Harvard newspaper doesn't want a 4th sorority

[DeltaBetaBaby]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

And honestly I don't see this as being PC bullshit. That's their standard and they abide by it. It's not about political correctness (a vastly overused term) at all, it's about equality from the Canadian perspective.

Right, and I suppose their sports teams are all co-ed? And they don't discriminate against guys in wheelchairs who want to star on the football team?

[ColdInCanada11]

Originally Posted by DeltaBetaBaby

Right, and I suppose their sports teams are all co-ed? And they don't discriminate against guys in wheelchairs who want to star on the football team?

Hahahahaha, it's only 8am but this made my day Seriously though, we don't have a men's soccer team (only women's) because there isn't a women's football team. So most teams aren't co-ed, but the ratio of all female to all male teams must be equal.

[AlphaFrog]

Originally Posted by ColdInCanada11

Hahahahaha, it's only 8am but this made my day Seriously though, we don't have a men's soccer team (only women's) because there isn't a women's football team. So most teams aren't co-ed, but the ratio of all female to all male teams must be equal.

Good thing they don't require an even ratio of sororities and fraternities, or more guys would have to make nice with eachother instead of bringing a new fraternity to campus.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by ColdInCanada11

Hahahahaha, it's only 8am but this made my day Seriously though, we don't have a men's soccer team (only women's) because there isn't a women's football team. So most teams aren't co-ed, but the ratio of all female to all male teams must be equal.

That's similar to Title IX here, except that it's not necessarily the number of teams, but the number of "athlete" slots so generally football requires several women's teams because football has so many players. And then universities can't have men's football and women's golf and call it a day.

[ColdInCanada11]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

That's similar to Title IX here, except that it's not necessarily the number of teams, but the number of "athlete" slots so generally football requires several women's teams because football has so many players. And then universities can't have men's football and women's golf and call it a day.

To be honest, I've never actually thought about our sports teams, but Title IX makes a lot of sense!!

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by ColdInCanada11

To be honest, I've never actually thought about our sports teams, but Title IX makes a lot of sense!!

It's imperfect, but generally works. Problems tend to arise when because football is a money maker, schools cut other mens sports to make the balance even. Then people who play or like these sports rail against Title IX because "it's not FAIR", when history has shown that without it, women rarely get to play sports.

[33girl]

Originally Posted by ColdInCanada11

To be honest, I've never actually thought about our sports teams, but Title IX makes a lot of sense!!

No it doesn't.

Basically, unless the school begs tons of women to play sports that they have no desire to play, men get screwed and unable to play sports they DO want to play. And guess what, taking the mens' sports away doesn't seem to INCREASE the amount of women getting involved in sports, which was what it was supposed to do.

Title IX was a good concept, but the execution sucks monkey balls.

[ColdInCanada11]

Originally Posted by 33girl

No it doesn't.

Basically, unless the school begs tons of women to play sports that they have no desire to play, men get screwed and unable to play sports they DO want to play. And guess what, taking the mens' sports away doesn't seem to INCREASE the amount of women getting involved in sports, which was what it was supposed to do.

Title IX was a good concept, but the execution sucks monkey balls.

I guess I was just thinking of my school. The bigger teams, swimming and track and field are definitely equal in men and women, and the women's hockey team is actually bigger than the men's. Other than not having a men's soccer team, we're pretty even here. So, I guess it all depends on what sports are popular at that school?

That doesn't surprise me, though. If you don't want to play, you don't want to play. Someone else not being allowed to play probably won't change that.

[southbymidwest]

Originally Posted by 33girl

No it doesn't.

Basically, unless the school begs tons of women to play sports that they have no desire to play, men get screwed and unable to play sports they DO want to play. And guess what, taking the mens' sports away doesn't seem to INCREASE the amount of women getting involved in sports, which was what it was supposed to do.

Title IX was a good concept, but the execution sucks monkey balls.

Excuse me? I find it VERY hard to believe that ANY D-1 school is having problems finding female athletes wanting to play their chosen sport in college. Having two very athletic daughters who played sports in high school, no one had to cajole them into playing.The also played on club teams. They both have friends who play/played in college and believe me, these girls worked incredibly hard to get to that level, and to be noticed by college coaches. There are lots and lots of girls competing for the same one sixth of a scholarship (the number of scholarships often does not equate to the number of spots on a team, thus they are broken up) place on any college team. No one had to drag them kicking and screaming onto the team. My daughters, their friends, my future granddaughters (should I have any) all have the same right as their guy friends, my future grandsons, (once again, should I have any) my nephews, to play sports at the collegiate level if they have the talent and commitment to do so.

[33girl]

Originally Posted by southbymidwest

Excuse me? I find it VERY hard to believe that ANY D-1 school is having problems finding female athletes wanting to play their chosen sport in college. Having two very athletic daughters who played sports in high school, no one had to cajole them into playing.The also played on club teams. They both have friends who play/played in college and believe me, these girls worked incredibly hard to get to that level, and to be noticed by college coaches. There are lots and lots of girls competing for the same one sixth of a scholarship (the number of scholarships often does not equate to the number of spots on a team, thus they are broken up) place on any college team. No one had to drag them kicking and screaming onto the team. My daughters, their friends, my future granddaughters (should I have any) all have the same right as their guy friends, my future grandsons, (once again, should I have any) my nephews, to play sports at the collegiate level if they have the talent and commitment to do so.

