
it's not the money, it's the amount of female athletes to male athletes.....and there just arent enough.
maybe thats why the women's water polo team has 60 members vs the men's 28 or so...... is packing a sport just to increase number really offering equal oppurtunity?
Title IX intends well, but fails in delivery.
The administration may be telling you this, or it might be conventional wisdom among the men at Cal, but it is not true.
As pointed out on the site: in the assessment of the "interests and abilities" portion of the Title IX regulations, a three part test governs. As the name suggests, this test consists of three separate and distinct parts. All that is required under Title IX is that an institution be in compliance with one part of that test. No one part of the test is the predominant or "true" measure of compliance. The three parts of the test are:
Part One: Substantial Proportionality. This part of the test is satisfied when participation opportunities for men and women are "substantially proportionate" to their respective undergraduate enrollments.
Part Two: History and Continuing Practice. This part of the test is satisfied when an institution has a history and continuing practice of program expansion that is responsive to the developing interests and abilities of the underrepresented sex (typically female).
Part Three: Effectively Accommodating Interests and Abilities. This part of the test is satisfied when an institution is meeting the interests and abilities of its female students even where there are disproportionately fewer females than males participating in sports.
Read that number three again. How is it that male sports are being reduced at UC to "bring them down" to the level of female participation if the university is already meeting the interests and abilities of female students and there is plenty of money? Nothing in title IX obliges Berkeley to kill off male wrestling just because no women want to wrestle. In fact, it was specifically written to avoid just such an outcome.
It's become popular for schools to blame title IX for reductions in men's sports funding, but if you take a look at some of the charts in the linked page, they show reductions in funding (for everything but football) do not correlate with the implementation of the legislation.
Sorry for the massive off-topic post, but hey, I'm swappin' stats with the mod....
yes, im very familiar with the 3 points of Title IX
The problem with the third one that you point out is that its based on judgment. One may see a school as meeting needs of all women athletes, while another may be bitching that there is no women's ice hockey team.
Cal's athletic department lost 5.2Million last year. So, while I said that money is not an issue, the department is being pushed to reduce operating deficit, at the same time, our women student athletes have been pushed to an all-time high. The sports that we have for women do cost money and are scholarship driven....well...most of em. But to suggest that football and women's field hockey should receive the same financial backing oppurtunities is insane. Income-producing sports should be exempt. then you would see more accurate and realistic equality.
Title IX originally was never enforced, the Supreme Court ruled that it applied only to programs that directly received federal funds. But then Congress changed that in the Civil rights Restoration Act.
After that, the number of women rose slightly while the number of men athletes dropped to an all time low in 1990. coincidence? i think not. Then women started sueing schools for inequality and started winning and schools felt forced into meeting the first requirement.....percentage of female athletes. Schools that could afford to massively increase women's teams did. Texas spent 3 million alone. But other schools cant afford that and just made cuts.....but not to revenue sports...how nice.
and now many schools are reaching a point where there is more women's teams and athletes then there really is demand.....is women's crew really that popular out here in the west that our team has 60+ women? hell no, they take just about anyone and as a result inflate our women athlete numbers. meanwhile if the baseball team wants one extra recruit or even walk-on its restricted.
women's athletics here contributes just 15.3% to our total athletic department revenue. yet we are forced to equallly fund all women's programs. does that make sense? is that even financially smart? in 2000 the women's programs expense for the year was 33%, and looking at the previous years, it has increased about 2 percentage points each year which would put it at around 38 or 39 % now.....for 15.3% revenue.
Colleges find the first of the three goals easiest to achieve since the other ones are very detailed and as I said judgmental. you make it seem like part 3 is a piece of cake to prove and achieve......to meet that part the school needs to meet 11 program areas such as equal travel expenses, equipment and supplies, scheduling, tutoring, coaching staffs, locker rooms, practice facilities, medical facilities, housing, recruitment, etc....... many of which completing WOULD cost a lot of money and may be unneccessary.
Comments
In the 50 years I've been alive I still don't understand everything about a woman's feelings.
and they do?
Originally posted by addabox
Sure, and there aren't more female CEO's because they don't apply and aren't qualified....
My point being that it is a regrettable situation that is slowly changing. Not "blaming" anyone.
