Paine Tablet
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2011
- Messages
- 884
- Likes
- 724
- Points
- 93
"The WNBA is literally a welfare league. One kept alive by excess capital generated by male labor (the women's league is a subsidy of the highly profitable NBA). Despite losing money for twenty straight years, and due to fear brought on by political correctness, the NBA keeps the WNBA around to avoid controversy."
Title IX is a similar program at the collegiate level. Though many men's sports lose money, women's sports are worse investments in economic terms, so in essence, women are being propped up at the expense of men's labor. Men's programs prop up athletic departments, yet women are given access to a wider variety of sports and are given equal scholarships. At UO, for example, there are four more women's programs than men's programs. Since football takes 85 scholarships, this leaves fewer scholarships to be levied out to other men's sports. Considering that football is a huge risk to any athlete, we are basically telling our boys that their best chance at athletics in college is to play a dangerous sport that might lead to a future of health problems. Now, women, face nothing of this burden. The truth is, that women are not only being propped up by men, but they are being given more opportunity for LESS personal risk and investment.
Why aren't these labor issues taken into context when we discuss things such as the patriarchy and the oppression of women?
I just want to add, that I was personally affected by this as a youth. At the time, there was one public institution in the entire state with a scholarship baseball program. Meanwhile, UO was busy importing a new women's sport, lacrosse, that no one in Oregon played at the time. Every recruit came from Maryland or the East Coast because that's where they play the sport.
Title IX is a similar program at the collegiate level. Though many men's sports lose money, women's sports are worse investments in economic terms, so in essence, women are being propped up at the expense of men's labor. Men's programs prop up athletic departments, yet women are given access to a wider variety of sports and are given equal scholarships. At UO, for example, there are four more women's programs than men's programs. Since football takes 85 scholarships, this leaves fewer scholarships to be levied out to other men's sports. Considering that football is a huge risk to any athlete, we are basically telling our boys that their best chance at athletics in college is to play a dangerous sport that might lead to a future of health problems. Now, women, face nothing of this burden. The truth is, that women are not only being propped up by men, but they are being given more opportunity for LESS personal risk and investment.
Why aren't these labor issues taken into context when we discuss things such as the patriarchy and the oppression of women?
I just want to add, that I was personally affected by this as a youth. At the time, there was one public institution in the entire state with a scholarship baseball program. Meanwhile, UO was busy importing a new women's sport, lacrosse, that no one in Oregon played at the time. Every recruit came from Maryland or the East Coast because that's where they play the sport.
Last edited:
