The Travesty of 35 Years of Feminism in NCAA Athletics

It's a matter of record that the feminst movement has been attempting social engineering by implementing their ideas into policies enforced by law in American institutions like the military, and the public school systems. One of those efforts has been the passage of Title IX legislation 35 years ago. This anniversary coincides with the NCAA "March Madness" Basketball tournament. 35 years later, one can see that like just about all feminist promoted legislation, it's sold as a means of "helping" woman achieve equality - when in reality, it's simply another case of feminists passing laws that help women by hurting and discriminating against men.

National Review's Carrie Lukas writes about it today:

Many members of the organizations sponsoring the conference recoil from any suggestion that innate differences between the sexes contribute to disparate outcomes, whether on a basketball court or in the workplace. “Discrimination” is the only acceptable explanation when men out-participate or out-perform women, while women’s triumphs ironically are ignored.

It’s hard to imagine, for example, the gender-obsessed handwringers pondering why women outnumber men in so much of academia during their conference breakout session “Title IX: It’s Not Just for Athletics.” Speakers from “The Association for Gender Equity Leadership in Education” and “The National Alliance for Partnerships in Equity” will surely discuss achievement in the hard sciences (where men still outnumber women), but psychology and education (in which women earn about eight of ten bachelor’s degrees) undoubtedly will be overlooked. Few will lament the inherent “inequity” in women constituting 58 percent of college graduates.

Indeed, athletics is one of the few areas of schooling where men predominate. A survey of high school seniors found girls were more likely to participate in music and performing-arts activities, academic clubs, student council or government, and the newspaper or yearbook. The only extracurricular activity where boys out-participated girls was athletics.

Title IX enforcers seek to change this, but not just by encouraging more female participation in sports, which most everyone sees as laudable. Far from merely barring discrimination, activist administrators have interpreted Title IX as demanding equal outcomes. Colleges and universities must demonstrate “participation opportunities for male and female students are provided in numbers substantially proportionate to their respective enrollments.” Not surprisingly, schools eager to avoid costly lawsuits often make the numbers add up by reducing sports opportunities for men.

Mrs. Lukas goes on to cite examples of various Universities across the country that have cut Male athletic programs just to avoid sanctioning from the NCAA just because of the unequal amount of female interest or participation in athletic programs.

This is sheer travesty. On a basic level, the majority of female college students are just not CHOOSING to participate in athletics...but to "ensure an equal outcome" the school has to cut other male athletic programs. This is nothing but sheer, naked Marxist Socialism!!!

"Equality" is always held up as the ultimate ideal by the Socialist minded liberals...but they NEVER fail to recognize that TRUE equality is ONLY achievable by reducing EVERYONE to the lowest common denominator.

Mrs. Lukas finishes with a statement for which I whole-heartedly agree:

Title IX was sold as a way to ensure everyone has the opportunity to live up to his or her potential, not as a means to decimate male athletics. It’s time to reform Title IX and its enforcement so that male and female sports can both thrive.

Women: The Angrier Sex

It's true: Women are showing there rage

(Hat tip: Dr. Helen)

"Heather Joshi, the study co-author, states, "Our study show that women report being angry far more often than men do."

IT is the research finding every man suspected, and every women will vehemently disagree with - women are the angrier sex.

New research that examined the responses of 22,000 people over 50 years has found that women are more likely to feel angry and persistently frustrated than men.

They also are more likely to act on their frustration in an unhealthy manner, choosing passive aggression over non-violent confrontation, psychologists say.

And Hell really has no fury like a woman scorned, as thirtysomething women with no partner are far more likely to report angry feelings than those with partners....

Dr Dryden, who runs a clinical practice in London, said his work with patients suggests women respond to anger in a less constructive manner than men.

He said: "Instead of using it as an opportunity for assertion, they tend not to deal with it directly, often becoming passively aggressive, talking behind people's backs, or taking feelings out on other people."

Who would of thought, eh?

And people get paid to study what any bloke with common sense figures out? It's still good to get this kind of research saved so that the next time you encounter a female that mindlessly drones out the various feminist memes that women are the "gentler" and "more peaceful" gender....or the old "IF women ran the world, there would be no war!"

Dr. Helen makes a good point here:

The researchers speculate that women's anger is prompted by feelings of powerlessness caused by "entrenched sexism in modern society." As opposed to what, less sexism in ancient society? When sexism was more prevalent, women were even more "ladylike." Today's women are encouraged to express anger in our "you go, girl" culture but instead of using anger constructively, women continue to take the mean-girl routes, talking behind people's backs, avoiding confrontation and personal responsibility for their anger by being anonymous and/or passive aggressive in their approach. What this leads to is probably... more anger.

I think Dr. Helen touches on it, but I don't think she understands the entire picture: when women were more "ladylike," it was during the period where orderly society was based on the Patriarchal Nuclear Family model in which shame was an important part of people regulating their social behavior.

But now that we've begun the reversion to Matriarchy, shame has been lost and women (and men) no longer feel the pressure to conform to societal norms to act "ladylike."

Chivalry is dead, and feminism killed it. Women are "equal" and free from the "oppression of Patriarchy."

Yet they are angrier than ever.

You'd think they'd be happier than since feminism has freed them from Patriarchal oppression, right?

RIGHT?!?!

All Anna, All the Time

The American mainstream media has just spent yesterday devoted to the closing chapter of one of the greatest orgies of oversaturated media stories since OJ Simpson hacked his wife to death...the death of America's greatest Gold Digger of all time, Anna Nicole Smith. Her autopsy report merely confirmed what most reasonable, common sense person thought when they first heard the news of her passing...drug overdose.

Well Duh.


Now many people constantly criticize the American media for it's sensationalist, over-saturated stories on pop culture and the cult of celebrity...but the reason why they do so is because their is a STRONG demand for such mindless dreck masquerading as "news."

In short, TV has been feminized, and such coverage of usually mildly interesting yet not really important celeb-info-tainment stories like Anna Nicole Smith is just one aspect of the feminization of American Television.

So are we REALLY surprised that the media found a ratings bonanza in the All Anna, All the Time coverage we've endured since America's foremost gold-digger overdosed on a cocktail of painkillers and anti-depressants? It's not as if the news story was actually SHOCKING.

The ratings have been sky-high, because even though Anna Nicole has been the source of gold digger jokes and snide remarks by comedians and late-night TV talkshow hosts for the past decade or so, Anna Nicole represented what millions of me-first American Matriarch's aspire too as the ultimate "independant" woman: find the gullible, 90 year old billionaire, marry him, and wait out the few years until he kicks the bucket and voila: INDEPENDANCE!

So while millions of women laughed at the jokes told about her, and millions of others said nasty, snide remarks about her to deny their jealousy of the opportunity she had to live out the "dream," the fascination with her death was real, because American matriarchy-minded-me-first skanks and hos were deep down, in their heart of hearts, mourning the loss of their ultimate role model.

Sadly, the overall lesson to be learned from the fiasco known as Anna Nicole Smith's life - that abundant materialism like the kind Anna married, is no guarantee for a happy life - is lost on the majority of American women who aspire to achieve the same "success."