As the only brother to four sisters and the father of two girls, I saw first hand what the lack of athletic opportunity (not to mention the lack of economic opportunity) did to females and I vowed to insure that my daughter's lives would not be so negatively impacted as was the case with my sisters. Both of my daughters are the primary bread winners in their families and their husbands share equally in home maintenance and child rearing. things I had to do because my father died when I was just ten (I began cooking Sunday dinners at around the age of 12 and found as a young adult that the quickest way to a girl's heart was cooking her a great meal so I discovered new opportunities for the male gender that I would never have guessed at while fixing grilled chicken for my mother and younger sister). My daughters (and their husbands) have made sure their daughters have the same opportunities they did. I'm now witnessing the benefits of such training my granddaughters are enjoying. To have people like Yenor propose we go back to the fifties when women "knew" their place is an affront to everything most Americans have worked to avoid in the past few decades. What's good for the goose is also good for the gander and going back to the fifties when this was not the case is a step in the absolute opposite direction!
Oddly enough, I only recently found a picture of my mother's high school basketball team from back in the '20's. Somehow, that small opportunity seemed to have been lost by the fifties. I have to admit that I bought into this scenario in my teen years, the idea of a male "protector" for females. In college I began to notice which girls I found more interesting and it was those who saw equality between the sexes. When I entered the work force in 1970, one rarely saw a female in a "professional" position. As things began to change in the next decade or two, I welcomed those changes and even had female bosses in the 70's and 80's who I have to say were better suited to supervisory positions than many of the males I worked for. I'd sure hate to see these victories vanish for my granddaughters. They have a lot to offer to the male gender.
I have been saying all along: How can these people get exercised about the plight of female athletes who have to compete against transgender women, when they used to say that women and girls don't want to play sports in the first place?
I've found it strange that conservatives are yelling about "protect girls' sports!" when that means excluding trans girls - - while some of the same conservatives regarded Title IX as nonsense and as an unfair threat to the money going into the boys' football team. I'm also old enough to remember the 1960's rules of girls' basketball: six players on a side, only two of whom could play on the entire court. The two guards were restricted to one half of the court and the two forwards were restricted to the other half. You could only dribble the ball 3 times before you had to pass it or shoot a basket; three-point shots or a shot clock were unheard of. I can picture Yenor wanting to mandate a return to these rules, to keep female basketball quiet and demure (and boring).
The Project 2025 droogs are too stupid and narrowly-focused on their trad-wife goals to think of doing something that’s already been done: like weight classes for wrestling, boxing, crew; and handicapping for golf. There are ways to adjust for different sizes of people and skill levels in sports. DUH. Their true compass is driven by hate (of trans, women, persons of color). Very middle-ages of them.
In California in the 1950s and into the 60s there were no girls' interscholastic sports at all. There was the Girls' Athletic Association. (You will deduce, correctly, that I am also pretty old.)
(Curiously enough, girls' basketball was already a big deal in Iowa in the 1930s, when my mother was in school. I don't know what the rules were.)
I remember having watched women’s basketball under those rules. Dull! Title IX was a tremendous benefit for women’s sports. Watch women’s basketball now. No one would suggest competition between male and female sports teams because men are stronger, though not necessarily faster. Watch some women’s college softball. I think Title IX is responsible for allowing women to compete at this level. I have been watching highlights of Indiana Fever games. I have never watched any women’s college or professional basketball before, but somehow became attracted because of Caitlin Clark. Would never have happened without Title IX. Women’s swimming in the Olympics, women’s gymnastics at the same level. All of this made possible by Title IX, promoting women’s participation in sports. Professional women’s basketball, the WNBA, is exciting. The level of skill caught me by surprise. I can say that without getting into the controversy of race or sexual preference, which I think makes zero difference. Good play is good play. Women’s sports enhance teamwork. Enough for now.
Without Title IX, we would have not have so many US Women's soccer wins in the World Cup or so many Olympic basketball wins for the US women. Instead, we would become more like Afghanistan and Iran in how they treat women, as to hide them away and rule them like the Taliban.
We would never have an inspirational story of an American female Olympic athlete similar to one that happened in the Soviet Union years ago -- at a time when women athletes were much rarer than today. But here's the story that happened in the Soviet Union.
There was a girl named Tatyana who got hit by a car when walking home from school. She was seriously injured, with her leg so mangled up that they considered amputation. She underwent several surgeries for her leg. They had recommended that she not do much physical activity but designed her own program for rehab. In any case, she eventually became a star basketball player for Moscow Dynamo and was good enough for the National Team.
