Radical feminist orthodoxy holds that differences between men and
women are socially constructed. For example, feminists make the loopy
argument that the fact that women are usually the primary caretakers of
children is yet another example of the patriarchy at work.
The absurdity of this unisex theory is most obvious in the world of
athletic competition.
In 1993, the Clinton administration brought in radical feminist Norma
Cantu to head up the Office of Civil Rights in the Department of
Education. Cantu established a rigid quota system which decreed that if
54% of the student body are female, then 54% of the athletes also must
be female. Then Cantu used Title IX as a club to bludgeon sports
programs into compliance.
But a decade of Title IX deprogramming has failed to make a dent in
the basic equation: twice as many males as females are interested in
playing organized sports, according to
various surveys.
And a June 16 article in the liberal New
York Times admitted that male viewers of ESPN outnumber females three to
one.
This fact is most obvious in the world of women's professional sports.
At the Women's United Soccer Association, teams compete in vacant
stadiums. In 2001, an average of 8,104 fans attended each WUSA game.
This season, the number has dropped to 6,667. TV ratings have completely
fallen off the radar.
Things are even worse at the Women's NBA, which is bleeding teams,
fans, and money. Despite shutting down two teams and relocating two
others, attendance is down 3.6% from last year. Recently the NBA had to
give the WNBA a $12 million infusion to keep it afloat.
Two weeks ago, it was reported that Latasha Byears, star player for
the Los Angeles Sparks, had
allegedly
participated in the gang rape of a
former teammate.
Why media coverage of this incident pales in comparison to the Kobe
Bryant case is anybody's guess.
But what really gets the goat of the feminist zealots is the gender
pay gap.
They don't seem to understand that most fans -- male and female --
view women's sports as the minor
league equivalent of men's athletics. No
female athlete comes close to matching the athleticism and mass appeal
of a John Elway, Wayne Gretsky, Tiger Woods, or Michael Jordan.
Nonetheless, the WNBA players are threatening a walkout unless they
get more money. And the Women's Tennis Association believes women should
be paid the same Wimbledon prize money as the men, even though the women
only
have to play three sets to win.
So if radical feminists really believe that differences between the
sexes are socially constructed, and think that female athletics provide
the same entertainment value as male sports, why don't we call their
bluff?
Let's allow the women to square off directly against the men.
Instead of the Ladies PGA whining that they aren't paid as much as the
men, the LPGA should start to prep more Suzy Whaleys and Annika
Sorrenstams to compete on the PGA Tour.
In tennis, mixed doubles have a long tradition, so the Women's Tennis
Association will have no objection to the women pounding out five sets
of tennis against the men.
And all the best soccer players in the world are female, at least
according to Rachel Rutledge, author of "The Best of the Best in
Soccer." So surely the WUSA will readily agree to a match-up against the
underdog men.
So let's stop this paternalistic "separate-and-unequal" treatment of
female athletes. Let's allow the women to play against the men.
