Title IX causes reverse discrimination

Article here. Excerpt:

'Most people associate Title IX with athletics as the main point as it states that men and women should be treated equally when it comes to athletics. It states that athletic participation should be proportional to the student enrollment. I understand where they were originally coming from and there is nothing wrong with women playing sports. It is great seeing the success and attendance of women's athletics, especially here at Iowa State with our basketball team.

The problem here, though, is with reverse discrimination. In order to be fair, basically the same number of players from each sex need to play. So sports such as basketball, soccer, track and gymnastics are fine because each sex can play them. Then you have the problem with football. Football is a male sport only. So in order to make it fair for the females, we either need to make a football team with the same number of females or cut smaller men's sports programs.

Most colleges, including Iowa State, chose to do such. Wrestling was the first and largest victim to this rule at the beginning. In all, 121 schools have cut their wrestling programs, and despite all of the tradition and success of Iowa State's wrestling program, that number was almost 122. Swimming, golf, tennis, soccer, track and many other smaller men's sports have been cut. There are many talented athletes that play sports like soccer and baseball, but because of Title IX they don't have the opportunity here to play at the collegiate level.

This is discrimination against male athletes. We get all worked up when just a few people get offended on some issue and have to discriminate against the majority just to please the minority. Now, I'm not attacking women's rights here. What I am saying is that if you want to be treated equally, then be treated equally. You don't need special exceptions and benefits, because then you aren't equal.'

Like0 Dislike0


There is no such thing as 'reverse' discrimination. A caveat should not be put in the objective few being that both sides should be, and are equal. the characteristics, population, and make up may be different, but each side of the matter, this being gender, is equal on all points. We must start the change in our thoughts and words that cause us to segregate and inadvertently discriminate. Men are equal to women and women are equal to men. NO CAVEATS allowed. This issue is DISCRIMINATION.

Just as a man who hits a woman commits domestic violence and

A women who hits a man commits self defense.......assault.......wait a minute......oh yeah.....domestic violence.

off the beaten path but when it comes to statistics, this is one of the reasons women show a lower rate of domestic violence. When they commit domestic violence, it is categorized as assault, disturbing the peace, disorderly conduct, or not categorized at all. This is how the bean counters count it in their statistical calculation. So 10 women who committed DVmay only register in statistical reports as: 3 assaults, 5 disturbing the peace, and 2 DV's. - 10 abusers but only 2 are counted.

Like0 Dislike0

I would disagree that there is no such thing as reverse discrimination, but agree it is just as bad. The things is, reverse discrimination is the promotion of one group over all others, including other minority groups, so due to the fact gender only has two options, you can't reverse discriminate, if you are choosing one, you are choosing them because they are the chosen group, and not because they are not the other. If I choose a Latino specifically because he is latino, I am reverse discriminating, because I am excluding a number of different races, not because they are of the race they happen to be, but because I wanted a latino. I didn't care that the black guy was black, just that he wasn't latino, or that the white guy was white, just that he wasn't latino, or even if the black guy was white, just that he wasn't latino. I had nothing against black, white, asian, etc etc etc. All that said, it is still bad practice and each of the non selected races were denied because of who they were... the reverse is in the for or against... but it's still discrimination, and is not a good thing.

But when you only have two options (male or female), discriminating for one is discriminating against the other. The irony of the feminist arguments for reverse discrimination and against discrimination is, and they even acknowledge this when they say "the old boys club", men never really discriminated against women, they preferred hiring men, which, by the definition, was also reverse discrimination, and they didn't like that when they were on the excluded side.

Like0 Dislike0