Fannie's Room
My daughter played softball for five years. All of the fields were allocated to boys games by default. Every boy knew his schedule and where he would play, The girl's schedule was always in flux as they were forced to play on whatever field might not have a boys game scheduled.
Her team had one game at the best park in the city. But the rules were set up so that that game HAD to end by 7:00 PM because the boys were scheduled to begin at 7:00.
Her game went into extra innings and when 7:00 rolled around her game was suspended while tied in the eighth inning.
Finally in 1999 the city sprung for a new field just for girls; it is second rate compared to the boys main field. The boys have real dugouts and a club house. Even on those rare occasions when the girls played on the boys field, the club house was off limits. The girls would have to pee in the woods, the boys had a place to go.
It is interesting to read the experiences of parents of boys versus parents of girls. It has been my experience that the parents of my teammates growing up were strongly in favor of Title IX and were angry about unfair situations like John's daughter faced (and still face in many places). I guess from my own personal experience it is hard for me to believe that some people think girls are overprivileged now and have it so easy.
I also am the parent of a boy, now 16.
I've have never seen anything remotely resembling discrimination in any activity he has chosen.
Interestingly, my daughter had a good friend, a boy, who wanted to participate in the Colorguard, No boy has ever done that before, but he was welcomed with open arms.
(The girls loved him, the boys teased him.)
You ladies wouldn't be so complainy if you had just done the sensible thing and became cheerleaders.
Duh.
I went from public middle school where girls' teams were pretty much a joke to a private high school that had such an intense focus on excellence in athletics (and academics) that we routinely won state championships in every sport - against much larger schools. I am so glad to have had that experience - our sports were "real", we had award-winning coaches, and our victories were celebrated by the entire school. That was such an awesome part of high school to me that I can't imagine being without it and I hope all girls can have that sense of accomplishment and pride - even simply "mattering" at pep rallies was a big deal. Then on to the big-time university with a huge football program. I think I heard about 3 women's sports teams the whole time I was there. Sports can be such a great way to boost confidence and to have a sense of involvement and community, it is tragic to think girls miss out on that for any reason.
"I went from public middle school where girls' teams were pretty much a joke to a private high school that had such an intense focus on excellence in athletics (and academics) that we routinely won state championships in every sport - against much larger schools."
Ah yes, I have "fond" memories of losing to such teams. 
I'm sorry Fannie
My son does not control the idiot gym teachers you had, he does not control the boosters for football or the crowds that show up to watch sports. He does not control the papers, and he most definitely does not control the past.
His teams don't get uniforms - of any sort. He doesn't get bus rides - of any sort. He doesn't get mentioned in the school paper - anywhere. My godson is still "the boy on the girls' teams" and won't be allowed to play for his school.
You didn't mention some things
1) Girls are purposefully better prepared by the high schools for college (the boys get the left over education, much like flat balls)
2) When members of congress tried to exempt teams that made a profit, not all football teams, but just profitable ones, they were denied
3) Donations and applications get huge bounces from good football and men's basketball seasons, and to a lesser extent from women's basketball. As a non-rev player, I know it sucks, but it's life.
4) the OCR also stated the only "safe harbor" for compliance is quota. And even with that quota standard so firmly established, boys that can afford it have created club teams and even entire club leagues.
5) Black males are even MORE underrepresented in most of those power positions than women, but yet, girls still get more strict protection. Why is that? If you cared about racial equality, wouldn't you fight for them first? (yes, that was a dig)
As for that last line.. this is a new endevour for me. On the other hand, I've gone toe to toe when one of my former students' mothers told her she should be a nurse, and I challenged her to be a doctor. When one of my students told me she would be a stripper, I lit into her for wasting her talents. I was on two committees trying to study how to raise the girls' science scores because my girls had the highest standardized test scores in science in the district. I know so much about what happens in there because I was there for it. I saw it turn from desire for equality to favoritism. I saw district after district start making their "no boys allowed" programs. I watched a great idea turned into something it was designed to fight - must like Title IX itself. I didn't say scrap it, I very specifically said fix it - the second prong to be precise.
You know... if they cut out the theater and dance departments they could probably afford to add those women's teams. (FYI- that would be sarcasm)
You had the right to play, the circumstances sucked, but you had the right to play and the right to participate in all of the schools' academic programs. That's something these boys don't have
You still say you had it worse than these boys?
Look what's happened to you. You had more rights and opportunities and now you feel justified in having no sympathy for a 9 year old boy facing discrimination. Your response is 'blame football' and 'look at history' boys don't have it that bad. Our boys would kill for polyester uniforms and a place to play. They would be thrilled to attend those science programs or might actually catch up if they read the books they want in English.
What do you think he and the other boys will do when they get older? What will they be like?
Aaron,
I posted this in the other comment thread, but maybe we can stick to one thread for the sake of confusion?
"None of [what I experienced relating to gender inequality] is the fault of your son, you, or any man who believes in gender equality. Accordingly, the purpose of Title IX is not to make boys "pay" for these past injustices, but to stop these wrongs from having the lasting effect that they continue to have. Any consequent harm to boys as a result of the implementation of Title IX- such as ignoring their needs when it comes to reading programs as you alluded- should be dealt with.
