Something’s Missing on Campus


Reader Response to “Don’t Marry Career Women” – Something’s Missing on Campus

Something’s Missing on Campus
khankrumthebulg
Regular Contributor
khankrumthebulg
by Carrie Lukas

College students returning to campus find a familiar scene: closet-size dorm rooms, frat parties, and questionable food in the school cafeteria. But on some campuses something is missing this year: men’s sports teams.

Students returning to Rutgers University will find that over the summer the university cut six teams: men’s heavyweight and lightweight crew, men’s and women’s fencing, men’s swimming and men’s tennis. Why did men’s athletics take the brunt of what university officials characterize as a necessary cost-cutting exercise? Title IX.

An Associated Press article explained, “Rutgers’ commitment to Title IX guidelines forced it to eliminate more men’s programs. The current female-to-male ratio at the university is 51 to 49 percent, [Rutgers athletic director, Robert] Mulcahy said, adding that the opportunities for women in sports must be within 2 percent of that ratio to comply with Title IX. ‘That means almost all the cuts have to be in men’s programs.’”

Title IX was intended to prevent sex discrimination on college campuses, including in athletics. But this well-intentioned law has become a death sentence for many male teams. Colleges and universities see Title IX as a numbers game: The surefire way to avoid costly lawsuits is to have the portion of female athletes mirror female enrollment. Since college women outnumber men, many universities need more female than male athletes.

The problem, of course, is that women generally aren’t as interested in sports as men are. This obvious, but somehow controversial, fact is seen in participation in recreational leagues, which are open to all comers, but are predominately male. Men also watch more sports and expressed a greater interest in athletic participation.

Unfortunately, common sense doesn’t cut it for litigation-fearing universities. Last year, in an attempt to stop schools from sacrificing men’s teams at Title IX’s altar, the Department of Education provided guidance on how universities can avoid the numbers game and still comply with Title IX: A thorough survey of student interest can be used to demonstrate that universities are meeting the demand from would-be women athletes.

Gender warriors protested the potential use of surveys. They like the numbers game and don’t care about its consequences for male athletes. Universities—perhaps reticent to provoke the ire of the radical feminists that champion Title IX—have hesitated to use surveys and instead try to make the numbers add up.

Universities have two potential strategies: they can try to increase female participation or reduce the number of male athletes. When faced with a tight budget or when unable to turn out more female athletes, universities often eliminate male teams. Rutgers is just the most recent example. Last year, Fresno State eliminated men’s wrestling despite a pledge from alumni to completely fund the team. UCLA cut men’s swimming and gymnastics, teams which had produced more U.S. Olympians in their respective sports than any other school in the country. In recent years, more than ninety universities have eliminated men’s track and field, and more than twenty have cancelled wrestling.

Do men really have such an advantage on campus to justify so many cuts to their programming? A sober review of our educational system reveals that men are struggling. Athletics is one of the few areas in which men are more engaged.

According to the U.S. Department of Education, nearly half of high school senior boys reported participating in an athletic team compared to one in three girls. But twice as many girls contributed to their school’s newspaper or yearbook. Nineteen percent of girls compared to 12 percent of boys participated in an academic club. Thirteen percent of girls compared to 8 percent of boys took part in student council. Nearly one third of senior girls participated in a play or musical performance compared to just two percent of boys.

High school girls are more likely than boys to like school, find their work meaningful, and believe their studies will be useful later in life. Not surprisingly, girls are less likely to drop out and more likely to go to college. As of this fall, women account for 57 percent of undergraduate students.

Canceling another five male sports team won’t make these statistics about men any worse. But certainly it’s a step in the wrong direction, and another sign that university officials are more interested in pacifying the gender police than making higher education appealing to young men.

About the author: Carrie Lukas is the vice president for policy and economics at the Independent Women’s Forum and the author of The Politically Incorrect Guide to Women, Sex, and Feminism.

09-24-2006 09:27 AM

Re: Something’s Missing on Campus
Halladay
Regular Contributor
Halladay

“Why did men’s athletics take the brunt of what university officials characterize as a necessary cost-cutting exercise?”