It remains the great irony (or bitter injustice) of the "abortion debate" that almost all of the principals are men. More women in Congress, people who themselves may have had to have an abortion or might be obliged to consider one in the future would allow for a little more nuance in regulating the procedure, don't you think? Like if you watched form the sidelines while a bunch of woman expounded on the pros and cons of circumcision, waxing elequent on the sancity of the foreskin, god's plan for the penis, etc. Look at that picture up top again and imagine it consists of Barbara Boxer, Diane Feinstien, etc. beaming as they sign the "Foreskin Control Act of 2003". Cool with that?
There are women in CEO positions, but you have to understand that it's not all a bunch of crap.
These observations are all empirical. Whine if you want, you know it's true.
1) The average man is more competitive, less forgiving, and more direct than the average woman, hence on the average is a better exec.
2) Men don't have to deal with babies. maternity leave doesn't help you climb up the corporate ladder. This is a fact of life, and it's practical.
3) The big kicker: MORE MEN ARE INTERESTED IN BEING CEOs!!!
The same is true in many respects with other structures of authority, for example the legislature. The same is also true with the military, at least to some extent. That is, fewer women volunteer.
Your proposed foreskin control act is a poor example. A circumcision has little affect on anyone else's life other than the male in question. There is so much debate to the sanctity of abortion. There's really nothing I know of (aside from stem cell reseach, go figure) where there's so much uncertainty.
Keep also in mind that we don't live in a democracy. The US is a republic, and women have voted in these men to represent them. I'm a big fan of direct democracy, but I admit it would be difficult to implement.
Before screaming "equal opportunity," you should consider that equal opportunity should grant equality to everyone who wants to do the task, and not just everyone in the population.
Originally posted by Splinemodel
There are women in CEO positions, but you have to understand that it's not all a bunch of crap.
These observations are all empirical. Whine if you want, you know it's true.
1) The average man is more competitive, less forgiving, and more direct than the average woman, hence on the average is a better exec.
2) Men don't have to deal with babies. maternity leave doesn't help you climb up the corporate ladder. This is a fact of life, and it's practical.
3) The big kicker: MORE MEN ARE INTERESTED IN BEING CEOs!!!
The same is true in many respects with other structures of authority, for example the legislature. The same is also true with the military, at least to some extent. That is, fewer women volunteer.
Your proposed foreskin control act is a poor example. A circumcision has little affect on anyone else's life other than the male in question. There is so much debate to the sanctity of abortion. There's really nothing I know of (aside from stem cell reseach, go figure) where there's so much uncertainty.
Keep also in mind that we don't live in a democracy. The US is a republic, and women have voted in these men to represent them. I'm a big fan of direct democracy, but I admit it would be difficult to implement.
Before screaming "equal opportunity," you should consider that equal opportunity should grant equality to everyone who wants to do the task, and not just everyone in the population.
First, I neither whined nor screamed. Apparently you want to debate someone else.
None of your speculations on the character of women are the least bit empirical, and I would say that they are, in fact not true.
The perception that a woman's competiveness, directness, etc. makes for a worse CEO is just raw sexism. A woman in an executive world shaped by men will bring something different to the table, sure, and it might be great. Ask the share holders of Enron about the wonders of male competitiveness.
Men don't have to deal with babies because men set it up that way. Wanna bet if woman got to decide, maternity leave would be for both parents and childbearing would be structured into the corporate system? Seems like the family values thing to do.
Woman don't want to be CEO's? LOL! I gues they're more comfortable in the home, preparing meals and decorating. There's this little thing called the 21st century. Might want to check it out.
Originally posted by BRussell
Anyway, there's been a steady drop in people who consider themselves pro-choice ever since this "partial birth" abortion debate has been stewing. People have begun to identify abortion with that issue, and most people are against it, so more people have been saying they are pro-life in the past 5-10 years. Now that they won't have that issue, the pro-lifers won't be happy.
I didn't know it was an either-or issue.
Whether you're alive or not has to be a measurable state of being. It should be based on something like a heartbeat, signs of cognition, etc. So up to a certain point yes, abortions should be absolutely legal, no questions asked. But after several weeks, it gets quite muddy. And no, I would hate an expanded law based on age (trimesters). That's opening the door to the 23rd hour issue.
In the 50 years I've been alive I still don't understand everything about a woman's feelings. Anymore than a woman can fully understand a man. We're different that's just the way it is. Anyone who says anything else is selling something or just terribly naive
Which feeling are we talking about...the desire to kill your own unborn child? You can't do something just because you desire it. There are sometimes laws and ethics that get in your way.
Originally posted by Eugene
Which feeling are we talking about...the desire to kill your own unborn child?
Yeah, that's the crux of the matter. Women are bloodthirsty monsters.
