Friday, August 13, 2010

Whining about coverage of women's sports


Christina Hoff Sommers is reading a report
from a group of feminist activists who are upset that television sportscasters are not spending a proportional amount of time talking about women's sports. People just don't have the interest in women's sports that they do in men's sports. And no amount of feminist mau-mauing is going to change people's interest. As Sommers concludes,
These activists are accustomed to challenging juicy institutional targets—such as timid university administrators and government bureaucrats. But in taking on TV sports coverage, they are challenging the market itself—the enthusiastic preferences of vast numbers of Americans in a central pursuit of their daily lives. It is a game the sports feminists will lose.
Of course, such activists would like to just repeal the marketplace and mandate equality of coverage.

6 comments:

Steven said...

Oh, I don't know. They could start showing women's sports on the shopping channels or Oxygen. Think of it, Home Shopping Sports Channel or OXESPN.

tfhr said...

How about Greco-Roman wrestling with Rosie O'Donnell and Opra on the new Opra network?

Pat Patterson said...

I could care less about women's sports on TV but I do remember the funding disparities between men's and women's sports in the 70's when then and now only football paid for itself. Sort of. Title IX has indeed wrecked men's minor sports in the rules of how funding is parceled out but creating opportunities for girls and women seems only fair.

Locomotive Breath said...

The argument for Title IX was that it denied women the chance to go to college on an athletic scholarship. Now that 60% of college degrees are award to women I somehow think it shouldn't be an issue any more. In fact, if you looked at the total financial aid, for all reasons, for women vs. men, I'd bet you'd find a strong disparity in favor of women. Not that it would worry anyone.

Pat Patterson said...

Most of the women that pushed Title IX hadn't even considered college athletic scholarships. They were primarily concerned with high school sports where as late as 1984 many girls still had to compete on the boys teams because there was no women's team and certainly no league or state championships to speak of. Football and basketball cost so much to fund, many losing money year after year that the women and men competing in other sports are usually still having bake sales to get to tournaments and new equipment.



"No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance..." Since practically every elementary and primary school in the US receives ADA money the regulation was clearly intended to cover them. While college athletic scholarships for women were a logical outgrowth.

Locomotive Breath said...

The argument was being made across the board - H.S and college for various and different reasons.

The BOYS competing in sports other than football were and are getting shortchanged too. Of course football was the only sport generating revenue.

For a free market look at relative rates of sports participation, go look at intramurals at any college. Where are the women?

Once again, the government interferes with the free market to ensure equality of outcome rather than equality of opportunity.

This is particularly evident in the elimination of so many men's sports simply because enough women can't be rounded up to play the women's sports.