Answer :  Because they are men

“Do men really have such an advantage on campus to justify so many cuts to their programming?”

Answer:  It doesn’t matter.  They are men.

“Nearly one third of senior girls participated in a play or musical performance compared to just two percent of boys.”

You won’t see plays or music performance opportunities cut though.

09-24-2006 12:32 PM

Re: Something’s Missing on Campus
PatriarchVerlch
Regular Contributor
PatriarchVerlch

Kate O’beirn in her book “Women Who Make the World Worse” goes into great detail about how the gender police princesses use, and attack male sports. It shouldn’t surprise anybody about the lack of interest in female sports. Cutting men’s programs is silly and should so everybody just how the supposed race of feminists deals with gender issues. As long as men are unhappy, feminasty’s are happy! I think there should be a lithium type antidepressant invented for women feminists, makes them forget about their barren lifestyle and puts a smile on their faces!!!

Women have been proving for the last 30 years that men have been right for the last 30 centuries!
http://www.verlch.blogspot.com

09-24-2006 01:07 PM

Re: Something’s Missing on Campus
c4d
Contributor
c4d
hey look at the bright side with fewer athletic programs there would be fewer blacks going to college on athletic scholarship..

fewer undesirable characters on campus = fewer chances for women to get raped at frat parties understand???

09-24-2006 01:25 PM

Re: Something’s Missing on Campus
tellafriend
Regular Contributor
tellafriend

c4d wrote:
hey look at the bright side with fewer athletic programs there would be fewer blacks going to college on athletic scholarship..

fewer undesirable characters on campus = fewer chances for women to get raped at frat parties understand???

Translation: you’re jealous of male athletes getting laid more often than you and taking all the best women. You hope that less athletes mean more nerds like you can score with hot chicks.

As exciting as this fantasy may be, it’s still just wishful thinking. Hot chicks don’t bang nerds. Sorry.

09-24-2006 02:13 PM

Re: Something’s Missing on Campus
Halladay
Regular Contributor
Halladay

“hey look at the bright side with fewer athletic programs there would be fewer blacks going to college on athletic scholarship..”

which, if true, means feminist and gov’t  policies are racist.

09-24-2006 02:23 PM

Re: Something’s Missing on Campus
c4d
Contributor
c4d
hey dont you pull the race card man cus hot women dont date bigots!!!

09-24-2006 02:32 PM

Re: Something’s Missing on Campus
Halladay
Regular Contributor
Halladay

i didn’t have to pull any card.  from your own statement about feminist policy, it already did

09-24-2006 03:00 PM

Re: Something’s Missing on Campus
Cassius
Regular Contributor
Cassius
Could it be on purpose ? Might America have won too much for too long at olympia ? Is there an interest into trying to put another country at the top at the next olympia or am I just beeing paranoid ?

09-24-2006 03:44 PM

Re: Something’s Missing on Campus
Diogetrix
Regular Contributor
Diogetrix

cassius is wondering if there is a secret agenda to give American prominence in sports to other countries.

Here’s something to think about: When the GATT and NAFTA globalization giants started propagandizing for their program, we suddenly had Antonio Banderas, J-Lo (or whatever she calls herself) and a lot of other new international stars being presented to us in the movies and TV. Think about the media fanfare that surrounded ‘The Last Emperor’ and ‘Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon.’ It wasn’t long ago that I had to go to the only video rental store in my major city that had a good stock of foreign films. Now, you can see find a pretty good foreign film section at every Blockbuster, Hollywood, and Tower. When you think (or if) about the organization and work it takes to produce a subtitled or dubbed film and release it in the US, you gotta realize that someone wants us to become more diversified, and it didn’t happen until someone wanted Globalization. That’s the meaning, I think: Globalization for them, diversity for us. The Olympics are certainly another facet of the same international globalization strategy of winning our hearts and minds – as long as we don’t go too far and bring a babe back home.

09-24-2006 04:32 PM

==============================================================================
Click on the board or message subject at the top to return.

