Baby Lee
08-10-2012, 07:38 PM
I'd really REALLY like for this to be a community-wide discussion, with input across generations and demographics. Not some typical partisan thread that gets shuttled off to the DC ghetto and the attendant reduction in participation.
But there's been some simmering discussions on the interwebs, as the female American Olympians make their mark, that this would not have happened without Title IX.
I grew up in a post-TIX world, and all I know is what I know from my and my sister's personal experiences.
My primary sport was soccer. I started at age 8. It was always co-ed, and from almost the beginning I always had girls on my team. Not 50/50, but plenty of able players. This continued into HS where we had girls [2] STARTING the varsity team from day one. One was a known uber-athlete who had been a standout mid-fielder since her early teens and actually moved on from Co-Ed recreational to funded travelling teams the same time I did [12-13yo]. Another who really didn't come up from the 'farm system' but showed up when our HS team was formed and impressed the new coach with her defensive skills in the pre-season. The former went on to be a DivI scholly softball player for Mizzou. The latter was DivII in soccer.
My sister followed my soccer footsteps. She started in co-ed, and moved on to newly formed all-female funded travelling teams [form those unfamiliar, travelling teams take the best players they can find and travel from tourney to tourney playing similar teams from other areas, as opposed to recreational where everyone participate locally]. Come HS, her coach, replacing mine, said he wouldn't put a girl on Varsity, a position he changed when he started my sister game 3 of her freshman year.
My sis also ran track and played BB, advancing far in state-wide comp with regularity.
Our school was a 'funhouse mirror' of sorts w.r.t sports. Our FB, BasketB, and BaseB teams sucked mightily, and soccer, cross country [M&W], women's BB and softball teams were regularly more respected throughout the school than 'all-male' sports.
Now, everything prior to HS, was privately funded by parents, and government preferences were a non-issue. For my experience, the esteem of athletes in HS was FAR more a function of ability and results than any federal mandate. I remained oblivious to even the existence of Title IX until I was well into my college years, despite playing for a decade in sports with females, and watching my sister play with just as much investment and opportunity from family and friends.
Likewise, gay issues and marijuana issues have gained mainstream credence in the absence of, indeed despite majority obstacles from, federal and state imprimatur.
So I guess, if I had to condense the entire query into a soundbyte. Do these changes occur on the merits of the arguments or the federal imposition of conditions. I grew up knowing who was a good or shitty teammate, regardless of gender. I grew up knowing that my sister was a better athlete than the idiots on our HS' boys' FB and BasketB teams, as were many of my own contemporaries. And I did so without Title IX entering my vocabulary until 1/2 decade or more later.
But there's been some simmering discussions on the interwebs, as the female American Olympians make their mark, that this would not have happened without Title IX.
I grew up in a post-TIX world, and all I know is what I know from my and my sister's personal experiences.
My primary sport was soccer. I started at age 8. It was always co-ed, and from almost the beginning I always had girls on my team. Not 50/50, but plenty of able players. This continued into HS where we had girls [2] STARTING the varsity team from day one. One was a known uber-athlete who had been a standout mid-fielder since her early teens and actually moved on from Co-Ed recreational to funded travelling teams the same time I did [12-13yo]. Another who really didn't come up from the 'farm system' but showed up when our HS team was formed and impressed the new coach with her defensive skills in the pre-season. The former went on to be a DivI scholly softball player for Mizzou. The latter was DivII in soccer.
My sister followed my soccer footsteps. She started in co-ed, and moved on to newly formed all-female funded travelling teams [form those unfamiliar, travelling teams take the best players they can find and travel from tourney to tourney playing similar teams from other areas, as opposed to recreational where everyone participate locally]. Come HS, her coach, replacing mine, said he wouldn't put a girl on Varsity, a position he changed when he started my sister game 3 of her freshman year.
My sis also ran track and played BB, advancing far in state-wide comp with regularity.
Our school was a 'funhouse mirror' of sorts w.r.t sports. Our FB, BasketB, and BaseB teams sucked mightily, and soccer, cross country [M&W], women's BB and softball teams were regularly more respected throughout the school than 'all-male' sports.
Now, everything prior to HS, was privately funded by parents, and government preferences were a non-issue. For my experience, the esteem of athletes in HS was FAR more a function of ability and results than any federal mandate. I remained oblivious to even the existence of Title IX until I was well into my college years, despite playing for a decade in sports with females, and watching my sister play with just as much investment and opportunity from family and friends.
Likewise, gay issues and marijuana issues have gained mainstream credence in the absence of, indeed despite majority obstacles from, federal and state imprimatur.
So I guess, if I had to condense the entire query into a soundbyte. Do these changes occur on the merits of the arguments or the federal imposition of conditions. I grew up knowing who was a good or shitty teammate, regardless of gender. I grew up knowing that my sister was a better athlete than the idiots on our HS' boys' FB and BasketB teams, as were many of my own contemporaries. And I did so without Title IX entering my vocabulary until 1/2 decade or more later.