I agree with you that black males AND FEMALES "are even MORE underrepresented in most of those power positions than [white] women." I do fight for greater racial diversity and am in favor of affirmative action based on race (as well as socioeconomic class). I fight for racial equality alongside the fight for gender and class equality.
Anyway, I commend you for encouraging your female students to be more than they or others thought they could be. That is an admirable quality for a teacher to have.
I never said that I lacked sympathy for what your son is going through- I lack sympathy for what the majority of male athletes go through- because they, AS A CLASS, are more privileged than girls. Individual circumstances vary, of course, and that is why I think your son's case is not exactly the norm- or representative of what most male athletes experience. Title IX complaints are filed 11 times more frequently charging discrimination against girls compared to cases of discrimination against boys. (At the same time, boys can bring and win discrimination complaints.)
In addition, I don't know the full extent of your son's situation, but it was not my intent to say that I had it worse than him. As a female athlete growing up where and when I did, I and my teammates had it worse than our male counterparts.
Aaron,
maybe if you explained your son's situation a little more, we would understand your complaints. Because from my vantage point, it seems like you are highly generalizing Title IX and women's equality in sports based on a personal/unique situation.
(For example, your claim to Fannie of, "Look what's happened to you. You had more rights and opportunities and now you feel justified in having no sympathy for a 9 year old boy facing discrimination.")
What kind of discrimination is your 9 year-old boy facing? Look, I think Fannie stated clearly that some individual boys may inherently feel they were harmed by "girls-only" science clubs or Title IX or what have you, but think of the millions more girls who have been denied access to careers in the sciences because of gender stereotyping, been denied the right to play sports, or been denied admission to colleges, graduate, law, and medical schools because men didn't think they could handle it. You're looking at the issue from your son's perspective, instead of the broader goal of Title IX, which has instead helped millions of girls.
And, just like affirmative action is helping racial minorities (much to the chagrin of many white males) gain more power in our white, male-run society, Title IX is helping females (who are over half the populuation, after all) gain a little more power and opportunity in a society where they have traditionally had very little.
One other comment of yours I beg to differ on is your claim of "1) Girls are purposefully better prepared by the high schools for college (the boys get the left over education, much like flat balls)"
Study after study has shown this to be the opposite, actually. In classrooms with boys AND girls, studies have shown that boys are the ones dominating the classroom discussions AND are the most likely to be called on in the classroom by male and female teachers. Girls often feel intimidated in classrooms with boys, are scared to speak up, and often have to deal with teachers wasting classroom time disciplining their male students (who mature much later than girls)...If girls succeed in school, it is often in spite of the teachers and the boys... not because of them.
Oh, and about education, since it's been brought up several times. I intentionally limited my article to Title IX and athletics. Feel free to discuss education discrimination here, but I think it deserves an entire post of its own exploring the "Boys/Girls are Favored in Education" claims. Just realize that it's a distinct issue from "Boys/Girls are Favored in Athletics" discussion.
Regarding the alleged "boy crisis" in education, I read a study exploring that issue. For some background, some people claim that the way education is set up inherently rewards girls and detriments boys. Anyway, an independent long-term, large-scale study sort of debunked the idea that there is a "boy crisis." In a nutshell, boys test scores are up, more boys are going to college, and getting degrees. "American boys are scoring higher and achieving more than they ever have before. But girls have just improved their performance on some measures even faster. As a result, girls have narrowed or even closed some academic gaps that previously favored boys, while other long-standing gaps that favored girls have widened, leading to the belief that boys are falling behind."
At the same time, racial minority and low-income boys are in a crisis. But, and this is important, "the predominant issues for them are race and class, not gender."
I encourage those interested to read the full report.