Reader Response to “Don’t Marry Career Women” – Something’s Missing on Campus

Re: Something’s Missing on Campus
reclaff
Contributor
reclaff

Message Edited by reclaff on 07-30-2007 04:07 PM

09-24-2006 07:32 PM

Re: Something’s Missing on Campus
Cassius
Regular Contributor
Cassius
Diogetrix on the foreign movies, the interest grows because hollywood in the past 10 years or so has produced crap mostly (measured by their own standards) with a gem here and there and most of the movies appealing to kids, although I would watch Spiderman 3 4 5 6 7.. Foreign movies unlike Holywood blockbusters are not made for the world and do not have to follow the holywood forumla and therefore can lean further out of the window meaning, action movies can be bloodier gangster movies can be evilier (Doberman) and more disturbing. Thats the appeal of foreign movies, something different. The big movies will still be produced in hollywood though they have all the setup the gear the experience, why bother and try to set up a new hollywood elsewhere, when all you have to do is to put your production money in the made nest. Also foreign actors and foreign movies are nothing terribly knew, just think of Schwarzenegger, or Django an great western movie although shot in Spain and void of Americans.

09-24-2006 08:55 PM

Re: Something’s Missing on Campus
MartianBachelor
Regular Contributor
MartianBachelor
“…refused to let boys play on the girls’ softball team.”

Probably just as well… In grad school we had a coed departmental softball team made up of faculty and grad students which played in a league against other departments. It was a big joke because every batter had to be a girl, which is to say an out. The only exception was when one somehow managed to make some contact and hit the ball in the direction of another girl in the field; then a comedy of errors ensued. What runs weren’t scored on account of errors came from homeruns with nobody or maybe one person on base, because with every other batter an out it was impossible to get a rally going, and hitting for average (singles) was pointless. The department that a dike-woman or two in the lineup would win going away against any team that just had girly women.

It was the most stupid and cockeyed version of the game imaginable.

“The boys are out of luck – they don’t get to play at all.”

Maybe the one good thing about this is it will cause the boys to draw on their natural resourcefulness and find a way to play spontaneously in some vacant lot far away from the school, and without idiotic adults interferring.

Message Edited by MartianBachelor on 09-25-200612:45 AM

______________________________________________
“The loudest, most strident voices calling women weak, stupid, and incapable of competing in the world at large are the feminists.” – zed the zen priest

09-24-2006 10:25 PM

Re: Something’s Missing on Campus
reclaff
Contributor
reclaff

Message Edited by reclaff on 07-30-2007 04:10 PM

09-25-2006 12:39 PM

Re: Something’s Missing on Campus
MartianBachelor
Regular Contributor
MartianBachelor
Well put. Thanks for telling that.

I’m guessing lots of us have similar stories – in my case all the boys in the neighborhood would get together at the nearby vacant lot, and play unsupervised ball every morning all summer until it got too hot a few hours later (or until we couldn’t find the ball that had been hit into the bushes). Sides were chosen up on the spot, and we instinctively knew it had to be done more or less fairly or else the whole system would collapse. We’d occasionally have huge intensely heated arguments over whether a ball was foul or fair (there were no real lines or instant replay), or whether someone was out or safe (no umps either), but after a few minutes we’d come back to our senses and get things resolved so we could resume doing the important thing, playing ball, the reason we were there to begin with. I.e., grudges were extemely short-lived and quickly forgotten once play resumed. I’m guessing if girls had been involved they’d have gone running home crying to “tell on” us, or get all angry and go stomping off taking the bats and balls with `em so nobody could play if we didn’t let `em have their way. The game wouldn’t have lasted a week into the summer. Playing organized ball a few years later with parents (especially moms) was distinctly worse and unmemorable in spite of having uniforms, real bases, an actual field, etc.

______________________________________________
“The loudest, most strident voices calling women weak, stupid, and incapable of competing in the world at large are the feminists.” – zed the zen priest

09-25-2006 01:17 PM

Re: Something’s Missing on Campus
khankrumthebulg
Regular Contributor
khankrumthebulg
How long can the US compete when we bastardize our schools and turn them into a Stalinist style indoctrination System. When being PC is more important than speaking proper English, knowing Math, and Science our understanding History or Civics? How many of our Children have ever read “The Federalist Papers”? Or know which side Russia was on in World War Two? Education falls to 19th on the priority list of the NEA. Thats why so many Parents are home schooling their children. Johnny cannot read, write, or calculate but he has had “Heather Has Two Mommies” read to him.

