Introducing Title E-IX

Perhaps, dear reader, you know all about Title IX, the glorious feminist-inspired diktat that forces American colleges and universities to give equal funds and attention to women’s sports as to men’s sports. This grand Ms. magazine success story is pretty much the reason you’ll never see a men’s fencing team ever again, since college administrators chuck them—along with numerous other male sports teams—in order to keep things even between the sexes.

Depriving collegiate males the opportunity to play on athletic teams: Gosh, that is a great feminist accomplishment. Maybe it even ranks up there with feminist fawning over chronic philanderer and sex-offender Bill Clinton. You go, girl. (Excuse us: Grrrl.)

If you ask us, Title IX is a quintessential example of contemporary American feminism. It begins with a reasonable-sounding premise—to eradicate gender discrimination in collegiate athletics—and then massively ruins things by failing to take any semblance of reality into account.

Only the most muddleheaded feminist, after all, would believe that there is equal interest in sports amongst members of both sexes. Naturally, far more men aim to participate in athletics than women—and this will remain the case no matter what Gloria Steinem dreams about.

Thus forcing universities to field an equal amount of women’s as men’s teams was obviously going to lead to doom for men’s track and field and other under-the-radar male sports. For everyone but Andrea Dworkin, this is a no-brainer. (In fairness to Dworkin, though, she’s deceased.)

We mention Title IX, dear reader, for a very specific reason. Since it has been such an unvarnished success in the land of collegiate athletics, why not expand its reach? Like you, we can’t think of a reason either.

And here’s what we have in mind. Our Democratic friends in Congress are surely scratching their heads over the defeat of a proposed reintroduction of the so-called Fairness Doctrine.

The Fairness Doctrine, in short, is unfair. (A well-named doctrine, that.) It would have compelled radio stations that broadcast right-wing talk shows to fund “The Alexander Cockburn Blames the Jews Hour” by way of ideological compensation. It would do for the private sector what PBS refuses to do for the tax-payer-funded public sector.

Even though the Fairness Doctrine is no more, why not propose a veritable E-Fairness Doctrine? And that, dear reader, is what Title E-IX is all about.

You see, it has come to our attention that there are more male than female “webloggers” out here on Al Gore’s World-Wide Web. This, we think, demonstrates the horrid sexism of the Internet—a sexism that is destroying the hopes and dreams of little girls everywhere.

With Title E-IX, however, this grave injustice will be solved: It’ll simply mandate the shutdown of sundry male-authored “weblogs” until we reach complete gender parity. Finally the insidious discrimination will be behind us.