Sorry Jane, it had been posted in a previous thread, and since I tend to ramble I was truncating as it was
My son plays ice hockey and lacrosse, but I’m actually more concerned for my godson. Matt plays ice hockey, field hockey, and lacrosse, he’s gifted in math and science and average in English. About 20 years ago in Missouri, the ice hockey clubs went to the AD’s and MSHSAA asking to run a dual season as hockey does in many states. The players would pay for ice and gear, and the schools could pay for a portion of the coaches and refs. They were told that would put too much stress on the players so they were denied. Then 10 years ago the clubs went back and asked to be ‘activities’ so they would receive no monetary support from the schools, but could be on the school activity schedules and put up flyers or signs like any other school club. They again were denied for Title IX reasons. Now, club swimming has grown greatly in the area, so they went to the AD’s and MSHSAA to run dual seasons. Of course they said, no that would put too much stress on the athletes – well no, actually they said sure, we need more girls to participate in athletics. All the boys wanted was a chance to be on the schedule and advertise their club, and that was too much for the schools. Then you get to lacrosse. A few years ago other sports complained that cheerleading wasn’t following the same rules that every other sport was forced into - primarily the length of season. When other sports, male and female, started pressing for the same rules as cheerleading, the schools looked at the fact that the OCR is fuzzy on if cheerleaders count as athletes as all and the injury/insurance issues and decided to return cheerleading back into a school activity, rather than athletic team. Well now there was an opening for a girls’ sport, so girls’ lax was sanctioned and cheerleading is an activity. Now, boys’ lax is still a club sport – even with a longer history and more teams. Think about that first, two different criteria for boys and girls lax. Girls got sanctioned with 20 some odd teams and about 5 years of history, the boys with 10 years of history and 30 something teams still can’t get sanctioned. So of course the boys ask the schools if they can be activities, like cheerleading. The schools politely declined, and in fact at some schools, since the girls were now sanctioned, the girls wanted more practice time so the rent on the fields was going to increase, and additionally since at a few places the boys and their parents had done a better job of maintaining the fields – seeding, benches, etc, the girls were going to take those fields. Now this happens to be two sports, but the pattern is repeated in every state where boys have teams ready to go, but they are charged with soliciting the girls to form a matching team in order to be ok’d by the schools. Then you get to field hockey. Now you have to understand, our boys have played ice hockey and lacrosse with girls since they were mites. My son has played for 5 years, and about 70% of his teams have had girls on them and this year they played against a girls’ only team that is playing down against boys 2 years younger. Most of our boys came up to the girls arm pits, but they still played. It’s not just hockey, I’ve never seen a ‘boys’ team that turns girls away, even in middle school when girls are bigger than boys. But then you have Matt. Matt is the smallest kid in his class – not the smallest boy – the smallest kid and very kind to everyone. Regardless of what people want to believe, all boys are not 6 foot 200 pounds of aggression and fury. He started playing field hockey on a lark and fell in love with the game. For him, ice hockey and field hockey are his main sports, and it’s a day to day toss up as to which is his favorite. He’s been playing for a few years with a great private club, Gateway Field Hockey (one of the best sports programs I’ve ever seen. The director does the best I’ve seen for keeping competition fair and inclusionary. If you ever see one of their camps in your area – send your kids.) Now the girls love him, and a few boys have expressed interest. Just so you know, there are a few moms that are not happy that they let him play “it’s a girl’s sport” “Don’t let that boy get by you” One even yelled “Just hit him! Get him off the field” Most parents think it’s cute and many don’t realize how serious he is about it. Now, even though he is small, and has been taught the right way to play since he started, the schools will not allow him to play for them at any age. They say boys are too big (so what’s the weight limit on girls?), girls don’t have the same opportunities (they have all of theirs plus the boys’ teams, the boys have.. the boys teams) and historical inequities (you can’t change history, and really how can you punish a 9 year old for something that happened 50 years ago?)
Then you get to the classroom. Matt’s family happened to get an announcement from the gifted council of the area or some such group touting this great science program sponsored by a local college.. oh and the registration opened for girls a week before the boys AND girls could apply for a few scholarships to go. Well and then my alma matter sent a flier with their summer programs – look at that, three weeks dedicated just for girls. The irony of course being that because of other commitment the only common week our boys have to go to camp happens to be one of those ‘no boys allowed’ weeks. Remember, these are universities supposedly covered by ‘no person shall be discriminated against on the basis of their gender’. If you check most universities will run summer programs like that. Well and it gets more fun, the local high school last year sent 10 freshman girls and 2 senior girls to a space program. When a friend of mine asked when the boys got to go, the principal was very helpful. That opportunity was only for the girls. The boys were free to go if they joined the Air Force jrROTC, and paid for it out of their own pockets. Then in English, in first grade my son and Matt were into monsters. Well Matt’s teacher thought that the 6th grade level book on vampires was too violent, so she gave him “Allie’s Basketball Dream”
So when you say “millions of girls have been denied access to careers in science.. etc” Have they? Or were the women that were once girls? How many girls under 24 have faced systemic discrimination? Is there still some individual discrimination? Yes. Is it right? No. Is it my 10 year old’s or the 9 year old’s fault? No. In the other posts I was very quick to point out that Title IX was a great law and did a lot of great things, but until it covers ALL persons, then it has not done it’s job and in fact it’s current momentum is toward even more systemic discrimination and thus away from what I believe the purpose and the letter of the law are.
Next, again in the other thread I pointed out I agree with affirmative action. I won’t go into all the reasons why, but the biggest point to be gathered from it is that why is Title IX so quota driven and so precisely enforced while blacks, who faced a much worse road than women don’t have that.