Not necessarily talking about D-1, silly goose

And besides that, you misinterpreted my post. Like DF said, it's the number of spots that is looked at, not the number of teams/opportunities. The result is that a sport that requires lots of members on a team - like football or wrestling - is going to suck up a lot of space on the men's side. The guys who golf, play tennis etc get screwed, just because there isn't a women's sport that has teams that large. The other alternative is to overpack the women's sports teams, which isn't fair to them.

Like I said, good concept, bad execution.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by DeltaBetaBaby

Right, and I suppose their sports teams are all co-ed? And they don't discriminate against guys in wheelchairs who want to star on the football team?

Yes because those are totally relevant points when contrasting the American concept of "free association" with differing values in other countries. Considering American Greek Life is pretty unique, it's not surprising other countries aren't particularly supportive of it where organizations that developed within the country's own culture will obviously fit better than importing them.

That said your examples suck for two different reasons: in sports you're talking about different physical levels of ability, ones that would, for better or worse, result in primarily female students losing out on the ability to play or just plain getting hurt if the sports were co-ed. It's a long running debate in fact whether some sports should be co-ed, but rolling your eyes and mocking the concept doesn't make your point it instead makes you look ill-informed.

Secondly, using Glee as any sort of basis for a real life point also fails to make your point, is inherently silly, and is still unrelated to why Canadian universities don't recognize single-sex student organizations.

U of Toronto's policy:

In its relations with these organizations, the University is guided by a commitment to the right of University members to communicate and to discuss and explore all ideas, to organize groups for any lawful purpose, to move about the University and to use its facilities in any reasonable way, to distribute on campus, in a responsible way, published material provided that it is not unlawful, to hold meetings, to debate and to engage in peaceful demonstrations, and to freedom from discrimination on the basis of sex, race or religion.
...

(c) Membership in groups should be open to all members of the University community without restriction on the grounds of national origin, race, religion, colour, or sex. While discriminatory membership practices are not allowed, it is recognized that certain groups could well be homogeneous in nature without being discriminatory. Status as non-voting members may be extended to interested persons from outside the University.

Never mind that sports in Canada are also different than sports in the US, but do keep banging the drum.

[DeltaBetaBaby]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

Yes because those are totally relevant points when contrasting the American concept of "free association" with differing values in other countries. Considering American Greek Life is pretty unique, it's not surprising other countries aren't particularly supportive of it where organizations that developed within the country's own culture will obviously fit better than importing them.

That said your examples suck for two different reasons: in sports you're talking about different physical levels of ability, ones that would, for better or worse, result in primarily female students losing out on the ability to play or just plain getting hurt if the sports were co-ed. It's a long running debate in fact whether some sports should be co-ed, but rolling your eyes and mocking the concept doesn't make your point it instead makes you look ill-informed.

Secondly, using Glee as any sort of basis for a real life point also fails to make your point, is inherently silly, and is still unrelated to why Canadian universities don't recognize single-sex student organizations.

U of Toronto's policy:

Never mind that sports in Canada are also different than sports in the US, but do keep banging the drum.

I have no idea what Glee has to do with anything, so I'll skip over that.

Your argument is basically that it's not okay to segregate by gender (GLO's), except when it is (sports).

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by DeltaBetaBaby

I have no idea what Glee has to do with anything, so I'll skip over that.

Your argument is basically that it's not okay to segregate by gender (GLO's), except when it is (sports).

No, that's (universities in) Canada's argument. My argument is that prohibiting discrimination is not PC bullshit, but a reasonable policy that works for them. If you want to reduce it to absurdity, your argument is that it's OK to discriminate against women all the time. Absurd, right?

Ok so moving PAST the absurdity, there are some pretty serious arguments about whether or not it's preferable to change sports to co-ed or not, but in MOST sports it's considered that this would eliminate all but very few women from play because of the inherent biological differences (in the aggregate) between men and women's bodies. Some women would be able to compete, but not many. It's not as simple as a argument over discrimination.

Since you were apparently NOT making a Glee reference, I'll note two other things, the first is that there is no reference in UoT's student org. policy regarding disability. I don't know whether there are national or provincial policies like our ADA that would prevent discrimination on those grounds for an organization. The second is that you're getting into the realm of "ability" again. And it is a simple and unfortunate fact that at the current state of technology there is no way for someone who is wheelchair bound to play standard football.

Your comparisons were both sports related and at once dismissed complex arguments about the future of sport and made ridiculous counterclaims. This has nothing to do with student organizations or Greek Life. Neither of which require differing levels of ability.

[knight_shadow]

Originally Posted by DeltaBetaBaby

I have no idea what Glee has to do with anything, so I'll skip over that.

Originally Posted by DeltaBetaBaby

guys in wheelchairs who want to star on the football team?