Universities exempt from title ix Videos

+MomoTheBellyDancer I'm not a troll. We do not discriminate. We accept single mothers, we accept homosexuals. You can check our application if you want to.

+Megalus DoomslayerDamn it!

+MomoTheBellyDancer You fell for the troll.

+glman99 "We do not discriminate, we have no plans to."Yes, you do discriminate. CNU has filed for the right to act against certain groups, and the court has given them that right. How this is possible is beyond me.

+Alex Arriaga double plus facepalm

+Persis Johnson Is that all?

Or, maybe we could just use gender neutral pronouns.

+sudo459 Turns out the fuck was too sexist to answer you. What a shame.

+poopisnotpoop women more often prefer not to engage in sport and therefore the majority of sport practitioners are male.funding and enrollment of male athletes into sport has been universally cut in favor of promoting women's sport teams.Sport enrollment MUST BE identical to overall enrollment with a >60 Female student body, not accounting for interest.equal opportunity legislation used to enforce gender quotas in universities.... YEP! Women are being discriminated against. -_- ease up on the Koolaide man. even as an ideologue, you're not supposed to chug from the bottle.

+poopisnotpoop you are a pathic excuse as of a human. I'll debunk everything you said you fucking moron. let start with the bullshit arugement about men can get jobs that women can't. there is a law that says a employer cannot discriminate against gender, sexual ordination, race, religion, and/or ethnicities.next point you can only choose one or the other you either can choose females can have 60% but the male students can have their sports teams or we go full blown 50/50 so that means that colleges have to have meet this quotes in all part of the campous. next is that 75% of the homeless is males and of that precent about 35% is veterans. or that a male is 5 to 10 time more likely to either quit school or commit suicide then a female does. the fact is that when a male is rape the cops won't even believe him yet when a women says she been raped they instanaitly believe her i mean there has been case after case of them lying like the lacrosse or the "suppose rape" crime that happen in a frat house. maybe you want to talk about that men get abuse just as much as men. or maybe you want to talk about that females are 5 times more likely to abuse their childern then men. single mothers are the fucking worse, my mother was not only a fucking drug addict but she fuck up in the head to, i mean i lend my mother money thinking that she'll pay me back it has been about 10 month since then and it wasn't a small amout it was $700, and she never cared about me. do you hear feminists talk about do you know why because they bigots and sexist to females, also have a hatred of men. so either kill yourself or change

Lol sexists just can't cope with a person who knows what they are talking about can they? God I hope you kids get some schooling.It's hard to believe that people are so locked away from reality that truth looks like insanity to them. It must be like living in a cult.Call me all the names you want, the one thing you can't call me is wrong. You guys make reddit look smart.

+poopisnotpoop FUCK HEAD DIE IN A FIRE PIG FUCKER

Don't bother, after reading the other comments on other videos this "person" made, I would call it a troll, but that would assume it was some wit.

+poopisnotpoop You are insane, aren't you?  I think "poop is not poop" says it all.

"I didn't adressed it in the quote you gave, because I don't actually have a response to you. Here's some retarded drivel instead" QFT. 

I adressed it in the quote you gave. It's right there. And it's the science I was talking about.Let's look at a counter example with your quote."You haven't presented ANY science" well here's the problem, you used no capital letters. You can't expect to be taken seriously without capital letters. See how nonsensical your statements are? You did use capital letters, and even if the response were true, it doesn't at all lead to the conclusion. You're puking words at this point. I'd love to see your psychological research btw. What a joke. Feminism is one of the most powerful movements on earth and youre a pathological liar spouting nonsense on the Internet. Good luck.

"What problems? Who is being blamed?" You're so fucking stupid, a legitimate reply is waste of everyone's time. This question has been answered far too many times, you're just too dull to recognize the answer, since you ask the question like its supposed to stump anyone. Please, stop feeding this troll.

Also, you havent presented ANY science AT ALL.-Edit: "Suso(sic), teaching is a low paying job. Case closed." I just saw this. Ok, I see how it is. I used your logic on the education system, and you dismiss it entirely, without even attempting to address it. I guess the truth hurts. Its a well-documented psychological response. Do you understand now why modern feminists like you aren't trusted? Don't respond, I see your opinion is worth nothing.

i am. Look, if women's and men's interest in sports isnt 50/50 then we shouldn't expect 50/50 enrollment. If we should then please respond to my earlier objection. Using your logic, the US education system is discriminating against men. But I dont think so.

That makes no sense.Your biases make you think reality is biased. You're a Steve Colbert who is actually not joking.We're going around in circles.I just wish people would learn to listen to science and reason. But I can catch you in one lie. What problems? Who is being blamed? Nobody has a problem with the increasing number of women's teams except you and other sexists who hate women playing sports. There are no problems except the ones you invented.

No, I learned much. I learned people like you have biases and just can't accept that not everything is going to be a clear 50/50 split. And when people like you try to force it, and problems arise you blame us.

Then I guess you learned nothing.

I am a bit, I learned a lot about women's rights. Funny with all I learned, I believe the factual feminist more.

Suso, teaching is a low paying job. Case closed.Trouble, hahaha. Stupidity incarnate. When a person corrects another person's grammar it does mean they have no argument. That is because the guy I responded to had such an incoherent statement that there are no words for it. What do you say to a madman shouting about nothing? If facts, science, and economics are kool-aid then keep it coming.While we're at it, shirking off peer reviewed science or economics as a conspiracy is way more of a sure sign of having no argument than grammar.I hope you are both smarter people for having come into contact with me.

