The idea that men's sporting activities have suffered is reeeeeeeeeally stretching it.
 

Hey, Kepler. This would likely be the kind of argument used: http://www.ncpa.org/pd/affirm/pdaa/pdaa38.html. It may or may not be right, but it's more plausible than the picture that might come to mind without the details.

I think that some of the arguments presented in the book like the one reviewed are likely promising. Many sound like they neglect how much of the problems come from our choice to allow government, administration, and media to have the power they have. Bad ideas are more dangerous when there is this kind of power to implement them and subject everybody to them. Before I put all my energy into attacking the bad ideas (and I don't dispute that many of the ideas are bad ones), I want to talk about dismantling much of the machinery. Otherwise it is like in the Gospels, where you cast one demon out and seven worse ones come to take its place.
 

Kepler, the argument is as Solarblogger kindly outlines, but it goes deeper than what is evidenced in that single blog entry he directs you to. O’Beirne masterfully reveals all the rotten insidiousness of Title IX. If you didn’t live through this program from inception through deception (or if you slept through it all), then you owe yourself an education by reading O’Beirne’s book.

Moreover, do not consider lightly what it means for young boys to be educated under a system in which they have no role model for their sex, and eventually no outlet for their testosterone enriched male energy. Title IX is a Catch-22.

A major tenet of feminism is androgyny. Attendant to that is societal equalization. Hence, in a feminized society there is no room for male hero role models anywhere. Swashbucklers saving damsels in distress need not apply- even in literature. All-male sports are inherently fueled by male-ism- that is, a need to dominate and be brutal. Therefore, in order to “genteel-ify” society as a whole, males were to be kicked off the playing field to make room for the women.

One year it was claimed more women were abused on Super Bowl Sunday than on any day of the year. The stats were cooked, but the myth goes on, and on...

It soon turned out women didn’t really want to play sports. That meant a loss of revenue. Loss of revenues means loss of funding for sports programs. Loss of sports programs means who lost out? It wasn’t the gals who wanted the sports in the first place, but the guys. Title IX, in other words, is just one more way women have found to not gain equality with men, but to overcome them.

On another note, should a woman approach sports as a sport, that is competitively and not politically as a goal for feminism, she is castigated by her feminist sisters. Competition is, after all, a male trait. It signifies and results in dominance, not equality and relationship. Sheesh! Get the game over with and then we’ll have a beer. Game time is competition; beer time is relationship. Get over it, gals.

It’s time men and women admit what God has already told us from the beginning: males and females are different, and vive la difference!

Sorry for the late response. I was out of country until early this morning, as you can read about it here: http://diaconatrix.blogspot.com/2006/06/sandwich.html .
 

Emily, Rick has the "benefit" (such as it is) of knowing me and knowing how I think (neither of us lays any claim to knowing WHAT I think!), which is why he addressed what I said, and you appear to have taken my statement as a general denial of the entire thesis of the book.

I haven't read the book, so I can't comment on it as a whole. My comment was directed solely at this:

Men’s sports activities and education have suffered and in some cases been eradicated due to the cause of feminist propagandizing..

I didn't say anything about role models. The lecture on feminism and Super Bowls is apropos of nothing.

Now, back to my comment: Am I the only Christian in the world who does NOT believe that correlation equals causation?

I find the webpage that Rick referenced amusing (or rather the original argument it came from, in Reason magazine). The very famous NOW v. CSU lawsuit, feared to be the juggernaut forcing sports down the slippery slope (metaphors purposefully mixed) has, in reality, become not such a bang, but a whimper. The losses that the article decries (the infamous CSU Northridge Baseball team) have since been turned around. NO other state university system has attempted such a massive restructuring (as was feared) and CSU has in many ways reversed itself.

In other words, the market has a way of evening things out. And here is the crux: Title IX was never meant to displace the market. Just because the NOW misunderstood and misused Title IX doesn't mean Title IX is inherently a bad idea. (Fallacy of moving from the particular to the general).

One of the arguments against Title IX in collegiate athletics is that women’s sports are largely “non-revenue”. IOW, nobody buys tickets to see the teams play. I think that’s a fair argument. BUT THE ARGUMENT CUTS BOTH WAYS. Why should non-revenue men’s sports be subsidized? The VAST MAJORITY of cuts that Olson notes are from non-revenue men’s sports. (IOW, men’s gymnastics and wrestling are only popular in the Olympics). (BTW, when I was at UCLA I was happy to PAY to see BOTH Men’s Basketball and Women’s Soccer, both of which have histories of National Championships.)

