Title IX: City vs. Suburbs

An interesting article from Sunday's New York Times shines light on the fact that while Title IX has dramatically increased girls' athletic opportunities in the past 37 years, that is not a given when race, class, culture and geography are taken into account. Urban girls are not participating at the same rate as their suburban counterparts, and their opportunities are often not the same.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/14/sports/14girls.html?pagewanted=1&_r=2&hp

Reaction to the article from the <a href=http://title-ix.blogspot.com/2009/06/not-so-far-reaching-effects-of-equity.html">Title IX Blog</a>. (No, I don't write the Title IX Blog.)

 

Is there any measure of quality of life where there is at least equity between urban and suburban?
The discrepency between suburban and urban in female HS sports participation is merely evidence of an inequitable society. By itself, it's fairly meaningless. Anecdotally, from my suburban experience, within the suburban millieu, sports participation is fairly apportioned on gender and race. I just came from a weekend lacrosse tournement for girls from middle school to HS aged girls. There were 7 fields of games with constant play of 25 minute games from 8am to 4pm. and for every team playing there were 2 waiting to play. Now this is club and not government sponsored, but girls, given the opportunity, will play. But its more important that the government provide price supports for corn and sugar, than for providing equitable opportunities for all youth to grow, learn and be productive.

 

Of course there are more opportunities at suburban schools. I coach at a school that's a bit more urban than suburban and there are low numbers because 1) kids don't have money to play. 2) parents don't have money to let them play, or time to get them to practices and such 3.) More single parent families mean high school kids have to work and or babysit their siblings.

 

Hard to argue with that.

 

I can buy that. But aren't there still more boys than girls playing?

 

Probably. Boys are still more interested in sports than girls are.

 

you did not just say that

 

Yes, everything doesn't need to be 50/50.

 

Right or wrong, there are still places where playing sports just "isn't the thing to do" for girls. I would imagine that higher teen pregnancy rates in inner cities vs. suburbs could also contribute to the difference.

 

Honestly, you don't think a higher percentage of boys are interested in sports than girls? Even if it is just due to cultural influences?

Why is it so wrong to acknowledge that there are still differences in boys and girls and in the expectations put upon them by the adults around them?

 

Which places are those?

 

I find both of those replies astonishing.
First of all, the suburban stats that Cadet posted bear out the idea that when sports are offered equally that the numbers of boys and girls that play are about the same. That, in fact, hasn't been up for debate for a number of years and the idea that girls are less interested is so old-fashioned as to be silly.
That leads to the second part of the story, about why urban girls are less involved in stories. Teen pregnancy could be a factor, though I don't know those stats. But the story deals predominately with middle school kids.. Did you read it?