+poopisnotpoop "Gulp" - Drink some more Kool Aid. By the way, correcting someone's grammar to make a point show's that you had no real point to make in the first place. With your "flawless" grammar and syntax, you make as much sense as a bunch of hounds barking in a kennel.

+poopisnotpoop I can see why you'd think that its discrimination. It's intuitive to think so. This is why I'm asking it, just so you know. I feel we both can learn something here. As of 2012, 76 percent of teachers in the US are female. Is the US education system sexist in favor of women? If not, then why?  Source: //nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=28

+sudo459 I did so many times. So many. It's not even a thing that takes much figuring out does it? A smaller number isn't the same as a bigger number. See why I think you're trolling? If you aren't this is sad.The one thing it could be though: It's not that there's a bunch of empty slots not being filled by women. It's that women just have fewer slots. Do you understand now?

+poopisnotpoop Your claim is that unequal numbers means unequal opportunity. I asked why. You never responded to this. I don't know why, either, it's a simple question.

+sudo459 Evidence for what? That treating people unequally is inequality? I'm sorry for not proving analytic truths.Should I prove why bachelors are not married now?

+poopisnotpoop I've repeatedly asked for evidence. I never claimed anything. If you say I did, please quote me.However you claimed that, since there wasn't a 50/50 balance then that means that women are being discriminated against. I quote: " If you don't keep up the 50/50 balance, it's bigotry. End of." I've asked why that is a problem, and you said, "It's an opportunity offered to only one gender." I asked for evidence that the opportunity was offered only to men, and you have yet to respond to this. I dispute that not having a 50/50 balance is a problem. I asked for evidence that not having a 50/50 balance is discrimination, i.e. women are being told they can't be in the programs. You haven't given anything to indicate this. Instead you've provided the following excuses:1. "Prove the lack of interest." I never claimed it was a lack of interest.2. "I already debunked it (the video)."3. "I've explained and re-explained."4. "This 'equal demand' stuff is clinging at straws at best."5. "If you're claiming men have 'more interest,' you have to prove it."6. "There doesn't need to be evidence of equal demand" If the demand for both sexes isn't equal, then a 50/50 split doesn't make sense.You never provided evidence. All you did was tell me to "prove" things I didn't claim, and cited a study showing an uneven split. So, yet again, what is the evidence that shows that not having a 50/50 split is discrimination?

+deathdealer312 There doesn't need to be evidence of equal demand. Title IX says that males and females must have equal money and opportunity in education. So the NCAA is doing what they are doing.You (or more specifically Sommers) is claiming that that is somehow sexist, which is absurd. I'm saying treat the sexes equally, 50/50, as what is being worked towards. I just don't see what else I can say that I haven't already, we already established that the numbers aren't equal so the NCAA is expanded women's teams more than men's and that isn't sexist.

+poopisnotpoop "This "equal demand" stuff is clinging at straws at best."If its grasping at straws, then prove it wrong."Also, burden of proof is a thing you should look up. If you're claiming men have "more interest," you have to prove it. tbh, it isn't really all that relevant anyway."You've made the claim that the demand is equal by merely citing the numbers and jumping to the conclusion. YOU MADE THE CLAIM. I offered an alternative. Which one of us is correct? Who knows, no ones has offered any more information. You provide the evidence. Where's the evidence of equal demand?

+deathdealer312 LOL. Oh my. You have the gall to say I don't understand what is going on?For shit's sake, I've explained and re-explained. If you don't see how I've already answered the questions you just asked, you won't understand. I'm pretty sure it's to the point where you are intentionally repeating yourself. I'm really convinced at this point that you are a well written troll. As you can see above most people here are legitimately ignorant and don't know what they are talking about, but I think you are just trying to pretend to.This "equal demand" stuff is clinging at straws at best. Also, burden of proof is a thing you should look up. If you're claiming men have "more interest," you have to prove it. tbh, it isn't really all that relevant anyway.

+poopisnotpoop "If you're giving more to one or the other, which the NCAA says is the case, then it is treating one sex worse." He's asking you why simply having more men than women in sports programs would indicate women are being treated unfairly. Hypothetically, if less women then men want into sports programs, why would we expect to see a clear 50/50 split men/women ration? That would be discrimination against men. But, hey, maybe there is a equal amount of women who want to participate in sports teams and they are being less favored then men. Is that your claim? If so, you'll need to demonstrate equal demand, not just rehash the numbers. That's circular reasoning. Based on your previous comments, I seriously doubt you understand whats going on.

+sudo459 I'm saying that equaling men and women (which they are trying to do) isn't discrimination. If you're giving more to one or the other, which the NCAA says is the case, then it is treating one sex worse. The increase in women's teams is just that. In fact, where Sommers (and others in these comments) seems to imply men's teams are being shirked, the NCAA also says men's teams are growing.Try to follow along please.

Ok, so again, what is the information that proves Dr Sommers is wrong, And B: Where is the evidence that women are being discriminated against?

+sudo459 Yes, there's nothing arbitrary or sexist about having equality in the NCAA, which is her claim.I've been a skeptic since you were in diapers. Skepticism is basically what every person here lacks who agrees with Sommers. You never said you disagreed with her but you said we both agree that the information which proves her wrong is true.Skepticism is not just neutrality for neutrality's sake.Do you understand now?

