Posted by Bippity10:
It's a shame what happened to this topic. Personally I've always considered Sebstar to be a racist, woman hating, midget bashing, fat people hating, dog/cat beating nincompoop but I thought we were all having a pretty good conversation here regardless of people's points of view. What happened???
Agreed, convo was good while it lasted. Definitely multi-dimensional topic.
These are your own words not mine
But yeah, Title 9 isnt reasonable in my book. Call me sexist, but the Duke women's lacrosse team is not on equal footing with the Duke men's basketball program. But I know common sense takes a back seat in these situations,
So no I didn't call you a sexist but I did refer to you many times as a hypocrite. It's like the anti-abortion movement people they are vehemently against abortion but support the death, penalty, the American government torturing, and the military campaigns in Iraq/Afghanistan. So how can you support legislation that provides racial equality but don't support legislation that supports gender equality? Personally speaking I support equality for all gender, race, religion, sexual orientation, so it isn't just a woman's issue thing.
The very arguments you use against Title XI has been used against AA. I was trying to engage in a debate but you veered off into this idea that I was personally attacking you and did not address any of the actual issues.
Nothing for nothing "knee jerk reactions" you seriously are going to say that your above post where you called me everything but a child of God isn't a knee jerk reaction and completely toxic to the discussion that was at hand?
Seriously I can never understand why complete strangers get worked up over a person's words on a message board. What's the deal the line gets blurred too often between people just vehemently disagreeing to it being interpreted as personal insults. I don't maybe it's being a Pol Sci major where we spent almost every day arguing over some issue and then we would head to the bar afterwards. That's just my experience.
If I'm really going to throw insults at you it wouldn't have been PG rated.
Besides these days I'm all about peace and love and of course "trapping men"
yeah, and your moms still wears combat boots...
LOL@Bitty.
When I made that statement about Title XI, the first thing out your mouth was to say that I should never have a daughter. I let that go, then you got on me about being a knuckledragger and all this other nonsense --- so yeah, after that I went in on you. I'm not trying to hear all that. I hate when people try to instigate, then when somebody bites back they want to play innocent.
I'm all for gender equality, but I feel Title XI creates other inequalities and should at least be re-examined. Funny you mention Affirmative-Action --- do you know who the biggest beneficiaries of AA have been? Women, specifically white women. But AA has been given an African-American male face to create more pointed resentment among whites.
That's why I am such a big proponent of AA, because it promotes inclusiveness and denies racial stratification for many who are aggrieved, not just Blacks. Concerning Title XI, I think there is a better way to accomplish gender equality. If that makes me a hypocrite, so be it. My opinion, no malice involved.
When I made that statement about Title XI, the first thing out your mouth was to say that I should never have a daughter. I let that go, then you got on me about being a knuckledragger and all this other nonsense --- so yeah, after that I went in on you. I'm not trying to hear all that. I hate when people try to instigate, then when somebody bites back they want to play innocent.
Some people with with different political leanings I don't expect to support these types of programs but, from someone that's a big supporter of AA I find it incredibly hypocritical. Especially since you co-opted the very same arguments used against AA and used it against Title 9. If I took these statements
Its just unreasonable that schools have to spend dollar for dollar on their men/women sporting programs when the two programs are not generating anywhere near the same revenue. If anything it hurts collegiate sports as a whole, because schools cant delegate more resources to their bread winning programs. They're hamstrung.
and changed them around to:
It's just unreasonable that schools be required to admit quota of minority students they just don't perform as well academically as their white counterparts. If anything it hurts colleges because they have to dumb down their course work to suit these students and unable focus on their more successful students. Get upset and pissed all you want but that's just the way I see it.
Really to say that women shouldn't receive the same amount of funding because they are not the breadwinners like the male athletes can easily be construed as a sexist remark. First off you are completely incorrect. There are quite a few women's programs that are very much the breadwinners for their colleges. In the sense that they are always among the top programs in the country I'm talking wins/losses/All-Americans/perform well academically etc.
This whole idea of television revenue is kind of a non-starter. Because the NCAA tournament is not big because of one player or one team so you cannot attribute it to certain programs. Out of the 347 schools in Division I athletics how many teams both men and women are carrying their proverbial weight in generating revenue? Very small percentage so should we eliminate them all?
I'm all for gender equality, but I feel Title XI creates other inequalities and should at least be re-examined. Funny you mention Affirmative-Action --- do you know who the biggest beneficiaries of AA have been? Women, specifically white women. But AA has been given an African-American male face to create more pointed resentment among whites.
We could have a long discussion about AA. But the criticisms are not that shocking because certain people are always going to have a reason why they failed at something.
That's why I am such a big proponent of AA, because it promotes inclusiveness and denies racial stratification for many who are aggrieved, not just Blacks. Concerning Title XI, I think there is a better way to accomplish gender equality. If that makes me a hypocrite, so be it. My opinion, no malice involved.
Should inclusiveness only be afforded to the races and not gender? Also how do you create gender equality because from your comments it seems like funding should be based on the amount of money you bring into a school. So that would eliminate almost every sport that isn't basketball or football and then it would eliminate most women programs. More then likely if Athletic Directors were left up to their own devices they would put money into a shitty men's program before a successful woman's program because they would think there was more money in having a men's program then a women's.