That leads into the next part. I’ll warn you I was a science teacher for many years. When it was noticed that my middle school girls had the highest better than expected scores on the standardized tests, I was asked to be on some committees to help increase girls’ test scores. Unfortunately “expect the best from them and you’ll get it” wasn’t really what they were looking for, but I sat through enough of the discussions to see what was happening, so I’ve been through the battles Jane. We were told that we shouldn’t ask girls to take chances in science because they aren’t confident in their abilities and girls don’t have the disposition to accept being told they’re wrong in an area they are unsure of such as science. We were told we should ask specific questions about previously covered topics. We were told not to do multiple choice and go easy on calculations because girls don’t do as well with them. Some school districts were implementing those standards into teacher evaluations. Think about that.. no taking chances, no being wrong, and fewer calculations. THOSE ARE SCIENCE!! One of the things I impressed on my kids was the greatest sin was not a wrong answer but rather not trying. They were told going into science fair that if all of them proved their hypothesis then they learned nothing. I didn’t want safe answers, I wanted different answers. I called on girls in class and expected them to take chances. I would not let them off the hook with an “I don’t know” I made them think – and guess what!! THEY LEARNED HOW TO DO IT!! I made them into scientists, not just females memorizing science. I have so many girls going into science and engineering fields because they know they know science and can compete. I had one girl that refused to do science fair because she didn’t like it so I drug her in every day after school from the afterschool program to get it done. She qualified for regionals. She refused to go to districts so I had her in the hall and ripped her a new one for wasting her talent – had her in tears. She went to regionals and did well - not great but well. Now guess what she is… a science teacher. I was able to do all that without harming the boys and without watering down the science for the girls.
You’re talking the soft areas. Boys do dominate the classroom discrimination because they are more boisterous. Said another way, girls don’t participate like they should. Shouldn't we blame the girls for their behavior if you want to blame the boys for theirs? Boys are more likely to be called on because for the ones that know what's going on, they're participating while for the ones not involved, calling on a distracting child is is a common discipline te
part 2:
You’re talking the soft areas. Boys do dominate the classroom discrimination because they are more boisterous. Said another way, girls don’t participate. There more likely to be called on because it is a common discipline technique. Now, as for discipline, studies show a few things on that one. First, boys are more likely to receive harsher punishments for the same offences and the same track record. Second, boys are more likely to become boisterous when they are not afforded the opportunity to release the energy. . Well, the schools have cut down on the recess time, even at recess many schools ban contact sports (like tag) and they work on removing competition from gym classes. Third, look at the relative punishments – if a boy punches someone it’s 5 days OSS, while girls were more likely to get 3, but if a girl gossips, which most students will tell you is FAR worse, well there is hardly any punishment for that, just a stern discussion As for the boys and girls classrooms, when the present administration decided to allow schools the opportunities to create single gender classrooms . Do you think it was the boys’ parents going NO! we want our boys in there with the girls? No, it’s the women’s groups that fight it. So they want the teaching to favor the girls, and they don’t want the boys to leave. How fair is that? Honestly, we did single gender education for the last year I was in one school, it worked really well for the boys, but the 8th grade girls devolved into a very catty group. I really think if they were given more time it would help them more, but we gave up under pressure from the women’s groups.
So in fact, the girls may succeed in spite of when boys’ behavior doesn’t fit into their plan or goes too far, but the boys succeed in spite of the teaching methods and differential in opportunities in programs and materials. Seems to me that in part the favoritism for the girls is fueling the discipline problem for the boys which in turn slows down the learning of the class as a whole.
Fannie –
I’m not sure they are a different issue. They’re related because the athletics are done through the schools. Private clubs are not included (thank god for Gateway) Like you said it’s hard to take sympathy on an individual boy because the rest of the boys have it better, for the same extent its hard to take sympathy on girls having a crappy gym when the rest of the educational system is set for them. Just so you know, I do though.
For the boy crisis.. I never termed it a boy crisis, but here’s the question: when girls were one grade level behind in science and got flat balls and crappy busses, in the 90’s how is it not worse that boys are 2 grade levels behind in reading and don’t get to play? If you had looked in the 60’s at the growth of girls’ scores and athletic opportunities, there would have been no need for Title IX and definitely no need for the favoritism in science. It’s amazing that people tie girls performance to boys (the girls aren’t doing as well, they don’t participate as much as the boys) until they realize the boys aren’t doing as well as the girls. If the girls have the right to use relativitistic measures, then by god the boys should have the same right to that methodology. By that study then, the boys are falling behind in comparison to the girls. My issue isn’t that though - it’s the fact that boys and girls go to school under two sets of rules. It’s not a crisis of performance; it’s a crisis of opportunities. It’s starting to become a performance issue, but do we need to wait until it’s a crisis to fix it?
Now one other thing I want to point out. The president of Harvard was run out for suggesting that the reason women weren’t in as many math classes because they weren’t as good mentally as the men. He was called sexist and everything else. Then look at you – boys don’t mature until later. Look at what they say about boys’ reading – it’s a mental issue. Why is it sexist for a man to point out the studies showing girls don’t do as well in math because of their capacities, but it is ok for a woman to suggest that discipline and reading are because boys lack the capacity?
Oy, again, there's a lot I would like to address in your comments Aaron, but in the interest of real life demands, I cannot.
I use the term "boy crisis" because that term has been coined by those who make arguments similar to the ones you are making. I sort of question whether this "boy crisis" is real or whether it something that has been manufactured based on opposition to feminism and stereotypes about boys and girls. (eg- boys are "boisterous" and "rowdy," girls are "obedient" and "quiet.") You seem convinced that the "whole education system" is set up for girls, but I think that's a huge exaggeration.