+poopisnotpoop No, you don't understand. I want evidence that not having 50/50 is favoring one sex over another. We can't just assume that's the case and act on it based on that. I know it sounds weird. Also, I never said Sommers is wrong. I'm starting to think you don't know how to be skeptical. Also, is she wrong?

+sudo459 Well first off, I don't know what you mean by "forced on". It's the schools deciding how to comply with title IX and what's right for their athletics programs.Secondly, to favor one sex over the other is called sexism. That seems straightforward to me. I still feel like we're just retreading our tracks here. You said it yourself, we already know Sommers is wrong.

+CaptinHavoc1 She may have said it, but she was wrong. It's silliness really. A puerile point made by an unintelligent person who has no idea what she is talking about.

+CaptinHavoc1 I've actually seen that before, its not completely made-up. But I highly doubt Dr Sommers is advocating for it.

+poopisnotpoop Did Sommers not just say why your point is wrong?Also, why would a woman want discrimination towards women?

+poopisnotpoop Where's the evidence that women are not being let in, even thought they want in? Where's the evidence that a 50/50 split is the best path that should be forced on colleges and universities? -edit: removed redundant questions

+sudo459 Well Sommers is actually arguing in favor of discriminating against women. And she's saying that the growing number of women's teams somehow discriminates against men, which is unimaginably wrong.Why? Because football programs have over a hundred athletes each, while most other programs have no more than a quarter of that, often less. Why is this bad? It's an opportunity offered to only one gender. Solution? More women's teams, which is what is happening.And, like the article says, there's nothing like a 50/50 split in athletes.Do you understand now?

+poopisnotpoop That article you provided didn't prove anything, it just established what we both already know. The problem feminists bring up is that there are more men than women in sports. They claim it should be 50/50. Dr. Sommers thinks that this is wrong because she believes more men are just plain interested in sports. From what I've read, I think that's plausible because it is explained by the personality differences exhibited by men and women. But there needs to be more evidence."Men's teams have more spots. Football mostly." Two questions: Can you explain why? And is this a problem? If so, why? I'm not convinced it's a problem. You said that Dr. Sommers is excusing discrimination against women, but I'm not sure there is discrimination.

+sudo459 I already debunked it.Why are there more men in the ncaa? Men's teams have more spots. Football mostly.//www.ncaa.com/news/ncaa/article/2011-11-02/ncaa-participation-rates-goingHere's some useful data I guess.I just don't need another person saying one thing and then claiming they didn't say it in the next comment.

+poopisnotpoop Ok? So what is your explanation for why more women aren't in sports programs in college then? Also, I never claimed it was women who lacked interest, I just mentioned it as an alternative that should be considered. I really don't know. In fact, I'm not even convinced there is a problem needed to be solved.I'm still waiting for you to debunk the video, by the way.

+sudo459 Well first off, I know about the women who have played ncaa football. What I asked about was football programs. You can't just shift the goalposts like that (no pun intended)." I didn't ask for evidence of that."Well, you did"I asked for evidence that college sports programs lack of attractiveness to women is to blame for less women playing competitive sports and not that women just lack interest in it themselves"Prove the lack of interest. When did I claim that college sports lacked attractiveness? Clearly they don't, in fact.That was always my claim, what of it?Just try to stay consistent in what you are saying, please.I've already had to deal with one guy who changed his mind every comment. 

+poopisnotpoop I didn't ask for evidence of that. I asked for evidence that college sports programs lack of attractiveness to women is to blame for less women playing competitive sports and not that women just lack interest in it themselves. Wikipedia, though not the most reliable source, does lists a handful of women who do indeed play NCAA football. There are also other women's football leagues.But that's not the point. There are other sports than football. And women play them.Looking back at your comment, I'm even more confused. You claimed you debunked the video, which I contest."If you don't keep up the 50/50 balance, it's bigotry" Is this not your claim?

+sudo459 I was being ironic to prove the ridiculousness of the other guy's claim.Evidence that there isn't women's NCAA football? You want me to prove a negative? You have the burden of proof here. 

+poopisnotpoop "Men get accepted more to universities and get more scholarships. The difference there come that men can get jobs without degrees that women can't, so they are forced into college. It is a big reason why the wage gap exists.Men and women are allowed into universities 50/50, but men can move beyond it more quickly or skip it altogether in a way women can't." I noticed you didn't show any evidence for these claims. Care to?"Well the obvious solution to that would be to make football teams smaller. Why discriminate against women to fix a problem that only exists because we as a country think girls can't play football? The issue seems to be that your school's female programs aren't good enough to attract talented women who want to play." Again, please provide evidence. If the problem is that the programs are attractive enough to women, then the solution isn't to make the programs smaller for men. But that seems obvious to me, surely such a statement isnt what you meant. I feel I missed something reading the conversation.

+CaptinHavoc1 Your words were a little harsh ha ha, but I understand your frustration with some of these women in modern day Feminism, it seems they get wrapped up in Feminist theory perhaps not realizing other theories and ideas related to social problems and gender inequality. Feminist theory really does miss the point on multiple intersections and finds itself either a replica of cultural Marxism or parallel to its thinking. I think some of these women feel emotionally tied to Feminism and feel if they criticize it, they are somehow dehumanizing themselves as women and causing some great betrayal- Some of them think they owe their allegiance to Feminism because it has made progress for women- in some areas. To those who are getting Gender Studies degrees- as a History major, I say ditch it and come down to the History department :) I think it provides a much more balanced view of the world and our problems !

