Tits or GTFO

The unofficial motto of the wingnut entitlement set:

The Post doesn't explore the reasons for this, but Title IX must be the main culprit. That's the law which, as interpreted, basically requires colleges to to enroll as many women in intercollegiate athletics as men regardless of comparative interest. It causes colleges to eliminate programs in which many students would like to participate, for example men's wrestling and tennis, in favor women's programs (say, a bowling team) for which interest is minimal and must be ginned up.

In this environment, it's no wonder that colleges aren't starting men's lacrosse programs, which require (as I understand it) at least three dozen players. Doing so seems like a sure-fire way to encounter Title IX compliance issues.

Right. It's gotta be those chicks again. You let them out of the kitchen for one minute and then they're all up in your colleges demanding things.

Stuck in the vet's office waiting for lab results on Stripe today, I wound up reading back issues of Time and Newsweek, particularly stories about free speech issues on high school campuses. And in every single story, it seemed, there was at least one peripherally-tied-to-a-conservative-group "activist" talking about how horrible it was now, the way teachers could barely teach, so concerned were they that they'd be sued by students seeking more freedom of speech and expression. And how dare these kids, really, disturbing the tranquility of the school environment like that with their need to speak up and protest about everything from grand geopolitical issues to stupid dress codes.

It's just one sad tragic loss for the power structure after another, isn't it? I swear, having read all these dire tales of men who just can't get theirs anymore, authority figures who feel they're being undermined, journalists who are under grave threat from bloggers horning in on their audiences, white males being outbred by those wacky Mexican illegals, radio hosts who can't be racist shitbags anymore ... The list of the victimized goes on and on and on.

It gets so I start to wonder how on earth people manage to get through the day. I mean, if you can't deny an athlete the chance to compete because she has boobies, if you can't tell a kid to shove his entire viewpoint up his ass just because you're holding a ruler, if you can't governmentally rape and pillage to your heart's content without being pestered by people that you're omg opressing them, what are you supposed to do with your life? How do you go on?

Insecurity's at the root of all of this. Insecurity and fear of challenge, on the athletic fields, in the classroom, on the radio, on the Internet. Insecurity on the part of the people who have for years held all the power, that the powerless might not just overtake them, but might also be better than they are. If a school administrator was really confident in his or her ability to address questions and moderate debate, he or she wouldn't lock the environment down like Fort Knox at the slightest sign of adolescent dress-code rebellion (violence being entirely another thing). If male shitweasels like the PowerTool schmoes were really confident that they were as good as they say they are, they wouldn't attribute their superiority to their alleged cocks. If Brian Williams was really confident in his journalistic achievements and career situation, he wouldn't be worried about some guy in an efficiency in Queens with a bathrobe and an opinion. They wouldn't be so godawfully threatened all the time.

And the people who are falling back on "But I'm male" and "But I'm white" and "But I'm credentialed" and "But I'm supposed to be in charge, the plaque on my desk says so" right now are doing so because deep down they know their authority and control are no longer good enough in and of themselves. They're staggered by the idea that privilege might have to be earned, instead of bestowed on them as a birthright, and it contradicts the entire story that they tell themselves in their heads, about how they have what they have not because they're any better than anybody else at any one thing but because they freaking deserve it. Butting up against somebody's internal hero cycle is always a jolting experience.

They have to have reasons now, for why they do the things they do, and having to justify their existences is pissing a lot of them off. It's only going to get worse unless people, when confronted with this lethal combination of narcissism and whining, start asking them point-blank, "Just what the fuck are you so afraid of, anyway?"

A.

Comments

[virgotex]

Gawd, that quote pisses me off. Willing to be that what sports is about for this guy is sitting on his ass and watching three dozen other people (he thinks) play. For him, it's not about the people actually playing it. He doesn't give a rat's ass about the dozens of women ATHLETES looking to play. No one is having to "gin up" up their interests.

Must.not.get.riled.up.....

[virgotex]

whoah, did you take the validation patch off?

[Anonyme]

There's no doubt that a "Title IX backlash" exists among the right-wingers. But these comments are pretty tame and, as far as right-wing nuttiness goes, fairly reasoned... do they really deserve the scorched earth response? Is there any criticism of Title IX that wouldn't get this response from you? Maybe it's just because it's coming from powerline. If so, that's cool, they certainly deserve little beyond a scorched earth response no matter what they're prattling on about. Just wondering...

One more thought. Let's say that congress passed another "Title". This one saying that campus spending on health care must be equal between the genders. No matter the demand, the level of need or interest, or any other mitigating factor. Would you support it?

[The_Other_Sarah]

Hell yes, I'd support it -- healthcare spending that included condoms and lessons on how and why they're good ideas could save a lot of lives.
Spending that included lessons on why your socks shouldn't stick to the kitchen floor and your underwear shouldn't crackle when you sit down might not save any lives, but it would make college life much pleasanter.
And having to do a little self-disciplined forethought would make the world a hell of a lot better place, because the whining powerline weenies would be drowned in public toilets by people who actually do have an attitude, a viewpoint, some legitimate experience of the world, and balls.

That's not what I meant to rant about.
Hell of a good writeup, A.

And the first person you ask the question of ought to be George W Bush.

(Come to think of it, he's probably afraid of Cheney. So maybe the first person you ought to ask is Dick Cheney.)

[whitey]

Amen. Hallelujah.

I've been saying this for a long time--the modern conservative movement is stuck in the junior high locker room, with all the attendant macho-posturing, fight-picking, overt racism/sexism/homophobia and above all desperation and fear.

[pansypoo]

it's just not faaaaaair. wah wah wah.
no wonder the talibornagains and the men's movement had surges.

frankly, it just would be nice to see an iraqqi group that had men AND women. that would surely be a sign we had won.

[scout]

"Just what the fuck are you so afraid of, anyway?"

Amen!

[scout]

What no validatee thingee?????

[scout]

Oh COOOOL!!!!

[scout]

My eyes My EYES

I can seeeeee

[idiosynchronic]

How did Amanda get in here and what did you do with Athenae?

:)

[BuggyQ]

Only one quibble with the ranty goodness, A. I'm one of those college instructors who's worried about what she says for fear of what students might do. Only in my case, it's the fundies. When I first started, I had a student get all het up because I dared to say less-than-kind things about Christianity. Things like, the Crusades were kinda, y'know, hard on the Muslims and the Jews.

There weren't any direct repercussions--my department chair was very cool about it--but it did bother me. And now I have a lot of disclaimers I use when I talk about religion in class. (Which is, BTW, working now--though I do get some weird looks when I do the tap-dance routine)

But that has more to do with students trying to restrict *my* freedom of expression than them trying to express *theirs*. I'm all in favor of students getting in my face in class, as long as they're not trying to shut me up. Debates in class are, well, educational. The O'Reilly approach, not so much--whether it's from students or faculty.