She even managed to find love -- from a soccer player at Moscow Dynamo named Mikhail. They got married and had a little boy. But she continued to play basketball and qualified for the Olympics and was on their gold medal winning teams in 1976 and 1980. After she stopped playing, she ran the women's basketball program for Moscow Dynamo and ultimately for the Russian Federation. And went on to have two more children. (When her youngest son started playing sports, he opted to wear his mother's old number.)
This should not be a surprise to anyone. It was predicted before the SCOTUS WV v. BPJ decision because Heritage was already telegraphing it. Heritage and other groups used Title IX arguments to gain support from female (cis) athletes, and now they are pulling the rug out from under the athletes.
One of my relatives is a top female athlete, and she expressed her concern that trans women would have an unfair advantage. She had competed against top international athletes, including Eastern European athletes before the fall of communism. It was an open secret that those athletes often took performance enhancing drugs and hormones.
So I took her concerns seriously. Trans women in sports is not a trivial issue to resolve so that it is fair to all the women. The SCOTUS decision was not the way to do it. Now that SCOTUS decision serves as a basis for eliminating Title IX. The opinion rests on biological differences between women and men, and therefore it provides a way to eliminate Title IX because of ... biological differences. Something like, "There are obvious biological differences between men and women, so why should the sports opportunities be the same. We can't make laws to circumvent the natural order."
To the women in my life, I say, "If a man tells you that he is better than you kick 'em in the balls." Actually I say, "Ask the man on what basis. Then why is that a uniquely valid basis. The point out that a woman carried him in her body for 9 months and bore him. Women live longer than men. They are more verbal and emotionally engaged." That doesn't make them better, but it sure as hell destroys any argument that men are better.
OMG, Yenor sounds like the devil incarnate. Good God, I had no idea such a neanderthal was still walking the earth.
Thank you for this informative and provocative article. You're absolutely right--we need to be opposing this bullshit right now!
I think Yenor has been locked in the 16th century. What an effing moron. He needs to be let go.
In whose world are women not competitive? This kind of misogynistic rhetoric make me want to vomit.
Another OMG reaction from a reader disgusted that such men's sick beliefs should be forced on anyone outside of a closed cult of like believers.
As the only brother to four sisters and the father of two girls, I saw first hand what the lack of athletic opportunity (not to mention the lack of economic opportunity) did to females and I vowed to insure that my daughter's lives would not be so negatively impacted as was the case with my sisters. Both of my daughters are the primary bread winners in their families and their husbands share equally in home maintenance and child rearing. things I had to do because my father died when I was just ten (I began cooking Sunday dinners at around the age of 12 and found as a young adult that the quickest way to a girl's heart was cooking her a great meal so I discovered new opportunities for the male gender that I would never have guessed at while fixing grilled chicken for my mother and younger sister). My daughters (and their husbands) have made sure their daughters have the same opportunities they did. I'm now witnessing the benefits of such training my granddaughters are enjoying. To have people like Yenor propose we go back to the fifties when women "knew" their place is an affront to everything most Americans have worked to avoid in the past few decades. What's good for the goose is also good for the gander and going back to the fifties when this was not the case is a step in the absolute opposite direction!
Oddly enough, I only recently found a picture of my mother's high school basketball team from back in the '20's. Somehow, that small opportunity seemed to have been lost by the fifties. I have to admit that I bought into this scenario in my teen years, the idea of a male "protector" for females. In college I began to notice which girls I found more interesting and it was those who saw equality between the sexes. When I entered the work force in 1970, one rarely saw a female in a "professional" position. As things began to change in the next decade or two, I welcomed those changes and even had female bosses in the 70's and 80's who I have to say were better suited to supervisory positions than many of the males I worked for. I'd sure hate to see these victories vanish for my granddaughters. They have a lot to offer to the male gender.
This makes me sick to my ass.
High school sports had a huge positive impact on me too. Everyone should be entitled to the opportunity (pun intended).
I have been saying all along: How can these people get exercised about the plight of female athletes who have to compete against transgender women, when they used to say that women and girls don't want to play sports in the first place?
(There, I said it again.)