+CaptinHavoc1 There's nothing wrong with feminism. I say you're wrong because I would never go as far as to say there is nothing wrong with me.But I appreciate the compliment.

+poopisnotpoop Holy shit you are what's wrong with feminism

+poopisnotpoop My god please tell me you're joking

+poopisnotpoop No he doesn't and you should feel bad for thinking that he did.

+ggplata What do you think we should do to combat this? It's totally unfair and unjust. We have to create a grassroots movement to protect the rights of men/boys. I don't want to see the opportunities of our boys limited based on the opinion of some judge or gender activism. The Men's Rights Movement is not effective. There are not aggressive enough.. We need new movement that men can get behind.BTW, I'm about to start another thread giving everyone my thoughts on what measures I think we should take to really put an end this feminist monopoly over what happens in our public education system. 

+Tristan Williams Lol, like your kids? You haven't even tried once to actually confront my points or logic. You just backed into a corner and lost hold of all your sensibility when proven wrong.Doubling down on lies does not make them any more true...I don't actually hold on much hope of you changing your mind today. But you will in some time, hopefully before you reproduce.I do love being called a moron by people with mental handicaps though. It makes sense. Dumb people think that smart people are dumb. You're the like gender-based climate change deniers or anti-vaxers. You haven't even started to look at the evidence.I will take your non-response as a friendly concede of defeat. It was not the most mature but I think it's fair to let you keep some shred of dignity. 

+ggplataYou are absolutely right. There is no reason going back and forth with a complete moron. There is more constructive things to do with my time.

I already explained Tristian. Men get accepted in to college more often and get more scholarship money. If you count trade schools and community college as higher ed, which they are, there are actually more men.Again with this whole changing positions thing? You rescinded a point and I thouht we were past that? Why twist it more? But to your new point, I think the above covers it. Ggplata, point out 1 point that I igonred please. I keep asking people to prove that I am not listening to them when they accuse me of that and no one has even tried.Anyway, this has gone so far away from Title 9 it's crazy. I just want fairness in schools and school athletics.

+Tristan Williams There's no point arguing with stupid. Many excellent points were brought up that they chose to ignore, let them live blind throughout their lives, not many people will listen to them seriously.

+poopisnotpoop "No one would ever believe you have kids. No one." This is factually incorrect. Everyone who knows me and my wife (friends, family, neighbors) knows I have kids. People online that I've told about my kids believes I have children. You are the only person who believes I don't. "You switched your position about women having more spots in university being unfair."Once again, you're factually incorrect. My position was that feminist only care about gender gaps when women are on the short end. Whenever women are on the short end of a gender gap it's always due to discrimination, not personal choice. According to feminist, whenever men are on the short end of a gender gap, it's always person choice, and never discrimination. I pointed out the college attendance gap to demonstrate how feminist totally ignores any gender gap where men are on the short end. I never claimed this gap was a result of discrimination. If feminists really wanted to see 50/50 representation on college campuses wouldn't they file a Title 9 about the college attendance gap? As you can see my position has been consistent throughout."The debate is already over. I already won. Do I have to beat and humiliate you twice?"Yeah...."I hope I did reaffirm your beliefs on feminism! They were stupid and you are stupid. If you, as a stupid person, had the ability to even follow what I was saying then it would have meant that I was not speaking intelligently enough"I'm not even going to waste my time responding to this incoherent garbage. I got better things to do.

No one would ever believe you have kids. No one. You switched your position about women having more spots in university being unfair. The debate is already over. I already won. Do I have to beat and humiliate you twice?I hope I did reaffirm your beliefs on feminism! They were stupid and you are stupid. If you, as a stupid person, had the ability to even follow what I was saying then it would have meant that I was not speaking intelligently enough.

+poopisnotpoop Only in your deluded mind did you win this debate. I'm 100% sure that anyone who reads this exchange would clearly see that not only did I win the debate. But you validated everything I said about modern day feminist.Based on how and what you write it's safe to say you have below average intelligence. Your arguments are totally inconsistent. Your only defense is, "you're lying." As if that somehow debunks my points. I clearly state my position that any one who could read on a 6th grade level should clearly understand. Your responds was, "you're contradicting yourself. You're switching your position." When I haven't switched my position not once. My position has been consistent throughout this exchange. Now can you see why I don't take you serious? Your mother didn't do a really good job with it. She raised a daughter who's a complete moron. 

I already won the debate and you are now just lying to cover yourself. And now you are baselessly insulting me because you are mad that you lost and somehow that makes me emotional. You have appealed to the arguments of an unstable teen because that is who you are. But you have now also passed taking quotes out of context 101. So that's a start I guess. Have you had enough or do you want further humiliation?

+poopisnotpoop"You're lying. You don't have a family. You're not married. You're contradicting yourself." Is that your only line of defense? I know middle school kids that can handle themselves in a debate better than you. If you want to debate. Lets have a debate. At this point you've become a complete waste of time. You've said nothing insightful. You bring absolutely nothing to a debate. For future references; the next time you get into a debate bring your brains and not your emotions.