This article addresses the "myth," in relevant part:
"It becomes clear that if there is a crisis, it's among inner-city and rural boys. White suburban boys aren't significantly touched by it. On average, they are not dropping out of school, avoiding college or lacking in verbal skills. Although we have been hearing that boys are virtually disappearing from college classrooms, the truth is that among whites, the gender composition of colleges is pretty balanced: 51 percent female and 49 percent male, according to the National Education Association. In Ivy League colleges, men still outnumber women.
One group of studies found that although poor and working-class boys lag behind girls in reading when they get to middle school, boys in the wealthiest schools do not fall behind, either in middle school or in high school. University of Michigan education professor Valerie Lee reports that gender differences in academic performance are "small to moderate....
A peculiar image of the "typical" boy has emerged in many media reports: He's unable to focus, can't sit still, hates to read, acts up in class, loves sports and video games, gets in trouble a lot. Indeed, such boys exist -- it has long been established that boys suffer more from attention deficit disorder than girls do -- and they need all the help they can get. But research shows this is not the typical boy. Boys, in fact, are as -- or more -- different from one another as they are from girls."
The stereotype, it seems, of the rowdy boy who can't sit still and has poor reading skills isn't true of most boys. (And it is true of some girls). Again, it's all about individual cases and nuance.
You have compiled a long list of grievances that your son has faced and I really don't know what you are expecting from me. As I've said before, Title IX exists to protect boys and girls. You seem to think that your son and godson have suffered serious injustices. If that's the case, file a Title IX complaint.
But, like I also said before, men are still in charge of most things that matter in the public sphere. You seem very aware of race-based privileges, yet you seem very opposed to recognizing the ones that exist that are gender-based. Yes, girls under the age of 24 maybe have it easier than older women had it growing up but something is still going on in society that limits women's leadership opportunities.
In any case, this entire conversation has made me re-think and re-examine my position on Title IX and equality. I'm not sure what my final conclusions are yet even though I'm still convinced that Title IX was and is a necessary law however faulty the implementation has been. Thank you for your input and I wish you and your sons the best.
See I think part of our, mine and your, problem is that I'm focusing on the system, you're focusing on the individuals. I believe the system itself is prejudiced against the boys. Now there are individuals that are prejudiced against the girls and still believe in those stereotypes. I'm not that naive. Can you think of one area where girls as a class aren't favored and protected? Football is the one area where there is a lapse, a huge lapse, but still a singular lapse.
Actually, I was just expecting for the facts to be complete and for you to understand and think about it. I have that confidence that you take the time to read and digest information. I *might* have been hoping for a small amount of sympathy for the boys that are going through what you did. Remember when you said you were discriminated against? These individual boys have it just as bad as you did if not worse.
I know women still have problems breaking into power positions, but I believe in marketing to the girls to get them past that, not handicapping the boys. I really am in favor of single-gender classrooms from 7-10th grades and then trade school or junior colleges for 11-12. That way they're separated while the hormones rage allowing girls to do gain confidence in math and science and boys behavior gets better also. Unfortunately, too many women's groups won't allow that to happen.
For as much as you say men rule the public sphere, they don't. They may control more of the business areas, but women control the educational system.
Here's more information about a situation that exhibits the problems with Title IX; and it ties into your points about race:
Lafayette High School in affluent west county suburb of St. Louis was able to send 10 freshman and 2 seniors to the Challenger space project. At the Challenger project, participants learn about space science and complete a mock space shuttle mission. Did the school pick the best scientists? No. Did they pick the most needy? No. They picked girls. 10 Freshman girls, 2 senior girls, I believe 9 white, 2 Asian, and 1 black.
Think about that, I had a black boy email me telling me how much he wanted to go, and knowing my son and Matt would love it, I wanted to find out what's going on. Now this city kid was the oldest of five kids, his mother working at a fast food place and father nowhere to be found, he got up at 5:15 to make a 5:50 bus from his home out to the suburbs and was an honor student. I got to call him up and try to explain to him that according to Title IX it was perfectly OK for the school to do that because those girls, yes.. girls that drove to school in Benzes and Lexus, the girls that mostly had two professional parents (and I know at least one with an engineer mother) were thought to have less of an opportunity to go into science related fields than he did. But it was ok. If he wanted to go that badly he could join the AF jrROTC and pay for it himself.
Then I have to explain to our boys, that the school believes that girls, including my daughter, don't know they should play sports or go into science fields, and they can't play their sports and can't go to that program because of that. When pushed, I admitted some parents still push their girls to be nurses not doctors, teachers not engineers, and cheerleaders not soccer players. There we response is the same as mine - they don't control the parents' minds. Those girls have the opportunities, they just don't take them.
That's my point. Title IX and the schools view him first as a 'boy' not as an individual or even as a black boy, but a boy. At any point, those girls parents could have afforded to send their daughters to the best space camps anywhere in the country, but the poor city kids and even the poor white boys were never given that chance.
When I talked about Matt having his vampire book taken away, I didn't say to force the girls to read about monsters also. I didn't say to stop letting the girls go to author visits to make up for that reading gap. It's hard to not utilize those draconian measures because it's the methods used on the boys in science and athletics.