The FACT is that over time, the VAST MAJORITY of schools have been able to add women’s teams without subtracting any men’s. (The source of my fact, BTW, is the GAO report from 2001, found here: http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d01297.pdf
The conclusions from page 22 on are probaby the most enlightening portion.

The biggest increase in women’s sports across the board (and the sport in “second place” is so distant that we can echo some guy’s words to the Queen when he said, “Your majesty, there is no second place.”) is in Women’s Soccer, which is no big surprise. Soccer is a CHEAP sport. The equipment costs are negligible compared to most other sports: big grassy field (check!), ball (check!), colored shirts (check!). (I'm not counting the cot of the goals, since they were already there...) Insurance costs? Miniscule compared to women’s gymnastics. Heck, the cost of gymnastics mats alone probably equals the budget for men’s AND women’s soccer for 10 years.

Lastly, there’s the elephant in the room: how much of this consolidation in sports would have happened ANYWAY, just because of market forces? Most of the things Olson complains about in Title IX didn’t begin happening until the early 90s (after the passage of the 1987 Civil Rights Restoration Act), and yet the growth of women’s sports began before that. Partly it’s due to the fact that women’s overall enrollment at 4 year universities increased 30% in ten years.

The fact is that the overall market for men’s sports has shrunk over the last 35 years to include (essentially) three sports: football, baseball and basketball. The market played a crucial part in focusing boys’ attention on these sports, to the exclusion of others.

So, as for the statement that I was initially reacting (that men’s sports have suffered), I stand by my initial skepticism.
 

BTW, you need 10 digits for a valid ISBN ... I take it you forgot the 0 at the front?
 

And one last thing, Emily. This:

Moreover, do not consider lightly what it means for young boys to be educated under a system in which they have no role model for their sex, and eventually no outlet for their testosterone enriched male energy. Title IX is a Catch-22.

is not so much an effect of Title IX as it is an effect of the lack of Fathers. Title IX may (or may not) have helped undermine the role of Fathers, but it didn't start it.

As a historian, I have (in two unrelated instances, one from ca. 1695, the other from ca. 1792)) come across bundles of letters between fathers and their sons who were off travelling around Europe. In many cases, the parallels to our times are uncanny, e.g., "You don't write often enough" or "You only write when you need money!"

On the other hand, there is the one thing so obvious as to be nearly missed. When I went off to college, I was always chastised for not calling my mother often enough.

But these young men were in contact with their fathers. Where is the disconect?

When did boys stop writing home to Dad, and start writing home to Mom? (Not that there is anything wrong with calling Mom. I call mine all the time. Sure she's a nut-case, but I love her...)

Here's one clue: Title IX ain't the cause! Lack of prayer in school ain't the cause! The lyrics form the latest Rap album ain't the cause. Feminism ain't the cause.

This started a looooooong time ago, and IMHO, feminism is the opposite side of a much deeper and more malignant disease.
 

Hmmm… I really should go back and read blog comments more often it seems. Or not. I think perhaps we are merely reading past each other, it seems. A fault commonly seen in email conversations, too. I will attribute much of it to my own hastily-written responses, and replies too quickly read. Instead of offering a lecture on feminism in general, I was attempting to demonstrate that one level ties into another. Title IX did not stand in isolation. It was part of a larger picture. Rather than going over old ground (Was I intending to lay all the blame on Title IX? No, rather, its abuse is a symptom of a larger issue by far.), let us leave go at this:

Kepler rightly says “This started a looooooong time ago, and IMHO, feminism is the opposite side of a much deeper and more malignant disease.”

While original sin is the heart (curved in upon itself), feminism is the framework (bones and muscle) of our lives. It is our worldview. Taken as a whole, what O’Beirne’s book reveals is how feminism not only destroys its enemy, but its own kind in order to advance its cause, its ideology. Feminism is legislated antinomianism – thus negating any pretense for repentance. It is then when sports suffers, both within Title IX and outside it.

As for the ISBN, Mea culpa. It should be: 1595230092

Y'all may have the field now.