I'm sure your little boys are so proud that daddy "owns" people online. I can say you are lying because you are talking like a child with no real world experience and no fucking clue how education works. Not to mention that kind of bragging is ludicrous. Your story just gets more unbelievable. Does your three year play Bach? Can your infant fly? Speaking of education my degree is in history if you must know. Also I was reading at a 6th grade level by that age. Even your fake kids are behind me in kindergarten! Anyway you don't have a wife either. It would probably be illegal for you to be married at your age anyway.How are you owning me? Was the part where you disproved yourself or the part where you bowed to me and gave up a position at my request? Or by insulting my mother? It's funny really, lying about all that other shit just makes your positions all look so much less true.

+poopisnotpoop I can run off a long list of negative statistic about the disaster single motherhood is. The overwhelming majority of murderers, rapists, drug dealers, drug addicts, homeless, gang members, suicide victims, homicide victims, high school dropouts were raised by single mothers. When any rational person looks at the numbers it pretty clear that single motherhood is disaster.I have a question for you. Who the fuck are you that I have lie about my family? You're nothing more than some undereducated gender studies cunt I'm completely owning online. Believe whatever you want to believe. It's not going to change anything.My oldest son is only five years old and he already knows how to configure vlan on a 2960 switch. He's already reading on a 4th grade level. He's been reading fluidly since he was three. No way would he be where he is right now if I had to rely on the public school system. It's simply not good enough for my children. My wife has done amazing job with them.I think that male and females are different. I think we have different learning styles. I think excel at different things. I don't want neither gender to be held back. My boys will either be home schooled or attend private school. It's not way I'm sending my sons to a public school. My decision is based on what I know is best for my sons. Right now the public school system is not trying to get the best out of male students. If anything it's becoming more hostile towards boys.Title 9 was meant to prevent discrimination. Now it's being used as a quota system to discriminate. I'm all for equal opportunity. But I'm totally against taking opportunities away from others simply to balance things that's never going to be balanced. For the record, women already have equal rights and some special rights.

I was raised by a single mother and clearly turned out better than many here...Anyway, I hope you are lying more than ever because those poor kids will be useless adults if you homeschool them. Especially if you only home school the boys you will treating the genders differently in the same way you claim to hate. In fact you just urged people to treat boys differently. And now you want to segregate schools? Based on what? Your paranoia? Baseless lies? Title 9 days nothing of catering to girls. It says treat the genders the same. If you think treating the genders the same hurts boys, that is hateful to males more than females. You seem to assume boys can't keep up unless being coddled. I guess that's how you treat your "sons". You have changed your position, and even changed your position on changing your position. I remember all the way back to high school debate team ehenever the jig was up and I had beaten my opponent all ends up they would always go after my intelligence. If I am so dumb how come I just beat you in a debate? I think the same question applies here.

+poopisnotpoopI'm a father of four (three boys, and one girl).  My wife and I have been together for eight years and married for six. My children are being raised in a two parent home. I'm a network engineer and my wife is running a daycare center from our home. We live better than most people in this country. Our children has everything they need and most of what they want. We spend a lot of time with our children. We teach our children our values. Our babies are loved, protected, provided for.More than anything we're setting a good example of how relationships between a man and a woman should be. Who you should be feeling sorry for are the children being brought up in broken homes headed by single mothers.Schools have been girl friendly since the early 80s. The public school system should not focus on catering to a gender, but make sure we're getting the most out of both boys and girls. Even if that mean segregating the classrooms based on learning styles. The modern day public school system in this country is a complete joke. I urge all parents with male children to consider home schooling or private schools. The public school system is not a place for them.I'm not going to waste another second explaining my position to you because obviously you lack the mental capacity to grasp it. My position is and has always been the same.

Well first I hope you are lying about being a father, otherwise I feel sorry for those poor kid. I know for damn sure you aren't married. At best you had a couple accidents in one night stands (although I do assume all random internet sexists are virgins)Yes you did back off your position saying women had bias in their favor in higher education but now you seem to restate it, so you are contradicting yourself again. Can't you keep your own comments strait? Finally, school has become more girl friendly because of how unabashedly anti-girl it was before. Even becoming more pro-girl it still way biased toward boys. Anyway, men get more scholarship money and a higher acceptance rate at universities than women which unquestionably proves my last comment.how the fuck could anyone comprehend your writing when you keep batting your own statements down and changing your mind? It would take a psycho to comprehend that.

+poopisnotpoopDo you have a hard time with reading comprehension? I have backed up off of not one of position. I thought I made my positions clear in my last post.Our public school system is definitely not for our young men. The public school system was restructured over the last 30 to be girl friendly. That is no secret. The vast majority of teachers are female. The vast majority of scholarships are for girls. None of this happen by coincidence. This is public policy.Men have a higher unemployment rate than women. How you came up with this idea that it's easier to get a job with secondary education is totally false. I think everyone needs a secondary education in this new economy. The government is aware of this, but when it comes to our boys they can care less.I have three sons under the age of six. As a father I'm very concerned about what type of education awaits them in the public school system. That is why my wife and I have considered home school for our boys.

