For me, there are two questions in here. Should Title IX be repealed and is cheerleading a sport?
As far as whether Title IX should be repealed, I think it should be. I know the reasoning behind Title IX being put into law by Congress, but I don't see the point of it anymore. I know some people compare Title IX to affirmative action for women in college athletics and it shouldn't be repealed because colleges will step all over women's sports if it is repealed. Sure, that could happen, but it also may not happen.
Women's sports are different in 2010 than they were in 1972. Women's sports are more popular and are seen as less of a diversion and more of an actual sport (which they are) by the mainstream sports-loving public. At this point, Title IX has become a law that doesn't just inhibit men's sports, but inhibits schools from taking their sports programs exactly where they want them to go...which also includes women's sports.
My college, Appalachian State University, was going to go Division-I in football while I was going there for undergrad. They ended up not doing it because it would lose them money (which happens to all football programs) and because to go Division-I they would have to add women's sports which they weren't able to afford to do at the time. There were certain women's sports they wanted to add, but they couldn't add all that were required to meet the Title IX requirements. I'm just eyeballing the reasons behind this decision, but part of the decision to not go Division-I was based on Title IX and how what started as a great law that provided equality in sports has turned into a law that causes more headaches than help to women athletes.
In the case Gregg is speaking about here, a women's volleyball team couldn't be disbanded to include a competitive cheerleading team that would have made the school more money. This wasn't a move designed to push a men's sport through, but a move that would have just gotten a different population of girls into the school and into a different sport. It's stupid and it is time to repeal or severely amend Title IX because it is a well-meaning law that is causing more headaches than help to women and men athletes alike.
It is 2010. Schools aren't going to stop offering women's athletics because it no longer is in their best interest to not include women in athletics. Women's athletics are more popular and the only schools that limit the amount of women's sports teams they have will also be limiting the type of student they care to attract.
Now, as far as competitive cheerleading being a sport. I think it is. A sport is defined as,
"Physical activity that is governed by a set of rules or customs and often engaged in competitively."
I am pretty sure that covers what competitive cheerleading does. I am not going to argue with emotions about how hard the girls work or that they get injured and that makes it a sport. Competitive cheerleading is a sport because it takes athletic ability and there are a set of rules a competition set up to gauge winners and losers.
If you disagree with me, that doesn't mean you are closed-minded, and I don't care for nor have I ever seen a competitive cheerleading competition in person. Gymnastics is considered a sport and what I have seen of competitive cheerleading it doesn't look like they are too far off what gymnastics does. Cheerleading is a strenuous activity that requires preparation and athleticism. You have to be in shape to be a cheerleader.
From the perception of cheerleading, I can see how someone wouldn't think it was a sport, but the reality is that competitive cheerleaders do some really athletic stuff out there. There are competitions and there are winners and losers. It may not sound like a sport, but I think it is.
What does everyone else think about Title IX or cheerleading in general? Am I just misunderstanding Title IX or giving it a bad rap. How stupid am I for thinking cheerleading is a sport.
If you disagree with me, that doesn't mean you are closed-minded, and I don't care for nor have I ever seen a competitive cheerleading competition in person. Gymnastics is considered a sport and what I have seen of competitive cheerleading it doesn't look like they are too far off what gymnastics does. Cheerleading is a strenuous activity that requires preparation and athleticism. You have to be in shape to be a cheerleader.
From the perception of cheerleading, I can see how someone wouldn't think it was a sport, but the reality is that competitive cheerleaders do some really athletic stuff out there. There are competitions and there are winners and losers. It may not sound like a sport, but I think it is.
What does everyone else think about Title IX or cheerleading in general? Am I just misunderstanding Title IX or giving it a bad rap. How stupid am I for thinking cheerleading is a sport.
To me they're just sort of a glorified Cirque du Soleil with judges, but if gymnastics or synchronized swimming are popularly considered sports, I guess cheerleading qualifies.
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, I hate title IX. Not because I hate women, but because in a lot of cases, it's just a complete waste of money.
ReplyDeleteFor example, take women's basketball. If a college wants a women's basketball team, that's great, but they shouldn't be forced to have one just because they want a men's team. name dropping alert After four years at Penn and watching the men's team make the tournament a few times and do okay financially, why exactly does the school need a women's team that sucked?
Not every school would drop their women's teams and so those that want to play and are good enough to play would still have opportunities to get scholarships. If they're not good enough, there are still more school's that would have club teams. Having played on club teams in college while ringing up student debt, I can't really feel too bad about it.
