Backwards Title IX at it again

[Dan_ref]

Originally Posted by rainmaker

Okay, well, I guess I don't understand. It sounded to me like trigger was saying that women wouldn't be able to improve without men. Somehow "prevent improvement" and "promote weakness" make it sound as though men are necessary to the process of improvement and gaining strength. I'll go back to my original language and quit trying to understand you English-speakers.

You might as well argue that athletes shouldn't use heavy metal objects* (for instance) to improve for some unspoken politcal reasons (not enough Womyn working in the iron industry perhaps?**).

No one said it's the ONLY way Womyn can improve.

There's a school of thought that it is A way.

* what we English speakers call weight training

** of course once we open the door to politically motivated traning methods it's only a matter of time before we refuse to train with the Jews, the Blacks, the Whites, the Muslims, the left handed...and so on. For whatever reason.

[rainmaker]

Originally Posted by Dan_ref

You might as well argue that athletes shouldn't use heavy metal objects* (for instance) to improve for some unspoken politcal reasons (not enough Womyn working in the iron industry perhaps?**).

No one said it's the ONLY way Womyn can improve.

There's a school of thought that it is A way.

* what we English speakers call weight training

** of course once we open the door to politically motivated traning methods it's only a matter of time before we refuse to train with the Jews, the Blacks, the Whites, the Muslims, the left handed...and so on. For whatever reason.

Dan, Trigger did say it's the only way. He said that the Title IX Way is to prevent improvement and promote weakness. What that clearly means is that without male practice partners, women won't improve and can't get strong.

Sheez, what do they teach young people these days?

[Dan_ref]

Originally Posted by rainmaker

Dan, Trigger did say it's the only way. He said that the Title IX Way is to prevent improvement and promote weakness. What that clearly means is that without male practice partners, women won't improve and can't get strong.

He said no such thing.

You inferred that was his meaning.

[rainmaker]

Originally Posted by Dan_ref

He said no such thing.

You inferred that was his meaning.

well, what other inference could there be? From what he said?

[Adam]

Trigger's just a cave man anyway. He is from Minnesota.

Seriously, while I can see how it could be read that way, I generally find it helpful to grant someone the benefit of the doubt in situations like this and assume they didn't mean it the way it came across.

[rainmaker]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Trigger's just a cave man anyway. He is from Minnesota.

Seriously, while I can see how it could be read that way, I generally find it helpful to grant someone the benefit of the doubt in situations like this and assume they didn't mean it the way it came across.

I guess I'm just missing the irascibility of our late, lamented JR, and so I had to get a little grumpy myself. I usually figure that when someone uses words like "prevent" and "promote" which aren't generally used as exaggerations, that they mean what they say. Silly me. But not as silly as the NCAA.

[Adam]

I think Trigger’s sentiment is bolstered by this quote from the article, “It also suggests the contention by coaches and players that men make women better players isn't, even if it's true, worth the cost of lost opportunity.”

Basically, they're saying that the added improvement isn’t worth it.

[Dan_ref]

Originally Posted by rainmaker

well, what other inference could there be? From what he said?

You mean other than concluding his remark meant "using male practice players is the only possible way for a female athlete to improve"?

If the article he posted was about the NCAA banning the use of jump ropes manufactured in China (for whatever silly reason) would you be so fast to claim that Chinese jump ropes are the only way female athletes can improve?

[Rich]

When will we have to stop "making opportunities" like this? There are no shortages of female students on campus.

BTW, the only thing I saw while I was in college in the late 80s was the elimination of the men's swimming, diving, wrestling, tennis, golf, and cross-country teams. Go Title IX.

[HawkeyeCubP]

Originally Posted by Rich Fronheiser

BTW, the only thing I saw while I was in college in the late 80s was the elimination of the men's swimming, diving, wrestling, tennis, golf, and cross-country teams.

That's not all I saw. Just slightly more subversive, subtle, (and for some reason, not at all linked to the disappearance of men's minor sports in the general public's eyes,) and nearly universally viewed as completely acceptable was the beginning of exponentially raising men's head basketball and football coaches' salaries during that time - as well as the open non-enforcement and non-funding of this federal law by the President at the time (continuing the tradition set by his predecessor), up until 1989, after the succeeding President took office.

[rainmaker]

Originally Posted by Dan_ref

You mean other than concluding his remark meant "using male practice players is the only possible way for a female athlete to improve"?

Yes, that's what I mean.

Originally Posted by Dan_ref

If the article he posted was about the NCAA banning the use of jump ropes manufactured in China (for whatever silly reason) would you be so fast to claim that Chinese jump ropes are the only way female athletes can improve?

But I'm claiming the opposite. That women can improve without male practice partners. I'm not saying male practice partners aren't a good way to improve, just that they're not the only way. And it sounds as though trigger thinks they are the only way.

[Dan_ref]

Originally Posted by rainmaker

But I'm claiming the opposite. That women can improve without male practice partners.

And you're also inferring that trigger does not agree with this.

There's no basis for this inference.

(I'll leave alone the question of whether this practice tool used by the actual coaches has any value to them and what standing you or I have to agree or disagree with their professional opinion. We already agree the NCAA is being silly inserting themselves here.)

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by rainmaker

That women can improve without male practice partners. I'm not saying male practice partners aren't a good way to improve, just that they're not the only way. And it sounds as though trigger thinks they are the only way.

If they banned automobiles he could have said they were preventing transportation and promoting staying at home. You could have said, "Nonsense, you can still walk or ride a horse." True enough, but it sure would make it tougher to travel the same distance.

[rainmaker]

And just for the record, I'm not saying that I agree with what the NCAA is doing. I think it's silly. I just don't think it's quite as retrograde (retrogressive?) as Trigger makes it sound.

[Dan_ref]

Originally Posted by rainmaker

And just for the record, I'm not saying that I agree with what the NCAA is doing. I think it's silly. I just don't think it's quite as retrograde as Trigger makes it sound.

It's a typical heavy handed way to deal with a non-existant problem.

Silly about covers it.