China and India are leveraging their human capital while we squander ours. And allow the Lesbians and AAUW to push Gender Equity in our schools turning them into camps for girls. Punishing Boys who don’t behave or think like girls. Recess is being eliminated, Tag,dodge ball, competitive Sports, anything that appeals to Male instincts is deemed evil and subversive. Meanwhile our Boys are in a Free Fall and hate school. So we drug them into Zombies and enrich the Drug Companies and damage our Boys brains and bodies.

Check out ritalindeath.com and see what we are doing to our Boys. Where is the outrage by Women at this assult on Children? Nowhere to be found.

09-25-2006 02:25 PM

Re: Something’s Missing on Campus
reclaff
Contributor
reclaff

Message Edited by reclaff on 07-30-2007 04:11 PM

09-25-2006 03:43 PM

Re: Something’s Missing on Campus
MartianBachelor
Regular Contributor
MartianBachelor
Don’t the struggles of urban black or Hispanic boys matter!?

Simply put, no.

Why? Because a) those aren’t the guys upper-middle class feminists want or care about; b) those guys are all hopeless macho retards anyway; c) since they come primarily from the matriarchal ghettos where all the women are “strong” and “independent” (even if on welfare) and therefore “don’t need no man” (because of female-only welfare), they don’t want to look very closely at what their feminist/matriarchal utopia of “equality” actually looks like.

Easier to blame it on racism (all the fault of white males of course), which feminists have largely cut in line in front of, usurped, and used mercilessly to advance their own privilege and power. See Man as **bleep**?

______________________________________________
“The loudest, most strident voices calling women weak, stupid, and incapable of competing in the world at large are the feminists.” – zed the zen priest

09-25-2006 04:27 PM

Re: Something’s Missing on Campus
Diogetrix
Regular Contributor
Diogetrix

Cassius said,

‘Diogetrix on the foreign movies, the interest grows because hollywood in the past 10 years or so has produced crap mostly (measured by their own standards) with a gem here and there and most of the movies appealing to kids, although I would watch Spiderman 3 4 5 6 7.. Foreign movies unlike Holywood blockbusters are not made for the world and do not have to follow the holywood forumla and therefore can lean further out of the window meaning, action movies can be bloodier gangster movies can be evilier (Doberman) and more disturbing. Thats the appeal of foreign movies, something different. The big movies will still be produced in hollywood though they have all the setup the gear the experience, why bother and try to set up a new hollywood elsewhere, when all you have to do is to put your production money in the made nest. Also foreign actors and foreign movies are nothing terribly knew, just think of Schwarzenegger, or Django an great western movie although shot in Spain and void of Americans.’

Cassius, old buddy, you interest me – for number of reasons, but generally because the discussion between you and me is like a classic example of two people speaking to each other, and neither one hearing what the other actually means to say.

Undoubtedly, part of this is due to my sloppy writing. I have to confess that most of the time I don’t re-read and rewrite for clarity, and since I gave up decades ago reading the books by ‘leading’ Men’s Rights authors and their oppposition, I’m very behind the current paradigm’s major ideas and terminology. For one thing, I haven’t watched broadcast TV in about ten years, and you can imagine how far removed from mainstream thinking that puts me.

I scarcely understand most of the cultural references people make in conversation anymore – unless I’m with a pretty select academic group or with some non-Americans and we’re speaking without cultural references as a courtesy and practical method of communication. I mean, you wouldn’t tell a recently arrived Japanese guy that you ‘have to clear six G’s to make your nut, and you still feel like you’re treading water.’ He might think you were doing spins in a centrifuge, had a Jesus complex, and were balancing a pistaccio on your **bleep**. Which is close to f**kin’ nuts, I guess. Rather, I would say, ‘This person needs six thousand dollars every month for needs, but wants more.’ Even then, the compound sentence structure could lead to confusion.