As for cheerleading, by the legal definition there's a pretty good argument that it is. The rah-rah cheerleading seen during games? No. The ultra competitive shit that goes on? It's actually incredibly intense. Like anonymous said, gymnastics and synch. swimming/diving are both considered sports, so how exactly isn't competitive cheerleading?
There are a bunch of semantic arguments you can make as well. One company pretty much owns competitive cheerleading. Uniforms, camps, competitions, etc all pretty much are run by or owned by one single company. When you combine this with the injuries some cheerleaders suffer, and as a proponent of small government this pains me to say, this is one area where I believe the government should step in.
Anon, I don't like the competitive gymnastics, but I feel the way you do. If synchronized swimming and gymnastics qualify, I don't know why competitive cheerleading wouldn't.
ReplyDeleteRich, I did some research and I think I hate Title IX. I didn't like it in college when it was a big reason App State didn't go D-I, but I am back on it full force. The reasons you stated are so very accurate.
I really think we are at a point where women's sports has a fan base and enough women athletes go to college for sports that colleges wouldn't cut the women's programs. It's bad enough that two sports tend to support entire programs at some schools (basketball, football), but to not allow a school to get rid of one women's sport for another is bit dumb.
Title IX is outdated I believe. I see the point of Title IX, but I really think at this point there could be equality in sports without the Draconian law Title IX forces schools to go through to get certain sports.
If a school drops a woman's sport then that sucks, but that is their decision and there will be bad publicity on that school. I think it hurts some sports more to be "token" sports a school needs to get along with Title IX, rather than have programs the school actually wants and can actively recruit good players for.
I didn't know one company had a monopoly on competitive cheerleading. I don't like the government stepping in either, but that doesn't sound right. Perhaps the goverment should spend less time w/ worrying about Title IX and more time worry a/b other issues.
There is a stupid assumption underlying Title IX: the law requires that equal funds be spent when there is no reason to believe that the level of INTEREST in sports is equal between the genders. I don't think it's controversial to say that men are far more interested in playing sports than women. [Probably a combination of innate preference and socialization, though the latter tends to follow the former.]
ReplyDeleteMy thinking is this: in 1972, women didn't have scholarship offers or opportunities to play sports, so even those girls who would have wanted to play quit early in youth because there was no point in pursuing it. We've now gone through a four decades in which women's sports got exactly half the funding. All the girls who wanted to play sports now have plenty of high school and college opportunities. Removing the artificial support of Title IX won't suddenly bring us back to 1972: the institutions are in place to let all the girls who want to play play. If we remove Title IX, all that happens now is that the funding at universities gets divided according to actual levels of interest, not according to some presumption of equal interest.
HH,
ReplyDeleteThat is the much more eloquent version of what I was trying to get across.
BGF,
From last night's recap on the Phillies' game:
"Halladay credited Ruiz for his work behind the plate.
"Carlos has done a great job all year, mixing pitches extremely well, and that's been a big part of it," he said."
You'd think Halladay would know Rollins is the reason for all his success, making all those relay throws...
HH, the big elephant in the room on this discussion is that men's sports are generally more popular than women's sports. I don't know if Title IX would ever have a chance of being repealed if they changed the level of funding to the actual interest in sport, though I agree this does make sense.
ReplyDeletePersonally, for someone like me it would make sense because there are women's college sports I enjoy watching more than men's college sports. I don't like college baseball but I do love women's softball. I don't like men's tennis as much as I like women's tennis, and I actually like watching women's volleyball and soccer also for some reason. I know not everyone has an interest in those sports like I do though.
I think the big difference is in what you said. Women didn't have the opportunities in 1972 they do now to pursue college athletics. That has changed. Is women's sports on par with men's sports? Not at all, but I don't know if that is a bad thing. There will be an audience and scholarship opportunities for women in college athletics even without Title IX. I really believe this.
Rich, I am sure Joe Morgan thinks Roy Halladay is talking about his Uncle Ruiz who helps call Halladay's pitches before the game begins because we all know a veteran pitcher like Halladay calls his own pitches.
Joe Morgan really needs to look into why he has such terrible info on catchers and how he managed to be a HoF player while not knowing what the hell a catcher does.
To me, to qualify as a sport, there needs to be some sort of gambling odds/point spread. So no cheerleading, while a semi-competitive athletic activity, isn't a sport.
ReplyDeleteBut keep it around because cheerleaders are good in bed.
KBilly, I don't know that we couldn't work a spread or some sort or gambling into the competitive cheerleading. Once we did that, then it would be a sport I guess.
ReplyDeleteThese aren't just cheerleaders, these are competitive cheerleaders. If you like cheerleaders in bed, these may be the more aggressive-type. Just throwing that out there.