Originally posted by Splinemodel
There are women in CEO positions, but you have to understand that it's not all a bunch of crap.
These observations are all empirical. Whine if you want, you know it's true.
1) The average man is more competitive, less forgiving, and more direct than the average woman, hence on the average is a better exec.
2) Men don't have to deal with babies. maternity leave doesn't help you climb up the corporate ladder. This is a fact of life, and it's practical.
3) The big kicker: MORE MEN ARE INTERESTED IN BEING CEOs!!!
2) is quite correct
for 1) i am interested by your sources. I watch sport, and i never have the feeling that women where less competitive than man. Oh yes it's empirical observations. At my level the empirical observations of my parents, lead me to think that my mother is more interested in competition than my father, an observation that is worthless alone in a statistical point of vue.
for 3) more men are interested by CEO. Here again no sources. I will add that most women will certainly think that they can't become CEO. One hundred years ago, the school and universitty did not promote the ascension of the women for executive jobs. Some women reached this status, due to a high fighting spirit, showing the way for others. People of this time will have certainly explain that empiracally (but so obviously that no proofs where necessary) that a women was not suited for politic, CEO, or any jobs with high responsabilities. Anyway she was suited for keeping the house and the childs. A good education will bring her the necessarty brightness to enlight her husband, but it should no going further.
Time have changed, and luckily things have progressed. But the perfect equality of chances are not here right now. However the occidental word has reached a decent level, a level that unfortunately is far from existed in others countries.
Originally posted by Powerdoc
2) is quite correct
for 1) i am interested by your sources. I watch sport, and i never have the feeling that women where less competitive than man. Oh yes it's empirical observations. At my level the empirical observations of my parents, lead me to think that my mother is more interested in competition than my father, an observation that is worthless alone in a statistical point of vue.
for 3) more men are interested by CEO. Here again no sources. I will add that most women will certainly think that they can't become CEO. One hundred years ago, the school and universitty did not promote the ascension of the women for executive jobs. Some women reached this status, due to a high fighting spirit, showing the way for others. People of this time will have certainly explain that empiracally (but so obviously that no proofs where necessary) that a women was not suited for politic, CEO, or any jobs with high responsabilities. Anyway she was suited for keeping the house and the childs. A good education will bring her the necessarty brightness to enlight her husband, but it should no going further.
Time have changed, and luckily things have progressed. But the perfect equality of chances are not here right now. However the occidental word has reached a decent level, a level that unfortunately is far from existed in others countries.
Thanks for the analysis, but your "sources" are no better than mine, and in fact are probably worse. There are more men interested in engineering, and there are more men interested in business. At least that's what I'd assume from looking at my class's stats.
Originally posted by Splinemodel
Thanks for the analysis, but your "sources" are no better than mine, and in fact are probably worse. There are more men interested in engineering, and there are more men interested in business. At least that's what I'd assume from looking at my class's stats.
yep but if you follow the evolution of the statical analysis on the subject, you will notice, that more and more girls are interested in these aeras.
Originally posted by Powerdoc
yep but if you follow the evolution of the statical analysis on the subject, you will notice, that more and more girls are interested in these aeras.
Exactly, which happened after Title IX started removing artifical barriers to girl's participation. At the time, there were plenty of conservative pundits that explained that girls weren't as interested in sports as boys, so leveling the playing field (so to speak) was just political correctness run amuck and a waste of money better spent on the boys that really wanted it.
All utter bullshit, of course, but damn don't that old time religion die hard?
Originally posted by jimmac
As far as a fetus humanity starts at self awareness. Until then it's just tissue. There is also the issue of what kind of life will an unwanted child have?
the fetus is alive, despite not being self aware. you'd still be killed a living thing--all equal in my book.
issue of the life of an unwanted child?? umm...how about adoption?!?!?! plenty of sterile couples out there would gladly accept the children that all these women dont want.
Originally posted by _ alliance _
the fetus is alive, despite not being self aware. you'd still be killed a living thing--all equal in my book.
issue of the life of an unwanted child?? umm...how about adoption?!?!?! plenty of sterile couples out there would gladly accept the children that all these women dont want.
Even worse, how can we on the exterior know for sure whether a fetus is self-aware? Does the lack of outward cognitive response tell us something *is not* self-aware?
As for child-adoption...it's really too bad the system in place sucks a fatty.
Originally posted by Eugene
Even worse, how can we on the exterior know for sure whether a fetus is self-aware? Does the lack of outward cognitive response tell us something *is not* self-aware?