For science and athletics for girls, and college admissions and reading for boys, I believe the schools should do what they can to encourage the under represented gender to participate and thrive, but I don't think it should come at the expense of the individuals that are there already.
Here's my suggestions. First, Athletics - remove the quota criteria from Title IX. If girls have the interest that so many people say, the second prong should cover it. Next, expand the second prong to cover boys. As it stands, if there are 4 girls that want to play sports, the school is out of compliance if they don't get them a team - no matter the cost to get them participating and no matter how many more boys, weather it was 20, 200, or 2,000 more boys waiting. Make it proportional to the interest freshman year and the participation after that.
Next, make all academic programs based on who is the best or who needs it most, regardless of gender. Reading programs are set to help any student that is 2 grades behind grade level. Make the same stipulation in math and science.
Finally- set up programs to encourage the underrepresented or under achieving genders to catch up. I would like to see it based on the greatest need, but then some would accuse me of being sexist.
I’d like to preface this response with an apology for the typos…it is friday at 5:04…I am trying to literally run out the door…thanks
I find it *interesting* that as ridiculous and obviously sexist the differences between boys and girls school sports are, professional women's sports does not render much difference.
For one, it was not until 1997 that the first US women's profession basketball league was born...a whopping 51 years after the men had their league.
-the WNBA plays in the "real" (men's) basketball off-season, notably getting much less press coverage and sponsorship
-when providing game highlights and scores, professional women's sports usually are at the very end, sometimes even after boys high school sports
-when watching the olympics, women who play "men's" sports, such as basketball, get their games televised at the wee hours of the morning, usually between the times of 12 and 4am...when all the sponsors are clamoring to get airtime...
Now, let's take a brief moment to talk salary.
The average NBA player salary is around 3.5 million dollars (american!) and most players make well above this.
http://www.usatoday.com/sports/b...-
salaries_N.htm
Meanwhile, just a few months ago, the WNBA made official a one year contract for a player at the league's maximum salary totaling a whooping...wait for it...$95,000.
http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/w...wnba&
id=3234461
And if you are thinking that such considerable monetary difference are only occurring within the realm of profession basketball, think again...
NEWPORT, R.I. -- The prize money at the U.S. Women's Open is $3.1 million, by far the largest purse on the LPGA Tour, but not even half as much as the $6.8 million the USGA doled out to the men two weeks ago at Winged Foot.
http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/w...line&
id=2503337
I am getting the sinking feeling that, no matter how many professional women's sports leagues are inaugurated, despite accomplishments, world records, and years we have under our proverbial belts, the inequalities are way too prevalent.
As for women's professional sports being "easy," "sucky," "boring," or "worse" than men's.... well...
Hitting a fast-pitch softball is one of the hardest feats in sports (arguably more difficult than hitting a baseball).
Watch this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_...h?v=_de3HJvO-
N8
Aaron said,
"I *might* have been hoping for a small amount of sympathy for the boys that are going through what you did. Remember when you said you were discriminated against? These individual boys have it just as bad as you did if not worse."
I really have to take issue with that statement. Really, you don't know enough about my situation to know if I won or lost this oppression contest. From a class perspective, had my school not had athletics for girls, my single mother could have never afforded to pay for club teams- let alone expensive sports like hockey and lacrosse. (PS- poor and working class kids don't play those sports). It was free "Boys Club" leagues or nothing when I was a kid. Space camp and science camps at colleges were out of the question, as were sports camps at the local university.
I don't say this to garner sympathy, but people's situations are more complex than being able to make a generalization like "Fannie was a girl, and therefore she was more privileged than my boy." From a class and opportunity perspective, I don't see your son as being too underprivileged.
In addition, I think you have it backwards when you say:
"I believe the system itself is prejudiced against the boys. Now there are individuals that are prejudiced against the girls and still believe in those stereotypes."
I believe that the system was hugely prejudiced against girls, and this history still affects girls today, and that is what Title IX is trying to fix. As a class, it helps girls. On the individual level, it may hurt boys like your son. But on the whole, "the system" is not set up against boys.
I just don't believe that the whole education system is set up to benefit girls. Like I wrote in another post, that is sort of a myth based on stereotypes of what boys are like (ie- "too rowdy to sit still in class.")
What about standardized tests- which studies indicate favor boys over girls?
What about the studies showing that teachers favor boys in the classroom?
As for your question as to whether a girl would willingly trade places with a boy, I'd like to refer you to study (sorry I can't find the link right now) where boys and girls were asked to imagine that they woke up as the opposite sex. Boys were 95% negative about waking up as girls- many expressing revulsion. Half of the girls wrote that becoming a boy would be a positive experience for them.
You constantly claim that girls have it easier than boys, but what does something like this really suggest? I'd say that boys don't want to be girls.
Maybe you and your son are exceptions? Or, you might want to be girls only where it would help you get into camps and on teams? But, would your son really want to be a female athlete and a girl ALL the time? He wouldn't just get to be a girl for athletic purposes and a boy the rest of the time...