I took a Vietnamese woman with me to a little gathering of friends some years ago, and I got cornered in the kitchen with a USC film bimbostudent – which wasn’t too bad, I guess – and after a while my friend came to see what I was doing. For some forgotten reason, the Ameribroad tried to tell my Viet friend what we had been discussing: Veganism. So, she explained in very simple English (she thought) about how humans have long intestines, but carnivorous animals have a ‘short gut,’ and she augmented the tale with lots of gestures and pantomime. My friend, who is very charming and polite, nodded and smiled all the while – with a good amount of wit and amusement. I laughed and said it would be really interesting to have my friend try to re-explain what she had just heard. You can imagine what followed.

Now, about my views on foreign fims here in the US: I have to agree that Hollywood turns out tons of pure krappola every year, but my impression is that it’s been going on for a lot more than the last decade. There are some gems? Sure, and we know what they are: Mostly ‘classics’ like ‘Citizen Kane’ and ‘Friendly Persuasion’ and (although it grieves me to say so) ‘Gone With the Wind,’ ‘The African Queen,’ (Shall I do my Greatest 100 Films?) But, for many years now I’ve noticed a very distinctive difference between US films and foreign, and the differences seem to follow the trend of feminism and government propaganda needs. That’s why I pointed out the way we were hyped with recent films from China and Latin America which promoted friendlier relations thru familiarity, and feminist flavored views of other cultures (although Communist China doesn’t need any help producing feminist propaganda. The Chinese film industry seems to be following a formula of ‘simple peasant girl goes to the city and is oppressed and sexually abused by counter-revolutionary capitalist landlord.’) The salient point I was trying to make was that other countries like Japan, Mexico, and Korea, where the governments allow people to interact at the personal level with more freedom, seem to make films that deal in depth with very personal and philosophical matters, but in the US our films are more stridently and blatantly pushing a particular social ethic – like the mainland Chinese films. But, it is highly problematic getting this point across because there are always exceptions (e.g. ‘The Station Agent,’ ‘The Man Who Wasn’t There,’ or ‘Bagdad Cafe’), and the real intent or viewpoint of the film is often subject to various interpretations – if it has any artistic merit at all.

Usually, Americans characterize very meaningful and artistic films as ‘it makes you think’ by which most Americans mean, ‘I don’t know what to make of it.’ A good example is ‘Eyes Wide Shut’ which is so full of heavy handed thrills and implied meaningfulness, and is absolutely meaningless above the novelty of the story. But, it has impact, mostly because of the visual imagery and the references the images make to cultural hot button issues. Exaclty what we are to construe from Lee Lee Sobiesky’s being chased about in her undies by a couple of sex crazed foreigners, I don’t know. But, you seldom will hear an American say that the film doesn’t seem to have a point, probably because most Americans are ashamed that they don’t know whether or not it has a point.

Many years ago I took an acquaintance to see two films at a local art house theater. He was a severely unstable schizophrenic, which might mean something or not. The two films were ‘Woman in the Dunes,’ a Japanese classic from the 60’s, and ‘Trop Tard Balthazar,’ a newer French film of a smallish independent kind. On the way, I mentioned that ‘Woman’ was generally about a woman who lived in a pit in sand dunes, and a man gets trapped there with her. My friend immediately said, ‘Well, the sand represents life.’ I didn’t bother to give any more introduction after that; I figured he could handle it on his own. The French film was a surprise. It was about a teenage runaway girl, her friend and spirit guide she met along the way (an AWOL soldier, biker), and her parents’ attempts to drag her back home. The biker gets killed after he opens the parents eyes to their daughter’s soul. No doubt ‘Balthazar’ is a reference to a very famous film, ‘Au Hasard Balthazar.’ There is one element in these films that I’d like to point out: They can, if they are understood at all, help you personally.

Please re-read that last sentence.