As for child-adoption...it's really too bad the system in place sucks a fatty.
agreed. everything about this issue is bullshit.
Originally posted by addabox
Exactly, which happened after Title XIII started removing artifical barriers to girl's participation. At the time, there were plenty of conservative pundits that explained that girls weren't as interested in sports as boys, so leveling the playing field (so to speak) was just political correctness run amuck and a waste of money better spent on the boys that really wanted it.
All utter bullshit, of course, but damn don't that old time religion die hard?
Title IX sucks ass.
all schools did was cut mens teams to lower the male:female ratio because there arent enough women sports to equal male participation.
great job
Originally posted by applenut
Title IX sucks ass.
all schools did was cut mens teams to lower the male:female ratio because there arent enough women sports to equal male participation.
great job
Will all due respect, Mr. Moderator, you don't know what you're talking about. U.S. Gerneral Accounting stats show a tripling of female participation in sports at NCAA member institutions since Title IX took effect (1971-1974, I'm sure the figure is higher now). As a result, women made up about 80% of sports participation in 1994 at NCAA colleges, compared to less than 20% in 1971. How is that not good? Are you saying woman aren't entitled? That they're just pretending to like sports because they want to stick it to the guys?
The thing that usually happens is college football programs, which are sancrosact, suck up so much of the money for athletics that trying to even things out elsewhere requires spreading out relatively insignificant amounts of money.
So before you blame Title IX for a cut in the rugby program, take another look at the football locker room, workout area, stadium, uniforms, trainers, coaches, buses, et al.
Originally posted by addabox
Will all due respect, Mr. Moderator, you don't know what you're talking about. U.S. Gerneral Accounting stats show a tripling of female participation in sports at NCAA member institutions since Title IX took effect (1971-1974, I'm sure the figure is higher now). As a result, women made up about 80% of sports participation in 1994 at NCAA colleges, compared to less than 20% in 1971. How is that not good? Are you saying woman aren't entitled? That they're just pretending to like sports because they want to stick it to the guys?
The thing that usually happens is college football programs, which are sancrosact, suck up so much of the money for athletics that trying to even things out elsewhere requires spreading out relatively insignificant amounts of money.
So before you blame Title IX for a cut in the rugby program, take another look at the football locker room, workout area, stadium, uniforms, trainers, coaches, buses, et al.
you're not making any sense.
Title IX requires the male to women ratio of student athletes to be within 5 percent...... its near impossible to achieve without cutting mens teams....and yes....football is a big reason for that....why? Because a football team is the largest team on any campus and there is no women's equivalent.
Wresting, gymnastics, rugby and several other sports are endangered just here at Cal because of that.
The way Cal meets Title IX is via the requirement that we show "progress" towards achieving equality.
Originally posted by applenut
you're not making any sense.
Title IX requires the male to women ratio of student athletes to be within 5 percent...... its near impossible to achieve without cutting mens teams....and yes....football is a big reason for that....why? Because a football team is the largest team on any campus and there is no women's equivalent.
Wresting, gymnastics, rugby and several other sports are endangered just here at Cal because of that.
The way Cal meets Title IX is via the requirement that we show "progress" towards achieving equality.
Well, actually, that is my point. Wrestling, gymnastics and rugby are endangered not because of woman taking something away but because the Bears are such an enormous part of the whole fabric of the school that "athletics" really means football and some other stuff. If the funding priorities were adjusted there would be money for both men and woman to participate in the sport of their choice, but football takes too much of the pie for that to happen.
So again, blame it on the Golden Bears but don't blame woman for wanting the same oportunities as men.
Originally posted by addabox
Well, actually, that is my point. Wrestling, gymnastics and rugby are endangered not because of woman taking something away but because the Bears are such an enormous part of the whole fabric of the school that "athletics" really means football and some other stuff. If the funding priorities were adjusted there would be money for both men and woman to participate in the sport of their choice, but football takes too much of the pie for that to happen.
So again, blame it on the Golden Bears but don't blame woman for wanting the same oportunities as men.
the funding is THERE. the methods of meeting the ridiculous requirements ARE NOT. gymnastics costs Cal nothing....rugby the same.....wrestling....nothing. these are non revenue sports but they also dont cost much at all....they all use existing facilities and have low costs...... but having them prevents us from meeting Title IX's ratio.
it's not the money, it's the amount of female athletes to male athletes.....and there just arent enough.
maybe thats why the women's water polo team has 60 members vs the men's 28 or so...... is packing a sport just to increase number really offering equal oppurtunity?