(I don't mean that in a weird homophobic way. But really, would you and/or your son REALLY trade places and live as a girl? )
I encourage you to dress in drag for a week and report back. (Be sure to explain to your wife that it's for research purposes only
antigone, I'd like to point out that stictly in terms of performance, the women by most measures are being over paid. The question would be if one of the WNBA players played in say the CBA would she make 95k? (ok, I don't know crap about minor league basketball) You also brought up golf. Lorena Ochoa was the money leader for the LPGA last year, 4.3M. Now, if was on the PGA tour, do you think she would as good as the man in the middle of the earners pack? If she's that good, that guy, Craig Kanada made $743,305 - six times less. Don't you think he would love the opportunity to play on the LPGA tour? Look at Women's Tennis.
But, let's face it, pro sports don't get paid on the basis of performance, but rather on add revenue. At Wimbledon the women are paid the same, even though they play shorter matches and have less competition to beat to get the purse. In fact pro sports are like any other product for sale. That's where a general bias comes in. Part of the lure of pro sports is to see the best athletes. There's a reason it's cheaper to go to a CBL game compared to an NBA game. If the WNBA is as good as a product as the CBL, the fans have two equal choices. Now there are those that judge by gender, men that won't go to a women's game because they are women, but there are women that go to the women's game specifically because they are women.
I mentioned before I won't go anymore because they have a tendency to run community clinics for the girls only.
(on the other hand, my son went to a Blues camp last year that not only allowed but encouraged grls to come)
Oh come on Fannie, it can't be that hard - girls do it, and we KNOW that girls aren't as good in sports as boys. I've been told by many states and many other people that females, even women just are so much weaker, slower, less coordinated, and less mentally equipped for athletics compared to the boys.
(For those of you that didn't realize it, the preceding paragraph was pure sarcasm)
Ok and one small correction, antigone said that most players make well above the average. Actually just for the sake of general knowledge, mathematically it can't be true. If most players were well above that, the average would be higher. You can have many players slightly above the average (with a few greatly below the average) or a few greatly above the average and many below the average - as in the case in the NBA. The news reports focus and most people remember the star players that are at the league max, but the journeymen players making the league minimum hardly get a mention and are quickly forgotten.
Fannie, I was speaking only in terms of discrimination in response to when you mentioned that you felt little sympathy for the boys because of the discrimination you faced. That was my point.
Just so you know, I remember my father teaching me that if I was going to bounce a check it was better to bounce it for a larger sum because it was the same fee. I only got to chose one sport a year, even free because I needed to mow lawns, babysit, shovel walks, and rake leaves to earn money, so I know where you're coming from.
I am SO sorry if it looked like a battle of circumstances. I meant it in that one area only. I really and truely did not mean it in total.
Certain methods of standardized tests favor males, others favor females. For instance multiple choice is better for males, where as openended writing is better for girls
Teachers don't favor boys, they are forced to pay more attention to the boys because boys are more active, but that is not favoritism
See, but I was asking about the opportunity to enjoy the other one's rights. Boys don't want to be girls because girls - often by choice - make things more complicated and biological issues. Thinks like getting ready to go to school or the period. Honestly I'm much happier being a guy except when it comes to when I had to ask girls out and getting racked. But if I was in school, if I could just have social, academic, athletic benefits of being a girl and not have to worry about a period.. I'd be allover that.
By the way we got into that conversation, one of my girls said she'd be happy if she could just have the bathroom abilities of the boys - no lines, no sitting, and no period - but still wanted the rest. Lots of girls seemed to agree with her.
hahah you might find this funny, but after watching She's the man (forced) my son suggested he and Matt dress up as girls for a year. They thought it'd be a great thing. I was tempted to let them.
Yeah, I'm probably an exception to that to. Imagine being the only male in an elementary school. It was easier when I wasn't married because then I was probably just gay. Then I got married and I suddenly became a child molester. I always kept my door open and was never alone with students, but after five years of working with at risk kids, 3 years in the building and I have mothers calling the principal asking if she could give me an aide just in case I started finding the girls attractive.
Again, I'm sorry about the other thing. I ONLY meant it one area. I never meant it in total.
By the way.. in case you're staring to wonder how my son ended up in hockey and lacrosse with my background.. I worked from when I was 8 pretty constantly and then through out collge I graduated with no loans and a small savings account and started teaching. During the summers I worked summer school, worked on my masters, and was a store manager - making as much in three months as I did the rest of the school year. Now I also pick up money along the way in the school year by tutoring other students.
The best move of all though was marrying my college sweetheart - who was finishing her engineering degree.
By the way she hates affirmative action for women because she believes it was harder for her to establish herself and she's been forced with women that have no place being engineers. One she tried firing in budget cuts and her suggestion was rejected because it would open the company up to discrimination lawsuits.
I really don't have a problem with it as much as long as its "fuzzy numbers"
Oh and another small correction for general knowledge. You said you wouldn't have had the resources for ice hockey and lacrosse. While it might be true for ice hockey (many places have reduced fees for girls to open the game up) you had the right to play at any school that offered it. In Missouri, you'd be allowed to play for your school, the boys you grew up with wouldn't.