You would not know a cogent argument if you were hit on the face with it. Which is exactly what I have done. I guess you can bring a horse to water but can't make him drink. At least I could get into law school, you'd get put on a list if you brought your insane and asinine bigotry to any school. I do have smile at you insinuating that I am anti academic when I am defending academia here.If you could point out one condradiction I made, I will delete this account and never post again. But I should point out again that the only contradictions I spoke of were not mine, I was pointing out someone else's.Infamatory? IF you say so. If you think proving a point correct and standing up to bullies and sexists who hate men and women alike is inflammatory. But I guess nothing of what you said was inflammatory though? I guess it becomes easy to accept paradoxes when your worldview contradicts facts.

+poopisnotpoop You're deliberatelly inflamatory, frankly a waste of time.No cogent points made, just contradictions.You'd be thrown out of the building in a  University of Law. 

+FED L. No it doesn't. The video shows equality. I have not dismissed anything. I debunked the video. You might as well use hippo footprints to prove that the Loch Ness monster is real.Show me one shred of evidence or else you are conceding that I am right.I never said that there was not any anti-male discrimination, just that you never showed any. But to assume that men need a special legal boost is misandry and infantilizes men. As a man, I must protest your anti-male bigotry. 

+poopisnotpoop This video does that, it's what we've been talking about for the past few days. My point is made and you continue to prove that you're simply dismissing the proof, why should I continue? I have nothing more to prove.

+Tristan Williams Thank you for renouncing one of your positions. Finally we can go somewhere.Well you see, men and women should be given equal access to education, which they are. Men get accepted more to universities and get more scholarships. The difference there come that men can get jobs without degrees that women can't, so they are forced into college. It is a big reason why the wage gap exists.Men and women are allowed into universities 50/50, but men can move beyond it more quickly or skip it altogether in a way women can't.Now do you understand?"I'm not the type of guy who likes to sit around whining about unfairness. That will never get us anywhere."Yes you are.

+FED L. You say it is everywhere, yet can't produce a shred of it.

+Tristan Williams What simply baffles me as a European is how similar feminist rhetoric is to stalinist-communist ideology. 50 years of strife was apparently just not enough to get into everyone's head that censorship, thought police and arbitrary 50/50 splits everywhere simply do NOT WORK!It's a nice and dandy society where everything is equal but frankly not a single aspect of nature is equal, neither can we. 

+FED L.There is plenty of discrimination against men and the feminist movement and the politicians who push through fembot legislation are responsible. The only way to undo what's been done is for men to stand up and demand a change. You see I'm not the type of guy who likes to sit around whining about unfairness. That will never get us anywhere. We have to be in the faces of those who support and pass legislation that puts men at a disadvantage.

+poopisnotpoopIt's become evident that you clearly lack the intelligence to grasp my point or even acknowledge your own bias. I'm going to try my best to simplify my position in terms that even the biggest moron can understand.First of all, I don't think anyone should be turned away from pursuing their goals based on their gender or race. I would never support anyone being denied a college education based on their gender regardless of a gender gap. There are more female college students because women are interested in going to college than men. That is a very simple and factual explanation. The same reason applies to college sport teams.. Men are more interested in college sports than women. This also a very simple and factual explanation. As anyone with half a brain cell can see my argument is consistent throughout.You have made the argument that the lack of female sports teams is the result of discrimination based solely on the gender gap. Even though it's common knowledge that men interest in watching and participating in sports far more than women. I pointed out to you there is college attendance gap that's in favor of women. You believe that this college attendance gap is based solely on interest and personal choice. Which only proves the point I made about feminist. You only see discrimination when women are on the short end of the gender gap. You see no discrimination when men are on the short end of a gender gap. Your argument and beliefs are inconsistent. You want female privilege, not equality.Hell no, women's sports programs should not get a 50/50 split, because women's sports teams don't pull in no where near close to 50% of revenue. When women's sports teams start pulling in at least 10% of the revenue then maybe we actually got something to talk about. Until then women should only get what they earn. The same way that men are required to do.

+poopisnotpoop Evidence of discrimination against men pops up everyday, you choose to dismiss it because you wouldn't feel comfortable making arguments that we should focus on one gender for the beterment of both. That very concept is sexist, yet you fail to see it, how do you even tie your shoelaces.

+Matthew Davis I disagree with your fix because it's not practical. College sports is big  business, not just some extra curriculum activity. College athletes brings in billions of dollars in revenue. If you look at the numbers most of this money comes from college football. It only makes since to colleges to invest resources into sports that's going to appeal to networks. Males pull in the money while female sports cost colleges and networks money. Just take a good look at the WNBA. The ratings for the WNBA was around 180,000. Those numbers are lower than the worse show on CW. With those numbers they're lucky to have their games televised. Women's college basketball is even worse. Their tournament has absolutely no appeal. Nobody really cares about their league or the female athletes. While the Men's college basketball is far more appealing and the ratings and attendance support that fact. The only we have any female leagues at all is because of the money that male sports bring in.

+Tristan Williams No you have it ass backward.I caught you in a contradiction. Either the university gap is simply explained by interest, or the 50/50 sports participation split is fair. This is all using your logic (which you called my logic, amazingly. Do you not recognize your own logic? I was simply restating what you said, that doesn't make it "my logic") Please tell me which one you wish to abandon and we can continue. All you did was explain your own bullshit back to me.As for the end of that rant, you expect even one person who isn't a bigot to take that seriously? If anything, you just proved that you want women to be discriminated against, so why should anyone think you actually care about university equality?

