Liberal Journo Vulgarly Mocks Parochial School for Forfeiting Baseball Game With Girl
Do liberal journalists who cover sports have nothing better to do than bully religiously conservative Christian athletes? Last year it was ESPN's Rick Reilly mocking evangelical teenage wrestler Joel Northrup. The latest to line up to smack around Christian athletes who act on conscience is Esquire's Charles Pierce, formerly of the Boston Globe, Pierce also contributes to ESPN's Grantland.com blog.
In his May 15 Grantland post, "And a Girl Shall Terrify Them," Pierce used news that a religious school from Phoenix, Arizona had forfeited a championship baseball game rather than play against a team which was fielding a female player. Pierce, who also appears frequently on taxpayer-backed National Public Radio, decided to weigh in with his condemnation. "The Gospels are not your alibi," Pierce huffed, directing his wrath at the Society of Pope Pius X, which runs the Our Lady of Sorrows Academy in Phoenix:
Here is Our Lady of Sorrows's official excuse for not playing in the championship game.
"Teaching our boys to treat ladies with deference, we choose not to place them in an athletic competition where proper boundaries can only be respected with difficulty," the statement read. "Our school aims to instill in our boys a profound respect for women and girls."
Predictably, Pierce scoffed at the objection, making such snide remarks as that the Society "apparently thinks infield practice qualifies as foreplay" and that they "dragged Jesus in as an accessory before the fact."
But what Pierce conveniently left out of his blog was an item also included in the Our Lady of Sorrows Academy press release, namely that their "decision [to forfeit] is pursuant to school policy which rules out participation in co-ed sports" [emphasis mine]. So the Academy, as a matter of policy, doesn't form co-ed sports teams, nor compete in co-ed contests.
Since high school softball is traditionally the girls' alternative to baseball, it stands to reason Our Lady of Sorrows assumed games played under the aegis of the Arizona Charter Athletic Association (AZCAA) would be boys-only and not permissibly co-ed.
But why actually explore that question when you're too busy bashing folks who are trying to stay true to their interpretation of the Christian faith (emphasis mine):
Completely by accident, Paige and her teammates had found themselves caught in a dark, dank corner of reactionary Christianity, which admits no light, no warmth, only the cold, dead past, and which stinks of prejudice, decaying dogma, and the worst social offal of the 20th century. There's not a lick of Catholic doctrine that would forbid men and women from playing baseball against each other. There is nothing in the Gospels that would remotely touch upon the situation, and not even St. Paul, that censorious old blatherskite, said anything that can be stretched plausibly to forbid it, and people have been known to use Paul's Epistles like taffy to marshal their arguments.
Oh, and one more thing: You may notice that Pierce ignorantly insisted that the Academy was a "Catholic charter school from Phoenix," when in fact the Society of Pope Pius X remains an "illegitimate" movement that lacks "canonical status" within the Roman Catholic Church.
In other words, Pierce wasted all that time blasting as out-of-touch and uber-reactionary a Catholic movement that is, well, not truly and authentically Catholic. That means the entire column -- penned by the author of "Idiot America: How Stupidity Became a Virtue in the Land of the Free"-- was an exercise of ignorance, if not outright intellectual dishonesty.
- Ken Shepherd's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
This "writer?"
Submitted by Tugboat Phil on Tue, 05/15/2012 - 4:15pm.
He must be one of those "manly" types that David Brooks thinks Baraka resembles.
If not for wanting to keep my vulgarities at bay, I would comment that Pierce has the characteristics of a small cat.
This is one of the dumbest
Submitted by balboa on Tue, 05/15/2012 - 4:32pm.
This is one of the dumbest reasons to forfeit a game.
It's called 'principle', bal, something likely ---
Submitted by matthewdean on Tue, 05/15/2012 - 4:36pm.
rare in the world of Obama fans and supporters.
MD
...which I could respect if
Submitted by balboa on Tue, 05/15/2012 - 4:45pm.
...which I could respect if it was a principle that made any sense in any way. It doesn't.
Principles
Submitted by TempusFugit on Tue, 05/15/2012 - 4:50pm.
never make sense to the unprincipled
Zing ---
Submitted by matthewdean on Tue, 05/15/2012 - 5:44pm.
- ah !!
Good shot., TF.
MD
Thank you so much MD
Submitted by TempusFugit on Tue, 05/15/2012 - 6:04pm.
(bows)
huh?
Submitted by lotr on Tue, 05/15/2012 - 5:05pm.