Title IX intends well, but fails in delivery.
Originally posted by applenut
the funding is THERE. the methods of meeting the ridiculous requirements ARE NOT. gymnastics costs Cal nothing....rugby the same.....wrestling....nothing. these are non revenue sports but they also dont cost much at all....they all use existing facilities and have low costs...... but having them prevents us from meeting Title IX's ratio.
it's not the money, it's the amount of female athletes to male athletes.....and there just arent enough.
maybe thats why the women's water polo team has 60 members vs the men's 28 or so...... is packing a sport just to increase number really offering equal oppurtunity?
Title IX intends well, but fails in delivery.
The administration may be telling you this, or it might be conventional wisdom among the men at Cal, but it is not true.
For instance:
http://bailiwick.lib.uiowa.edu/ge/CHBGrant/present.html
As pointed out on the site: in the assessment of the "interests and abilities" portion of the Title IX regulations, a three part test governs. As the name suggests, this test consists of three separate and distinct parts. All that is required under Title IX is that an institution be in compliance with one part of that test. No one part of the test is the predominant or "true" measure of compliance. The three parts of the test are:
Part One: Substantial Proportionality. This part of the test is satisfied when participation opportunities for men and women are "substantially proportionate" to their respective undergraduate enrollments.
Part Two: History and Continuing Practice. This part of the test is satisfied when an institution has a history and continuing practice of program expansion that is responsive to the developing interests and abilities of the underrepresented sex (typically female).
Part Three: Effectively Accommodating Interests and Abilities. This part of the test is satisfied when an institution is meeting the interests and abilities of its female students even where there are disproportionately fewer females than males participating in sports.
Read that number three again. How is it that male sports are being reduced at UC to "bring them down" to the level of female participation if the university is already meeting the interests and abilities of female students and there is plenty of money? Nothing in title IX obliges Berkeley to kill off male wrestling just because no women want to wrestle. In fact, it was specifically written to avoid just such an outcome.
It's become popular for schools to blame title IX for reductions in men's sports funding, but if you take a look at some of the charts in the linked page, they show reductions in funding (for everything but football) do not correlate with the implementation of the legislation.
Sorry for the massive off-topic post, but hey, I'm swappin' stats with the mod....
The problem with the third one that you point out is that its based on judgment. One may see a school as meeting needs of all women athletes, while another may be bitching that there is no women's ice hockey team.
Cal's athletic department lost 5.2Million last year. So, while I said that money is not an issue, the department is being pushed to reduce operating deficit, at the same time, our women student athletes have been pushed to an all-time high. The sports that we have for women do cost money and are scholarship driven....well...most of em. But to suggest that football and women's field hockey should receive the same financial backing oppurtunities is insane. Income-producing sports should be exempt. then you would see more accurate and realistic equality.
Title IX originally was never enforced, the Supreme Court ruled that it applied only to programs that directly received federal funds. But then Congress changed that in the Civil rights Restoration Act.
After that, the number of women rose slightly while the number of men athletes dropped to an all time low in 1990. coincidence? i think not. Then women started sueing schools for inequality and started winning and schools felt forced into meeting the first requirement.....percentage of female athletes. Schools that could afford to massively increase women's teams did. Texas spent 3 million alone. But other schools cant afford that and just made cuts.....but not to revenue sports...how nice.
and now many schools are reaching a point where there is more women's teams and athletes then there really is demand.....is women's crew really that popular out here in the west that our team has 60+ women? hell no, they take just about anyone and as a result inflate our women athlete numbers. meanwhile if the baseball team wants one extra recruit or even walk-on its restricted.
women's athletics here contributes just 15.3% to our total athletic department revenue. yet we are forced to equallly fund all women's programs. does that make sense? is that even financially smart? in 2000 the women's programs expense for the year was 33%, and looking at the previous years, it has increased about 2 percentage points each year which would put it at around 38 or 39 % now.....for 15.3% revenue.
Colleges find the first of the three goals easiest to achieve since the other ones are very detailed and as I said judgmental. you make it seem like part 3 is a piece of cake to prove and achieve......to meet that part the school needs to meet 11 program areas such as equal travel expenses, equipment and supplies, scheduling, tutoring, coaching staffs, locker rooms, practice facilities, medical facilities, housing, recruitment, etc....... many of which completing WOULD cost a lot of money and may be unneccessary.
Our football team has 131 members, 88 of whom are on full scholarship (actual scholarship may be lower by 1 or 2 now that we are on NCAA probation).