+Matthew Davis I actually probably understand mid-majors (and D2 and D3) better than you. But that doesn't matter.These school have limited budgets, which makes it so much more sexist, in a sense, not to split the funds equally and fairly.But you've shown your hand. Even if you had a point on the football thing, it's gone out the window. You just baselessly said women physically can't play football. That is bullshit of the highest caliber and makes me realize that you are nothing but a resentful no-talent hack who blames other people because he was not good enough to cut it in the NCAA. How about instead of tearing others down, you let people earn their spots based on merit?

+FED L. Well first off, that's pretty non sequitur there. How does recognizing what's really happening "infantilize" anyone? If I ever see one shred of evidence of discrimination against males I would protest it to the death. But in the NCAA, it's just not there.

+poopisnotpoopWhat I did was round everything to the nearest  tenth. If you look at the actual numbers you'll see that they are very close to my mine.I'm allowed to use whatever argument I see fit. What you failed to realize is that I used the your logic to craft my argument. If you believe that every gender gap is a result of discrimination, then colleges should start turning female applicants down until male students make up 50% of the student body in every college who accepts federal funding. Based on everything you've posted you should agree.You said, "You aren't really allowed to use that argument though, because more women apply to universities than men." Our point has been men participate in sports far more than women. Since men participate more that is why there more men's sports teams. You would have to be a complete moron not to see how my logical is consistent with yours.Yes, I have made a point. A very valid one that you can argue against. Feminist are not for equality. They want to empower women at the expense of men and boys. Which has lead to male opportunities being limited in efforts to uplift females. That is discrimination.

+poopisnotpoopI don't think you fully understand what makes a mid major university a mid major. Mid major universities are generally smaller in size than others for example I believe Michigan State has a student population over 100k. Whereas the university I went to had a student population of roughly 20k. That higher population means more income for the school more income means that they can put more money into their athletic teams giving them more scholarship opportunities and better chances to recruit. For many mid majors because of their low population they don't get these chances. Once they get this funding they can slowly move away from needing to rely on the university for example Schools like Alabama and Texas A&M with great football teams can actually be self sufficient through money from televised games endorsements through sponsors and generous alumni. In some cases these teams can be used to fund other teams.Why I blame title 9 and not football? because title 9 forces universities to compare apples to oranges. There is no equivalent team size for women that compares to football however you can compare mens and womens soccer, track and field, swimming and diving, ice hockey, softball and baseball. At my university we offer womens soccer and field hockey with no male equivalent and still track and field/ swimming and diving have to pick up the rest. The men on the football team earned their right to be there I don't feel that other teams that can balance themselves should be punished for the lack of an equivalent.As for women in football I have yet to see a woman that could handle the physicality at the division 1 level. It isn't sexist to state the fact that women can't run as fast jump as high or lift as much weight as a man of comparable size. Men on the whole have more muscle mass than women it's biology nothing you can really do about that besides hormone treatment and then they fail the NCAA drug test and are off the team. If you're referring to having an actual womens football program then that is going to be extremely expensive to implement and difficult to find women interested in playing much like it would be difficult to field a mens field hockey team in the U.S. it's not that men can't play the sport it's that not enough men are interested.The easiest fix I would propose would be to have the same number of teams not athletes. For every mens sport there needs to be at least one womens. This would be a really easy change that could be implemented overnight it doesn't require a complete restructure of a system like limiting the size of a football team would.

+poopisnotpoop I'm the misandrist? Yet no where in your posts do you mention the difficulties men face. Are you indirectly implying only women face discrimination in today's sports world?Because that's infantilizing women.

+FED L. Yes you are right, to a certain extent. The fact is that women don't need laws to compete. And they don't have any. That is not what Title 9 is. It ensures that the playing field is level because beforehand women were actively discriminated against. I am the only one here saying NOT to change the law to hold the hand of one gender. How does having to compete fairly with even rules demean men? How does ensuring that they get more spots in varsity sports not infatilize men?It's one thing to treat women as inferiors but now you seems to be assuming being treated the same as a woman is demeaning to men. That is hateful to men just as much as women. You are guilty of misandry.

+poopisnotpoop Shouldn't people be allowed to make their own choices? University sports is like you said, a competition, if women need help and laws to be competitive, then it's not really a competition now is it? It infantilizes women and demeans men. 

+FED L. I explained. They self-contradict. He says that because more men are interested in university sports, that more men should get to play them. So the fact that there are more women in universities should not be a problem because more girls and women apply for universities. I don't actually think that interest is a good explanation but if he does not abandon one he is contradicting himself.

+poopisnotpoop Why does he need to abandon his positions? Don't answer him then, answer me. I'm asking the same questions.

+Tristan Williams Your numbers are inflated. There are more women than men in American Universities, but 60/40 isn't quite accurate.You aren't really allowed to use that argument though, because more women apply to universities than men. There's more "interest" from females.I could easily answer you questions about why there are more woman students in higher education, but first you must abandon one of your positions. Either you agree that Title 9 is fair in it's treatment of male sports programs or that women simply want to go to university more. Tell me which one you give up and we con continue. So no, you have made no point. You have only contradicted yourself.

