Why do you lie about opportunities for female athletes - at the expense of male athletes? What do you have against the guys? Is it a revenge issue? Is there a lot of money in it for you? Attention?
Or is it just a simple, plain ol' man-hatin' thing?
Today, Buzuvis posted this trash on her Title IX blog.
Seems several schools are adding both men's and women's lax. You'd think Title-IX'ers would celebrate the addition of athletic opportunities, right?
Wrong! Have you forgotten all about proportionality?
Let's take on the Rockhurst fib*:
At Rockhurst, women constitute 59.4% of the student body, yet receive 47.1% of athletic opportunities -- a gap of 12.3 percentage points.
The key word there is "receive"?
Her lies are built on a word that just doesn't belong.
Replace "receive" with "take advantage of" and you'll have a much clearer picture of what's going on at Rockhurst and around the country.
Here's the breakdown of current roster numbers at Rockhurst:
Women's volleyball = 19
Men's volleyball = 0 (no program)
Women's golf = 14
Men's golf = 10
Women's basketball = 18
Men's basketball = 20
Women's tennis = 8
Men's tennis = 9
Women's soccer = 34
Men's soccer = 58
Women's softball = 17
Men's baseball = 43
Female athletes = 110 (44%)
Male athletes = 140 (56%)
Looks like some serious inequity, right? These numbers are actually worse than Erin's, so why am I calling her out?
Males make up less than half the undergrad population, yet they
Check out the soccer and baseball/softball numbers. Now do you see the difference between the word "receive" and the phrase "take advantage of"?
The reasonable course of action would be to continue to offer opportunities for both men and women, right?
The Title IX-ers' will instead demand either roster caps for men's sports or the elimination of at least one men's program.
*I went with them because their site is very easy to navigate and pull info from. Athletes in multiple sports could be the reason my numbers differ from those Buzuvis presents.