I've found it strange that conservatives are yelling about "protect girls' sports!" when that means excluding trans girls - - while some of the same conservatives regarded Title IX as nonsense and as an unfair threat to the money going into the boys' football team. I'm also old enough to remember the 1960's rules of girls' basketball: six players on a side, only two of whom could play on the entire court. The two guards were restricted to one half of the court and the two forwards were restricted to the other half. You could only dribble the ball 3 times before you had to pass it or shoot a basket; three-point shots or a shot clock were unheard of. I can picture Yenor wanting to mandate a return to these rules, to keep female basketball quiet and demure (and boring).
The Project 2025 droogs are too stupid and narrowly-focused on their trad-wife goals to think of doing something that’s already been done: like weight classes for wrestling, boxing, crew; and handicapping for golf. There are ways to adjust for different sizes of people and skill levels in sports. DUH. Their true compass is driven by hate (of trans, women, persons of color). Very middle-ages of them.
In California in the 1950s and into the 60s there were no girls' interscholastic sports at all. There was the Girls' Athletic Association. (You will deduce, correctly, that I am also pretty old.)
(Curiously enough, girls' basketball was already a big deal in Iowa in the 1930s, when my mother was in school. I don't know what the rules were.)
I remember having watched women’s basketball under those rules. Dull! Title IX was a tremendous benefit for women’s sports. Watch women’s basketball now. No one would suggest competition between male and female sports teams because men are stronger, though not necessarily faster. Watch some women’s college softball. I think Title IX is responsible for allowing women to compete at this level. I have been watching highlights of Indiana Fever games. I have never watched any women’s college or professional basketball before, but somehow became attracted because of Caitlin Clark. Would never have happened without Title IX. Women’s swimming in the Olympics, women’s gymnastics at the same level. All of this made possible by Title IX, promoting women’s participation in sports. Professional women’s basketball, the WNBA, is exciting. The level of skill caught me by surprise. I can say that without getting into the controversy of race or sexual preference, which I think makes zero difference. Good play is good play. Women’s sports enhance teamwork. Enough for now.
Yenor and Doug Wilson (Hegseths Pastor) are 2 of a kind. Wilson thinks women should not vote.
Without Title IX, we would have not have so many US Women's soccer wins in the World Cup or so many Olympic basketball wins for the US women. Instead, we would become more like Afghanistan and Iran in how they treat women, as to hide them away and rule them like the Taliban.
We would never have an inspirational story of an American female Olympic athlete similar to one that happened in the Soviet Union years ago -- at a time when women athletes were much rarer than today. But here's the story that happened in the Soviet Union.
There was a girl named Tatyana who got hit by a car when walking home from school. She was seriously injured, with her leg so mangled up that they considered amputation. She underwent several surgeries for her leg. They had recommended that she not do much physical activity but designed her own program for rehab. In any case, she eventually became a star basketball player for Moscow Dynamo and was good enough for the National Team.
She even managed to find love -- from a soccer player at Moscow Dynamo named Mikhail. They got married and had a little boy. But she continued to play basketball and qualified for the Olympics and was on their gold medal winning teams in 1976 and 1980. After she stopped playing, she ran the women's basketball program for Moscow Dynamo and ultimately for the Russian Federation. And went on to have two more children. (When her youngest son started playing sports, he opted to wear his mother's old number.)
Thank you for this. I could not agree more.
This is an excellent piece. Thank you. I did not know about this attack.
This should not be a surprise to anyone. It was predicted before the SCOTUS WV v. BPJ decision because Heritage was already telegraphing it. Heritage and other groups used Title IX arguments to gain support from female (cis) athletes, and now they are pulling the rug out from under the athletes.
One of my relatives is a top female athlete, and she expressed her concern that trans women would have an unfair advantage. She had competed against top international athletes, including Eastern European athletes before the fall of communism. It was an open secret that those athletes often took performance enhancing drugs and hormones.
So I took her concerns seriously. Trans women in sports is not a trivial issue to resolve so that it is fair to all the women. The SCOTUS decision was not the way to do it. Now that SCOTUS decision serves as a basis for eliminating Title IX. The opinion rests on biological differences between women and men, and therefore it provides a way to eliminate Title IX because of ... biological differences. Something like, "There are obvious biological differences between men and women, so why should the sports opportunities be the same. We can't make laws to circumvent the natural order."
To the women in my life, I say, "If a man tells you that he is better than you kick 'em in the balls." Actually I say, "Ask the man on what basis. Then why is that a uniquely valid basis. The point out that a woman carried him in her body for 9 months and bore him. Women live longer than men. They are more verbal and emotionally engaged." That doesn't make them better, but it sure as hell destroys any argument that men are better.
Horrifying.