Title IX: City vs. Suburbs

[Cadet]

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

In the suburbs, girls play sports at rates roughly equal to boys. A 2007 survey by Harris Interactive of more than 2,000 schoolchildren nationwide showed that 54 percent of boys and 50 percent of girls in the suburbs described themselves as “moderately involved” athletes.

Urban areas revealed a much greater discrepancy. Only 36 percent of city girls in the survey described themselves as moderately involved athletes, compared with 56 percent of city boys.

Girls in cities from Los Angeles to New York “are the left-behinds of the youth sport movement in the United States,” said Don Sabo, a professor of health policy at D’Youville College in Buffalo, who conducted the study, which was commissioned by the Women’s Sports Foundation, a private advocacy group.

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.)

Frequently overlooked when we make statements such as "girls have benefited from Title IX" or "the growth of high school girls in sports has been X-fold since the passage of Title IX" is the fact that "girls" is not a nice, neat category. "Girls" is actually quite complex. And as much as we support gender equity laws, we need to remember that relying solely on the category of gender to judge equity and opportunity is not sufficient.

 

[heyabbott]

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.

 

[mustangj17]

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.

 

[Guy_Incognito]

"Girls" is actually quite complex.

Hard to argue with that.

 

[I Digress]

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.

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

 

[Armchair_QB]

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.

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.

 

[I Digress]

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.

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

 

[Ashy Larry]

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.

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.

 

[Jake_Taylor]

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.

 

[outofplace]

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.

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

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?

 

[buckweaver]

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.

Which places are those?

 

[I Digress]

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?

 

[outofplace]

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?

Couldn't it also be the cultural influences in urban areas are behind the suburbs? Just because things are one way in the suburbs does not mean they are that way everywhere.

Again, I'm not talking about some natural difference between boys and girls. I'm talking about the ideas and influences they grow up with, which aren't the same in all places.

 

[I Digress]

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.

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

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?

My daughter hates sports. Whatever. Her choice. But it's not because she's girl. It's who she is. There are boys that hate sports too. I don't know what it is you're tying to say. Girls only get involved with sports because their parents expect them too? Girls really aren't interested in sports because, well, they're girls? Girls are different from boys, they pee sitting down and so they don't like sports. Again, the stats bear out.. when sports are offered kids play. Boys and girls. Except apparently not so much in America's cities.

 

[outofplace]

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.

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

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?

My daughter hates sports. Whatever. Her choice. But it's not because she's girl. It's who she is. There are boys that hate sports too. I don't know what it is you're tying to say. Girls only get involved with sports because their parents expect them too? Girls really aren't interested in sports because, well, they're girls? Girls are different from boys, they pee sitting down and so they don't like sports. Again, the stats bear out.. when sports are offered kids play. Boys and girls. Except apparently not so much in America's cities.

Of course it isn't just a matter of what the parents do. I know it. I keep trying to get my daughter interested, with no luck at all so far.

But children are influenced by the people around them. Not just parents, but teachers, peers and other family members. What I'm saying is that perhaps the difference is that not as many of those people of influence push girls into athletics as they do for boys in some areas. That could account for part of the difference between the suburbs and urban areas.

 

[Jake_Taylor]

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.

Which places are those?

I've been in small-to-medium-sized towns where the "popular" girls didn't play sports. Maybe they were cheerleaders, but going out for basketball or softball, or whatever was just considered something for the butch girls or the tomboys. It's a backward way of thinking, but it still exists in certain area. I don't know if it's that way in any inner cities or not.

 

[buckweaver]

Girls who play sports are not the so-called "popular" girls in many places. That doesn't say anything about girls' relative interest in sports. Those two factors do not correlate.

Do cheerleaders outnumber so-called tomboys in those (or any other) areas? Then maybe you could say girls playing sports isn't "the thing to do."

 

[Cadet]

There are a lot of cultural/circumstantial reasons why children do or do not participate in sports. This article touched on one reason, which was the cultural expectation that daughters help with the home while sons are free to play. But there will always be others, including cost, unsupportive parents and peer influence.

But I would bet that for every girl who doesn't go out for the team because it's not the "girly" thing to do, there is a boy who HAS gone out for the team because it's the "manly" thing to do, regardless of his interest in or passion for the sport. Those societal pressures work both ways.

As has been shown, girls will respond to opportunities if they are available. Title IX and programs that have evolved from the law are about making sure the opportunities are available. I think this article serves as a reminder that there are still enclaves, particularly urban areas, where the opportunities are lacking.

 

[21]

I have to believe suburban parenting includes heightened expectations for the kids to be involved in more activities, try everything, and certainly more of the group-planning (ie, a dozen moms deciding to put all the girls in the same activity, on the same team, etc).

But the study in the Times doesn't really address whether those city girls are doing some other activity instead of sports. Do they take dance? Music? Shouldn't the focus be on doing ANY extracurricular activity, not just sports?

 

[Bob Cook]

The problem is at is always in between the roughest city schools and toniest in the suburbs: money. The suburban girls haven't just been playing school sports. They've been in independent and travel leagues since a single-digit age. So have the boys. There are a lot of kids, I'm sure, in the city schools who look at the limited resources, realize the level of competition out there, and say, "No thanks."

Even by middle school, school sports, except for football, are almost beside the point for anyone serious about playing in college or at a higher level.