So where you pointed out that it was the economically disadvantaged boys that were bearing the brunt of the educational policies, you were given options they weren't because of their gender. Rich white girls are given options they aren't.
I asked for sympathy from you for our boys because you said you faced discrimination. I'll admit I screwed up how I said it, I was asking that you - that pointed out you were a victim of discrimination, would have feelings for others that have gone through it. Instead your response was meh. They're boys, they don't deserve it as a class.
Another thing you said, girls file 11 times more Title IX complains than boys. Do you want to know to know why? Boys have no expectations of anything getting done. They might as well complain to FEMA, it would do about as much good. Title IX created loopholes that schools drive busses through for the girls. Title IX does not cover boys like it covers girls. That's my problem with it.
I just want our boys and the boys you grew up with to go to school with some semblance of expectation that they are valued for more than their ability to get press or get money for the schools as members of the basketball or football teams.
"Boys have no expectations of anything getting done."
They don't need to. By society's standards, boys are the default human being. If anything "special" is done for girls, it is because it has been needed. Your claims that all these boys are suffering horrible injustices in athletics and education are similar to claims in the 1950s that black people wanted "special rights" or that gay people now want "special rights" instead of mere equality that they fight for.
I find it hard to feel sympathy for a boy who can't go to Space Camp for free. You act as if every single girl in this country gets to do these things like free Space Camp or Science Camp, when in reality, it is probably less than 1%. That is a very small, individualized situation (allowing girls to go)... when on the grand scale many more injustices are done to little girls every single day, in nearly every country.
I gave examples, almost every school and university run programs similar to that. As for society standards, did you miss the part about how in the educational system the girls are the default human being?
But maybe you're right, Jane.
We shouldn't try to fix those situations where girls are discriminated against. They should just give up and accept their position in life. Except
I'll make you a deal, you stop trying to convince people to treat women equally in adult society, and I'll stop trying to convince people to treat boys equally in the school systems.
Nahhhhh. I couldn't hold up my end of the deal and I'd be one of the people you'd have to fight to uphold your part.
Aaron,
"So where you pointed out that it was the economically disadvantaged boys that were bearing the brunt of the educational policies, you were given options they weren't because of their gender. Rich white girls are given options they aren't. "
Yes, I agree completely that class sometimes makes affirmative action policies unfair. As a society we don't really take class into account when it comes to affirmative action type programs for girls and racial minorities. It is hard for boys (or girls) who grow up poor, to see how a rich white girl is "underprivileged" because of her gender.
And, as an anecdote, one of my friends in college who is Black came from a very wealthy family. She received a full-ride in college under a scholarship program for African-Americans- even though her family could have paid for college. I'm not opposed to these programs, because I think more racial minorities in higher education is a good thing..... but socioeconomic class was not taken into account at all. The assumption goes "if you're black you're poor, and if you're white you're not." Much like the assumption that "if you're male you're privileged, and if you're a woman, you're not." Those blanket statements, completely disregarding class, leave a lot of people out. And, with the rising cost of higher education, I know a lot of people from my hometown who did not go to college at all. People are willing to pay for it, but they're not willing to rack up student loans that they will be paying off for the next 30 years.
So yeah, I get what you're saying. Affirmative action is necessary, but I do not believe that it is nuanced enough. Unfortunately, class is largely invisible in our society and anyone who mentions it is automatically labeled some sort of "commie."
I agree totally. I don't mind affirmative action because it is much more nuanced than Title IX.
If Title IX was "fuzzier" then it would be much easier to accept. It's the hard numbers and strict equality that I can't stand especially when it's over looked going the other way.
That program at Lafayette, if more girls would have gone than boys I would have been ok with that. The fact that boys weren't even in the running was more of the issue. I can see advertising the camps for girls in magazines like 17 or at justice, but to flatly deny boys the opportunity to go is the issue.
Affirmative action works better because it doesn't deny whites opportunities, just helps blacks get to theirs. The kids that you grew up with weren't told they couldn't go to college, it was harder, but they weren't denied, boys are denied under Title IX.
So in the end, if Title IX was affirmative action, id be happy for it.
Yeah, my wife called my families commies for a long time - we even redistributed easter eggs to make sure everyone got the same ones.
Is this Fannie's blog, or Aaron Bloody Mathews'?
It's testament to Fannie's character that she would not only allow me the space, but take the time to debate a raving lunatic such as myself.
Even if we don't agree on everything, we at least were able to get the ideas out there.
I'll admit, I didn't think there were morons as her gym teacher so blatantly showing their colors in the 90's. Just gives me more cause to watch out for my daughter. I didn't see it in the schools where I taught, but I was in suburbia and private schools.
I would rather be wrong and learn where I'm mistaken than preach to the choir, and for that I am also thankful to Fannie.
She is the essence of a strong woman - she didn't back down and she didn't hide or ignore things.
Even if we disagree, I hope my daughter grows up to have her strength and open mindedness.
Aaron,
Thank you for your kind words. I appreciate your willingness to entertain my ideas and opinions even if you don't agree with me on some issues. I hope to have shown you the same courtesy.
Take care.
Commenting by HaloScan