Something else I’ve noticed over the years is that often a good foreign film will be remade in the US – ‘Shall We Dance,’ and ‘Three Men and a Baby’ come to mind – and when I compare the foreign and domestic versions the originals always seem better. I don’t know exactly why yet, but I’m working on it. Maybe it’s because when Japanese (for example) cultural themes are translated too literally into an American story they lose their meaning in relation to the rest of the story’s elements. For example, in ‘Shall We Dance’ a family man becomes infatuated with a beautiful ballroom dance instructor, and (with mixed emotions) pursues her by joining the class. He’s feeling alienated and lonely from hard work and a midlife crisis. But, how can that work in an American film? The Japanese man has a beautiful (normal)and caring wife and a beautiful and clear headed daughter at home, and the family alienation is ultimately healed. Can you relate to that happening in America? I mean, with a fat, lazy, feminist, angry wife, and a rebellious sexually dominating teenage daughter? I’m curious enough to go rent the US version to see how it’s handled.

So, as you see, Cassius, I was talking about films of a different genre and quality than you were when you said, ‘Thats the appeal of foreign movies, something different.’ I could go to the next monster truck show at the sports arena to see something ‘different’ ’cause I sure haven’t ever done that before.

Now, what would be the good of a cranky diatribe about stinky American films without telling you what I would like you to go see.

Here’s my recommendation for watching the evolution of a film director as an artist. Wong Kai-War’s three films which are a loosely related trillogy: ‘Days of Being Wild,’ ‘In the Mood for Love,’ and ‘2046.’ See them in that order. They span about 13 years and take you through his early story telling to a high of artistic expression. Not surprisingly, almost all of the guns, fights, and car chases are in the first film.

‘Oasis,’ a small Korean film, directed by a first timer, the novelist who wrote it. Quirky. Art shouldn’t be perfect – we can’t really participate in it if it’s perfect and complete.

‘Samaritan Girl,’ also Korean and painfully beautiful.

‘Kamikaze Girls,’ an interesting problem for me – how could such a film be made for boys? Shows an interesting perspective on feminism from a Japanese perspective, so I’m still ambivalent about it. But, it’s a funny and fun movie.

‘Snow Country,’ the most perfect film adaptation of a novel ever made. (My opinion). Japanese, will be fifty years old next year, probably only available in VHS.

It would be interesting to get a candid (even authentic) opinion of those films from an American feminist neurotic. (… is that redundant?) because none of those films are anti-revolutionary or anti women, in my opinion.

In the early 80’s I read an editorial – back page of Time or Newsweek, I think – about Hitler and some horrid desk ornament he had in his office. The author made his point, and it is ‘Taste shows character, and character is destiny.’ I kept thinking about that for years, and then I read ‘Zen, and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance,’ and the problem was compounded. If I couldn’t define ‘good taste,’ and added to it that I couldn’t define ‘quality,’ then how the blank can I know anything worthwhile? And, of course, if we/I can’t define and measure good taste or quality, what is the measure of anything that matters? After all, if you don’t have a standard of quality and taste, you are helpless to oppose evil. And, no one would choose to live a life that exemplified bad taste – at least, no one of quality. So, I recommend those films to you as exemplars of good taste and quality, and you don’t have any way to refute my judgement. Ha ha.

I should mention that I prefer art of all kinds that raise the spirit, so of necessity those films’ characters are noble and idealized. I realize that. The recent (maybe current) style of film that purports to show ‘life as it really is’ (when actually showing life at its worst) doesn’t exactly help me relate to others – but, maybe if I were a feminist, the more horrible and ugly a portrayal of men and family life I could search out might make my deep relationships with other women more self fulfilling prophetically. (‘Nil By Mouth’ comes to mind, or if you really want to toss your cookies watching the feminist view of family life in Ireland you can rent ‘The War Zone’). I don’t have as much to say about recent American films because I can’t lose myself in the story when I’m being disgusted by the Ameircan actresses, so I’ve mostly stopped watching domestic films.

Message Edited by Diogetrix on 09-25-200608:49 PM

09-25-2006 08:43 PM

==============================================================================
Click on the board or message subject at the top to return.

Advertisements
%d bloggers like this: