A Sea Of Red

http://www.foxnews.com/health/2011/04/1 ... -identity/

Isn't J Crew's hdq in Lynchburg? War against the boys, hard to believe that Liberty unwilling to fight it.

[EDIT] Sorry guys, this was originally posted on a different board in reference to Liberty effectively firing Jesse Castro (head wrestling coach) and his staff because they are men. Title IX is a gender equity quota that has taken athletic programs across the nation hostage. It is a tool used by the liberals who are trying to socially engineer gender outcomes to their liking. The “powers to be” on this board have tried to silence me on the other board by relegating this to here.

I by no means think that Liberty should/would/could fight J Crew on this advertisement. I simply drew the connection between the tools used by the liberal left and pointed out that Liberty has chosen not to fight the one that has directly affected them. [EDIT]

Corporate is in New York
Lynchburg and Asheville have distribution centers in the US. Lynchburg is also the CS center.
I liked the line in the article where it talked about the desire to have great sex! I wonder if he applies the same standard to his manicured nails? Hmmmm. Good think I cancelled my mani/pedi for tomorrow (too humid!)
It is clear the family in the ad needs to turn to wrestl..errr God.
He did hit on a ton of societal issues. Not sure that this ad is the lynch pin (pardon the pun) to the Decline of Western Civilization because that occured with the 1981 movie of the same name. Abercrombie and Fitch, Benneton and I believe Chess King and Silvermans have done the same thing

Not to pick on you, but I don't think this has to do with wrestling.

Its okay, I've been known to be off topic as well.

If it doesn't, I'm sure the admins will move it around to the courtyard.

jbock13 wrote:Not to pick on you, but I don't think this has to do with wrestling.

Its okay, I've been known to be off topic as well.

If it doesn't, I'm sure the admins will move it around to the courtyard by Marriott.

FIFY

jbock13 wrote:Not to pick on you, but I don't think this has to do with wrestling.

Its okay, I've been known to be off topic as well.

If it doesn't, I'm sure the admins will move it around to the courtyard.

Nice try, it very much has something to do with the topic at hand. It would be disappointing, to say the least, if the admins desire to relegate this to a “back room”.

Thank God you didn't say CLOSET!!!

Aaron Bruce wrote:http://www.foxnews.com/health/2011/04/1 ... -identity/

Isn't J Crew's hdq in Lynchburg? War against the boys, hard to believe that Liberty unwilling to fight it.

No the HQ isn't in Lynchburg, and no it's not a surprise Liberty isn't fighting J.Crew over this.

Aaron Bruce wrote:

jbock13 wrote:Not to pick on you, but I don't think this has to do with wrestling.

Its okay, I've been known to be off topic as well.

If it doesn't, I'm sure the admins will move it around to the courtyard.

Nice try, it very much has something to do with the topic at hand. It would be disappointing, to say the least, if the admins desire to relegate this to a “back room”.

Oh really? What does painting toenails have anything to do with wrestling? Are you next going to argue, that because I agree with wrestling to be cut, that I approve of it boys painting their toenails?

It's in the wrong forum. It's not about moving it to a "back room". You'll hopefully realize there's no such thing here.

It has absolutely nothing to do with wrestling.

NG33 wrote:

Aaron Bruce wrote:http://www.foxnews.com/health/2011/04/1 ... -identity/

Isn't J Crew's hdq in Lynchburg? War against the boys, hard to believe that Liberty unwilling to fight it.

No the HQ isn't in Lynchburg, and no it's not a surprise Liberty isn't fighting J.Crew over this.

Aaron Bruce wrote:

jbock13 wrote:Not to pick on you, but I don't think this has to do with wrestling.

Nice try, it very much has something to do with the topic at hand.

Oh. I see. So if you don't like wrestling, you must be gay. Is that the joke you're trying to make here?

Because if we're going to put jokes about wrestling and sexuality back on the table...

Just out of curiosity, how would Liberty even fight this?

Start handing out 4 reps to anyone on campus wearing J. Crew clothing?

Nothing to see here, move along.

ATrain wrote:Just out of curiosity, how would Liberty even fight this?

Start handing out 4 reps to anyone on campus wearing J. Crew clothing?

Sorry for the confusion; the “powers to be” don’t like that fact that I have been trying to point out the fact that title IX (gender equity in college athletics) is part of a larger systematic attack on what most conservative Christians would consider healthy gender norms. I had placed this in the Wrestling Forum in the context of supporting my point that it is not simply an attack on men participating in college sports.

I was not implying that Liberty should do something to stop this J Crew advertisement. When I suggested that Liberty is not doing anything to fight it, I was referring to the fact that the administration recently caved to the liberal office of civil rights and effectively fired Jesse Castro (head wrestling coach) and his staff simply because they were men. When Liberty brought the program back, I had hoped it was a signal to the world that they had had enough of this liberal social engineering are were going to begin to stand up-apparently not.

Initially I was bothered by the fact that those who disagree with me thought they could “silence” me by relegating me to another forum. Now that I have thought about it, this is probably a much better place to talk about it. Up to now, the only people that have ever even heard about title IX were college athletes. If the non-athletic community has been privy to a few articles in the press, it most always paints a rosy picture. There have been devastating consequences to this well intentioned law that has now gone astray. John Stossle has had a few reports on it but it never seems to get much traction.

El Scorcho wrote:Oh. I see. So if you don't like wrestling, you must be gay. Is that the joke you're trying to make here?

Because if we're going to put jokes about wrestling and sexuality back on the table...

I this a serious post? I misinterpreted sarcasm on the other forum. No, I am not calling non wrestling supporters gay. Is that really what you took from this article?

I am deeply sorry that you want to put jokes about wrestlers being gay, “back on the table.” Although, I bet we could finally get the OCR to fight FOR us if we could convince them we were (haha).

jbock13 wrote:Oh really? What does painting toenails have anything to do with wrestling? Are you next going to argue, that because I agree with wrestling to be cut, that I approve of it boys painting their toenails?

That cool, I disagree but I like the idea of bringing this very important debate to this non-athletic forum.

Here is what I am telling you, If you support the liberal social engineering agenda that uses gender quotas in education as a tool to advance their program then, yes, I would assume you also support the idea of this ideology trying to nudge young children to go against their God-given natural attributes.

This has everything to do with wrestling because this is the very reason the sport got cut. As I have pointed out, it will soon have to do with other men’s sports as well.

Again, I no longer mind discussing this in this forum.

I agree with you on your rants against Liberalism, I could not disagree with you more that feminine men are the reason wrestling got cut.

jbock13 wrote: I could not disagree with you more that feminine men are the reason wrestling got cut.

?? I am not suggesting that. I am suggesting that masculine men are cow towing to NOW and the likes. NOW is pushing an agenda that says that traditional masculinity is a negative attribute of our society and therefore needs to be eradicated. I am not suggesting that the Chancellor or AD are feminine; I am suggesting that they have made a decision not to challenge this trend in our society and stand up for traditional values.

I suspect you and I agree on 99% of this topic but begin to fall apart when the topic of Liberty becoming an institution that is willing to challenge it. If you begin to do a little research on what is happening in our colleges across the nation I believe you would see much more clearly.

Us “wrestlers” have been forced to “put our nose in it” time and time again over the last 15-20 years and can tell some crazy war stories.

Aaron Bruce wrote:

jbock13 wrote: I could not disagree with you more that feminine men are the reason wrestling got cut.

I suspect you and I agree on 99% of this topic but begin to fall apart when the topic of Liberty becoming an institution that is willing to challenge it.

Exactly. Just because Liberty is a Christian school, doesn't mean that we need to get into everyone else's lives. Doesn't mean I approve of it.

I agree with you on men being "feminized". I just don't think it follows that it has anything to do with wrestling.

So I just got back from my mani/pedi......
Glad to see this put in another forum. To no ones suprise I disagree with Aaron. Not on content, but on scope. He continually tries to make this a Male v Female issue when it actuality it is both. Why can't women be seen as strong, athletic AND feminine? I happen to have slept with someone fitting that description recently, and let me just say........well you get the idea
We can all agree that Men and Women are different. The crux becomes WHAT the differences actually are outside of broad generalities. I will use the talked about ad:
What is so wrong with a mother painting her childs toenails? Is it the fact that it is seen as 'feminine"? If that is the case then what about men who wear make up? They do have lines of male make up (BIGSMOOTH knows what I am talking about) but what about people on TV? They wear make up, does it skew their masculinity? Also, why is wearing pink so bad? Personally, I think it brings out my eyes more. When did color choice become a sign of gender? Does that mean that women can't wear blue?
Let's go a little further. In the not too distant past, and to a small extent today, women who wore pants were seen as masculine. "who wears the pants in the family"? Does it detract from a woman's beauty and/or God given attributes to wear pants? While some would actually answer YES, the vast majority of people in W Civilization would say NO. Same goes with ear rings. While I do not have any piercings, take a look around at all the men who do. Does THIS confuse their gender identity?
I will whole heartedly agree that male role models are lacking in this society. Then again, so are strong female role models. I am not one to point fingers of blame at NOW or Title IX etc. I look inwards and try to be a role model for the young kids I come in contact with.

jbock13 wrote:I agree with you on men being "feminized". I just don't think it follows that it has anything to do with wrestling.

Seriously, what good does it do for women when we cut spots for men? During these discussions we have talked about the fact that other men are going to be cut as well…maybe entire teams...maybe walk-ons. Why would the feminists support the enforcement of Title IX through cutting men? Although I am sure Haze could find a couple of exceptions to the rule; by in large, the feminists have said very little on the topic. I will tell you one thing, they HATE football. The idea of a bunch of men going to battle while the cute cheerleaders root for their guys brings their blood to a boil. Unfortunately for them, they can’t touch that moneymaking machine. What they can do, is find ways to limit other opportunities for simulated combat with teams that do not have the financial/political clout.

I am surprised you don’t see the connection as you “liked” one of my posts on the other forum when I showed the statistics of women walk-ons and their proportionality in the intramural programs. If you remember, the thrust of that post was my lamenting the fact that their agenda is to force a shift in the natural order of genders.

Seeing that the actual Title IX law is generally an education law and does not specifically identify NCAA sports, I am surprised the quotas are not enforced in intramurals. Actually, it would make more since because I am pretty sure that the equipment for intramurals is bought with state money. As we all know, NCAA athletics do not use state money.

When you begin to enforce a law by using an arbitrary quota, then do not resist when the quota is reached without adding opportunities for the supposedly injured party, you by necessity are stating that you care more about the destruction of the activity in question than creating opportunities.
Bottom line, quotas are inherently discriminatory as they FORCE hiring practices to be based on ones gender/race/ethnicity/ religion/etc.

Good post.
Here are some things to think on:
For the "older generation" i.e. when Title IX was put on the books, does not like football b/c it was teh excuse used NOT to support women's athletics. Athletic departments had a deeply intrenched misogynistic world view. Women should enjoy their 'Play Days' but that is about it. Pursuing sports was not a feminine thing to do in their minds. (Babe Didrikson is a perfect example.) Therefore, those women fought back the only way they could, and that is through the courts and now we have Title IX. The AIAW was more or less dissolved and absorbed into the NCAA. The pendulum has now swung, some would say too far some would say not far enough.
Secondly, from a legal standpoint you are completely missing the other side of the argument. Title IX does not PREVENT schools from adding sports for men. Title IX simply states that there must be 'equity'. You can add or keep as many men's teams as you wish, so long as there is a corresponding retention and/or addition of women's sports. Institutions CHOSE to eliminate sports to become compliant, the law does not FORCE them to. Yes it is a subtle difference but the law can be a subtle thing!

Purple Haize wrote: Institutions CHOSE to eliminate sports to become compliant, the law does not FORCE them to.

Haize, it seems that we have begun to have a much more civil debate and I appreciate that. It was never my intention to make fun/call names/patronize anyone. I have always simply wanted to educate people on the unintended consequences of Title IX.

Specifically regarding your post. why do you suppose that the various liberal feminist organizations do not speak out against dropping male programs in order to meet the quota?

Aaron Bruce wrote:why do you suppose that the various liberal feminist organizations do not speak out against dropping male programs in order to meet the quota?

I feel like the answer is in the question

NG33 wrote:

Aaron Bruce wrote:why do you suppose that the various liberal feminist organizations do not speak out against dropping male programs in order to meet the quota?

I feel like the answer is in the question

Let me be more specific, why do you suppose that the feminists don’t speak out against the schools choosing to not give more opportunities to women when satisfying the quota? As I have said earlier, shouldn’t they be calling Castro and saying, “What can we do to help, we want Liberty to add sports for women. We have the finances and political clout to make things VERY uncomfortable for Liberty.”

AARON The simple answer is ADVOCACY. All 14 members of NOW (seriously, it is not THAT big of an organization) are advocates for women's rights. Just the same, you are an advocate for wrestling. Advocates fight for THEIR cause, not someone else's. I have given you the response that Title IX advocates use when sports are dropped. The line is "We are sorry that the University felt that the only way to come into compliance with Title IX is to drop activities for men. The law does not demand that they do this, this is something they chose and we hate to see any sport cut. Hopefully, in the future, the funds will be available for the University to reinstate the program."
Trust me, very skilled lawyers have crafted statements like this.