Free Web Hosting Provider - Web Hosting - E-commerce - High Speed Internet - Free Web Page

Chicks & Sports

I was on board early with the Women's World Cup. I caught whatever games I could On ESPN2, and ,of course, saw the finals. I did this not because I saw this as a spectacular advance for women's athletics, but because I am a fan of soccer. But the enormous propaganda effort flowing out of the victorious U.S. Women's team's effort makes me sorry for my support and enthusiasm.

In light of the non-stop barrage of feminist propaganda, let us put this in perspective, just a little bit.

Women just aren't very good soccer players. The U.S. Women's Team may be the world's best, but that is only because the vast majority of other teams are utterly horrible. Watch a game between, say, Norway and Nigeria if you want to see what I mean. They are simply awful. The powerful U.S. gals, the best team in the world!, would be soundly thrashed by any halfway competent Division Three men's team. Not because they are less dedicated, or less skilled with their feet, but because men are bigger and stronger, can jump higher, run faster, kick harder and react more quickly. These things are far more important in soccer than are footwork and a good team attitude. The U.S. Women are the best of the worst. Yay team.
Title IX had nothing to do with it. Liberals rarely pass up an opportunity to rewrite history, and this is no exception. Many of them used the women team's victory as "proof" that Title IX, the section of the 1964 Civil Rights Act that has been used as a tool to force "equality" in college athletics, "works". This is so wrong it is breathtaking. First, the aggressive enforcement of Title IX is a very recent phenomenon, and given that most of the women on the team came through college in the late '80s and early '90s, it is clear that Title IX had nothing to do with it. Much more likely is the suburbanization of soccer begun in the early '80s. Second, we run up against the point in number 1, above. Even if Title IX had been an influencing factor, it simply means that by destroying opportunities for men, by depriving colleges and universities of any flexibility and choice, by forcing women's athletics into a preconceived lesbian/feminist mold, we have succeeded in creating a soccer team less bad than that of countries who use somewhat less fascist women's sports development strategies. This is something to crow about? Title IX as interpreted by this adminstration should stand as the poster child for radical/liberal meddling. Its premise is that in a world free of sex-based discrimination, girls and boys would participate in competitive athletics in the same proportion and with the same fervor. The fact that this premise is utterly ridiculous and proven wrong day in and day out by boys and girls all over the world does nothing to give the feminists pause. Their ideology is immune to the influence of incovenient reality. Indeed, since reality refuses to cooperate, they have set about to create reality in their own image using threats and force. Colleges must have equal numbers of boys and girls playing sports (and equal dollars spent). If they cannot achieve this by enticing more girls to play sports, they must do so by gutting men's programs. So is fairness and equality defined in the '90s, and seldom has a more clear example been available of the guttural liberal instinct to achieve quality by tearing down rather than by building up.
Nothing bothers me more than girls who desperately want to be boys. I like to think that, on rare occasions, I provide a little bit of insight. One of my ongoing themes that I rarely see reflected anywhere else is that basic thrust of feminism is to strive for the masculinization of America - the creation of a world in which traits and characteristics generally associated with men are deemed "the best". Thus feminism defines as good those things which make women look, think and behave more like men, and girls like boys. The entire undercurrent of women's professional sports and high level team sports is that it is good and exciting for women to be sweaty, strong, aggressive, profane and crude. We are building an entire generation of horrid little girl-men, of female Dennis Rodman wannabes. There have always been "tom-boys", and a small number of women will always possess the sort of aggressive, violent competitiveness that defines men's sports. And that certainly doesn't bother me. What does bother me is the fact that this attitude is being pumped out by the engines of mass culture as the only acceptable attitude towards athletics by girls. You can see it in their demeanor, their rudeness, their crudeness. By the time they get old and wise enough to understand they've been had, they will have missed out on many important pieces of the girl-to-woman experience.