+poopisnotpoop "Because you made no other points..." It's type of dismissive attitude is why people absolutely despise modern day feminism. I just specifically pointed out that their is a 20% college attendance gap in favor of females and you totally dismissed it. Which only validated the point a made when I said this, "What I find hilarious about feminist and social justice warriors is that the only inequality you see is when women are on the short in of the stick. When we look at college enrollment rates women make up 60% of the student body. That's a 20% gap. Why do I never see feminist organizations suing universities about this inequality?" I gave you a prime example of gender gap and you claim, "you made no other points..." 

+Tristan Williams Because you made no other points...

+Matthew Davis Well the obvious solution to that would be to make football teams smaller. Why discriminate against women to fix a problem that only exists because we as a country think girls can't play football?If you gave up your spot, that is laudable, but you can't blame Title 9 for that.The issue seems to be that your school's female programs aren't good enough to attract talented women who want to play. Don't punish the ones who do want to play because your school's athletics are sub par.Yes I still think it's fair gender-wise. Football seems to have caused your problem, not Title 9. But if the school chooses to prioritize that, that's the school's choice.Why are you not this angry at the football teams?What you have to realize is that you have not been discriminated against. Other people were discriminated against to allow your team to be as big as it was in the first place.

+poopisnotpoop If you think men and women should be treated equally then why did you totally ignore all of the other issues I brought up that are far more serious than sports? You pretty much validated every single point I made about feminist.

+poopisnotpoop I ran division one track my first two years of college for a mid major university, because of title 9 restrictions I cut my career short in order to give the freshmen coming in a chance to make the team. Our program had the equivalent of 2 full ride scholarships to split among the ENTIRE mens team, the women received 6-8. My sophomore year we had to hold open tryouts to any women that would join with the basic idea that if they showed up to practice they made it. Not oh you show promise we'll take you, but you have a second X chromosome you're in. we posted flyers around the school advertizing this. How many women showed up for the opportunity? about 7 how many stayed? 3. our cross country team could only take the top 7 out of 14 to compete at the conference championships the womens team? 15 spots.If your school has a football team you have to make up for an almost 80 man roster this usually falls to teams like swimming and diving or track and field who can field both men and women but still have to make up for the shortfall, as well as cutting of other mens sports. Look at any universities sports programs and you will find that there are far more womens teams than mens because of this.Is it because we recruited more men than women? No the coaching staff actually recruited more women than men every year to make up for the shortfall. Still think the system is balanced?

That's what I'm arguing! He wants to limit women's opportunities and I'm saying that men and women should be treated the same. He's over there saying men should get more opportunities and money! Title 9 has stopped that from happening.

+poopisnotpoop Actually, this poster's argument has been consistent. Taking away someone's opportunity based on their gender or race is discrimination. That is exactly what's happening. The gap between male and female interest in sports has nothing to do with discrimination, but everything to do with biology. Men watch and participate in sports for more than women. Young men shouldn't have their opportunities to participate in sports limited because women don't share the same passion for sports as they do.What I find hilarious about feminist and social justice warriors is that the only inequality you see is when women are on the short in of the stick. When we look at college enrollment rates women make up 60% of the student body. That's a 20% gap. Why do I never see feminist organizations suing universities about this inequality? Why is it far more all girl scholarships than boy scholarships? Why is our education system dominated by females teachers and administrators? Why do feminist and social justice warriors remain silent on these issues? Most of us rational people know why. It's because these things puts males at a disadvantage. They don't see any discrimination when men/boys are on the short end of the stick. 

+poopisnotpoop Can you be more specific?

+FED L. "bringing people down so others can catch up""This arbitrary 50/50 parity""Because a university recognises more men are capable and willing"And that my friends is how you spell s-e-l-f c-o-n-t-r-a-d-i-c-t-i-o-n

+poopisnotpoop I don't think you know what bigotry even means. Where is hatred and dislike for women included?  Because a university recognises more men are capable and willing than women to join sports it's bigotry against women? How?Where is hatred included? When women just don't want to be in sports, on a mass scale? This arbitrary 50/50 parity requirement stifles oppourtunity for men who want to be in sports because the university is more concerned with it's quotas and parity laws than actually giving people oppourtunities, regardles of sex. What this whole thing means is that any man, well trained man, cannot join a team if there happens to be too few women in the teams. That is bigotry, that is direct discrimination towards people based on their gender, that is not sports, that's politicaly correct parity, equality of result, not equality of oppourtunity.Bringing other people down so others can catch up, the same type of discrimination as in the 50s, but reversed, no better, perhaps even worse.

+FED L. I assume that by eluded you mean alluded (which still isn't what that word means).With that out of the way I say: so what? If you don't keep up the 50/50 balance, it's bigotry. End of. Varsity sports can only handle so many people. The way it is, those guys miss out based on merit. They aren't good enough to play that sport at the collegiate level. NO ONE has the right to be handed that kind of thing, they have to earn it. (If they are good enough, just play somewhere else). If you change it, then you are excluding women based on them being women. That is sexist.Excluding men who aren't good enough on the basis that they aren't good enough is not sexism.

What do you mean so what? Not in a single second is it even eluded to discourage women from joining sports teams, are you deliberatelly missing the point? This rigid system is causing issues where a school can't give it's male students avenues for sports because it would upset the precious 50/50 balance, that made no sense in the first place.The fact that this University was in this situation because of the system, is enough evidence for a flaw in the system. You apparently think a problem only counts when it's a widescale epidemic. That's even more amazing.