Skip to Content

Looking for the best info on potty training your toddler? Click here.

The unintended consequences of Title IX

Categories: Teens & tweens, Health & safety, In the news

According to a recent NYT article, Title IX had an amazing impact on the number of girls and women who play sports. Title IX was passed in 1972, a bill that eliminated the exclusion of women in any federally funded educational activity. Though it's effect was wide-reaching, it's probably best known for opening up the playing field, literally, to women.

In pre-Title IX 1972, about 300,000 girls played high school sports. Today, that number has blossomed to three million. Likewise, the number of female college athletes has grown to 205,000 from 30,000 in 1972.

Girls have more opportunity than ever to participate in sports. Sports keep kids active, help them maintain their weight, give them a social outlet -- so some would call that a blessing. But while understanding that sports play an important role for many teen and young adult women, some sports experts are also calling the change that Title IX has brought somewhat of a curse.

The rates of injury among high school sports are hard to count. But among those that do try to keep track of them, there's an alarming trend. Girls are getting hurt. A lot. Take the A.C.L. This little piece of flesh attaches to both the femur and the tibia, and functions to keep the knee stable. When it ruptures, it liquefies, requiring a graft from a nearby tendon for repair. The surgery is a tough one, the rehabilitation period six to nine months. Reports suggest that girls are suffering this injury at five times the rate of their male peers.

Experts point to changing teen bodies as the culprit. While boys tend to build muscle without much training, girls tend to gain fat. Estrogen makes ligaments flexible, too flexible, without the proper exercises. But now that girls are allowed to play with the same ferocity as boys, their bodies are breaking down at a very young age.

So what is the answer? I, for one, am hoping that the answer is not discouraging sports for girls. Research shows that girls who participate in sports have stronger bones and better test scores, among countless other benefits. How could we possibly consider taking that away from them, telling them that their female bodies make them "too weak?"

But yet, after reading the NYT article, I have to wonder. Are we pushing girls too hard and too fast? What really is the goal of high school sports? Isn't the goal supposed to be fun, friendly competition? Physical activity? Trying new things? How, then, do these highly-competitive leagues fit in to this picture?

Though it's hard yet to tell with my younger daughter, it's clear that my older child is going to be an athlete. She's quick, agile, and masters physical tasks in record time. We put her into soccer this spring strictly for the social experience, and I saw the light go on after the first practice. She was hooked.

As I watch her out on the field, fearlessly throwing herself into the pack just to get to that little pink ball, I imagine her ten years down the road. What role do I expect sports to play for her? If she is an athlete, how far will I let sports infiltrate her personal time? Will I let her travel? Would I let her play after an injury? Suddenly, her tiny little soccer team doesn't seem so innocent.

Do you have a female athlete? What do you think about all of this?

Recent Posts

Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)

ParentDish Polls

    Hollywood's Hottest Dad
    51% of you voted Hugh Jackman the Hottest Dad in Hollywood by a landslide. Wolverine edged out Brad Pitt and Johnny Depp -- and we can see why.

    Jewel Samad/Getty Images

    Best Stepdad
    How cool would it be to have Ashton Kutcher as your stepdad? Pretty cool, according to 52% of you. After all, you wouldn't have to teach him how to send a text message or use Twitter! Kutcher is pictured here in 2007 with stepdaughters Rumer and Tallulah Willis.

    Evan Agostini/Getty Images

    Who cares about IQ?
    Not ParentDish readers! 80% of you said that this 24-year-old UK mom should be allowed to keep her baby--even after social workers said she was "too stupid" to take care of her.

    Jenny Goodall, Daily Mail / ZUMA Press

    Enough With the Gosselins!
    Will you buy Kate Gosselin's cookbook? 64% of you say no -- and you're also tired of hearing about her.

    David Livingston, Getty Images

    Best Babysitters
    31% of you said that you would leave your kids with Ellen and Portia, while only 9% would trust Oprah to babysit. Interesting, since none of the celebs are parents.

    Kevin Winter, Getty Images

    Fav Celeb Mom
    Jennifer Garner is your favorite celebrity mom, beating out Angelina Jolie and First Lady Michelle Obama with 37% of the vote.

    Kris Connor, Getty Images

    Bad Mommy
    Dina Lohan and Courtney Love tied for worst celebrity mom, each with 32% of your votes. Only 3% of you said that Kate Moss was a bad mom, though, which says a lot -- mostly what a mess Dina Lohan is.

    Michael Buckner, Getty Images

    Unimpressed
    Only 8% of you think Bristol Palin a better parent than baby daddy Levi. [Get the full story]

    Getty

    Octo Overload?
    60% of you are worried about her kids. Maybe because she reportedly once stripped under the name "Angelina?" [Get the full story]

    Getty

    Tough to Swallow
    45% of you said this Burger King ad was "totally inappropriate." What would the King say? [Get the full story]

    YouTube

Features

Recent Comments