My thing is this I believe in equality for everyone regardless of your race, gender, religion, sexual orientation. I support programs that help create more diversity in our schools, places of work, etc but that includes all diversity not just between the races, or the genders, or whatever other physical characteristic that separates us.
Why in the world do you keep insisting that Affirmative Action only benefits "minorities" and the way your clearly positioning it, "Blacks". Again, Affirmative-Action has benefited women more than any other group.
It makes your argument completely invalid.
We could have a long discussion about AA. But the criticisms are not that shocking because certain people are always going to have a reason why they failed at something.
No offense, but are you white? That would explain a lot here.
[Edited by - sebstar on 07-10-2009 2:13 PM]
Affirmative Action is stupid because it mostly hurts the people that can contribute the most to society.
Posted by orangeblobman:
Affirmative Action is stupid because it mostly hurts the people that can contribute the most to society.
Did somebody say something? Naw, just some insignificant noise.
Anyway...
A couple of other things, Bitty:
One, Affirmative-Action has been under constant attack for a good number of years now and has been almost completely eradicated. Unlike Title XI which hasnt really been challenged.
Two, I think you're unclear about what Affirmative-Action is. After it was modified, it took a number of factors into account --- with Race AND GENDER being a couple of factors. I've always maintained that income should be an overwhelming factor, but I dont think you've even bothered to get my opinion on AA. You've assumed throughout that I am this unwavering champion of AA. Kinda bizarre, that you just made that up to bolster your talking points.
[deleted]
[Edited by - sebstar on 07-10-2009 2:13 PM]
[deleted]
[Edited by - sebstar on 07-10-2009 2:14 PM]
Why in the world do you keep insisting that Affirmative Action only benefits "minorities" and the way your clearly positioning it, "Blacks". Again, Affirmative-Action has benefited women more than any other group.
It makes your argument completely invalid.
Your missing my point; the reason why I'm using AA in this instance is because I was trying to show the similarities in the arguments against AA and Title IX but I am not suggesting these are valid arguments. I know that African Americans aren't the biggest beneficiaries however the opponents against AA have usually zeroed in on not only blacks but other minorities and claimed that qualified white males were denied opportunities because some Black or Latino took their place at college or got hired over them.
SO I REPEAT AFRICAN AMERICANS ARE NOT THE BIGGEST BENEFICIARIES OF AA
No offense, but are you white? That would explain a lot here.
I think you misunderstood my comments because they weren't clear. What I was trying to say was that you will have people who have failed at something and look towards programs like AA as the cause when in reality that didn't measure up and it had nothing to do with some minority taking their job away or preventing them from getting accepted at a college. I don't know if that makes more sense.
To answer your question no I'm not white, I'm African American so does it still explain a lot.
One, Affirmative-Action has been under constant attack for a good number of years now and has been almost completely eradicated. Unlike Title XI which hasnt really been challenged.
Oh really.... Title IX hasn't been challenged?
Title IX survived early challenges from school boards and the NCAA. But Title IX enforcement efforts were stalled from 1984, when the Supreme Court issued its decision in Grove City College v. Bell, until 1988, when the Grove City College decision was overruled by Congress with the passage of the Civil Rights Restoration Act.
Title IX athletics discrimination litigation took off at the college level in the early 1990s. The late 1990s saw a surge of Title IX athletics discrimination litigation at the high school level. In addition to litigation, Title IX proponents have filed numerous complaints with the Office for Civil Rights (OCR) and with individual educational institutions. Men have attempted to bring reverse discrimination claims of their own under Title IX, but none have been successful.
Two, I think you're unclear about what Affirmative-Action is. After it was modified, it took a number of factors into account --- with Race AND GENDER being a couple of factors. I've always maintained that income should be an overwhelming factor, but I dont think you've even bothered to get my opinion on AA.
Read my above post because I think you are unclear as to what my point was in bringing up AA. Again let me explain I was showing the similarity in the talking points used by the opponents of both programs. So again I am not saying that those talking points are remotely valid just pointing them out.
You've assumed throughout that I am this unwavering champion of AA. Kinda bizarre, that you just made that up to bolster your talking points.
Read your own comments
That's why I am such a big proponent of AA, because it promotes inclusiveness and denies racial stratification for many who are aggrieved, not just Blacks.
I don't know maybe I've spent too much overseas and can no longer understand the English language but does this statement not mean that you support AA? Am I wrong to assume that from that statement.
Finally you've given a lot of criticism on this thread about how unamerican/immoral it is for Universities to profit off athletes, and now you've taken on Title IX, so my question to you where's your solutions? You've avoided almost all the questions presented to you on this thread? It's easy to b*tch about something but much harder to offer realistic solutions.
So how do you think the NCAA should go about paying college athletes, and who should get paid, and what should pay be based on, and where does scholarship money fall in all of this?
If you have issue with certain aspects of Title IX what are those aspects and how should it be changed? If you believe that Title IX should be eradicated completely how would you address gender inequality in the school system (college and high school)?