"Teaching our boys to treat ladies with deference, we choose not to place them in an athletic competition where proper boundaries can only be respected with difficulty," the statement read. "Our school aims to instill in our boys a profound respect for women and girls."
What part of these plain-English statements don't you comprehend?
While you don't have to agree with them, the "principle" makes perfect sense.
It seems the concept of "boundaries" is something that neolibs like to confound these days. It's no small wonder that the incidence of rape has gone through the roof since the mid-1960s when the mentality out there questions "principles" and codes of behavior for boys such as those instilled above.
What boundaries are you in
Submitted by balboa on Tue, 05/15/2012 - 5:27pm.
What boundaries are you in danger of crossing in a baseball game? It's nonsense is what it is. Please tell me.
How are women and girls not being respected if you play against one, heck, NINE, in a game of baseball?
Hmmm bal
Submitted by TempusFugit on Tue, 05/15/2012 - 5:34pm.
Girl hits ball, runs to base, boy has to tag her on her breasts, doesn't do so in order not to cross boundary. Do I need to draw you a picture?
I can give you several more examples, if you want to continue making a fool of yourself
So he can't somehow figure
Submitted by balboa on Tue, 05/15/2012 - 5:36pm.
So he can't somehow figure out someplace else on her body to tag her but her breasts? Out of all that surface area, that's the only place he can tag her? And if he doesn't; so? The kid figures it out for next time. He's not going to fall apart because this happens. What do you think is going to happen? What tragic event?
And what are the odds that this is going to happen with ONE girl on the team?
You do a body tag because
Submitted by Radical1979 on Tue, 05/15/2012 - 5:42pm.
You have the greatest area to tag, so you're more likely to make the out. Why do you care if they are following their principles?
I don't understand how these
Submitted by balboa on Tue, 05/15/2012 - 5:46pm.
I don't understand how these principles are that important that they forfeit the game. If there was a serious line of thinking behind them, sure.
There is a serious line of thinking
Submitted by Radical1979 on Tue, 05/15/2012 - 5:48pm.
Behind it. You just refuse to accept it.
It's not serious. It's silly.
Submitted by balboa on Tue, 05/15/2012 - 5:51pm.
It's not serious. It's silly. No one here has explained any kid of consequence so awful that it needs to be avoided at all costs.
balboa
Submitted by TempusFugit on Tue, 05/15/2012 - 5:58pm.
One last try before I give up in utter exasperation. The kids know there's a girl playing for the opposite side, right? You say that they need to be thinking about where to tag the girl so they don't accidentally touch her breasts, right? I've played organized baseball, albeit not for a very long time, and I know from personal experience that you don't think where you're tagging the opponent, you do it as fast as you can to get the out. But since they're playing with a girl, and they're taught to respect girls, THEY WILL BE THINKING where to tag. That means that when she's running the bases they won't be playing the game the way they should. So that leaves open the possibility that the game degenerates into farce, because they can't play it 100%. So they forfeited in order to keep the integrity of the game at 100%
If you don't understand that, then I don't know what else to say
I understand what youre
Submitted by balboa on Tue, 05/15/2012 - 6:26pm.
I understand what youre saying. But what are the odds this happens so much in one game as to make it a farce? One instance doesn't make it a farce. I cant believe one girl would make that much impact. And avoiding a farce does not sound like what the school was aiming to do.
And having played a lot of baseball, I'd be willing to bet that when that moment occurs in a game, the boys would be thinking about one thing in the end: get the out.
Actually bal
Submitted by TempusFugit on Tue, 05/15/2012 - 6:30pm.
I only skimmed the article before commenting, and I'd guess so did you. They're not allowed to have co-ed sports at that school. They'd have to change their school rules to even play the game.
But it goes back to what I said before. They have that school rule because they have principles and principles are a foreign concept to the unprincipled.
Now go back under your bridge little troll
A troll isn't someone who has
Submitted by balboa on Tue, 05/15/2012 - 6:32pm.
A troll isn't someone who has an opinion different than yours.
And a differing opinion doesn't indicate a lack of principles, but nice try, Skippy.
No a troll
Submitted by TempusFugit on Tue, 05/15/2012 - 6:35pm.
is a liberal on a conservative blog constantly making fallacious arguments and obtusely failing to see reason. Look in the mirror troll boy
Didn't make a fallacious
Submitted by balboa on Tue, 05/15/2012 - 6:42pm.
Didn't make a fallacious statement, and I understand your reasoning, but I don't think it's very strong. I disagree with it, and explained why.
bal
Submitted by TempusFugit on Tue, 05/15/2012 - 6:49pm.
This is one of the dumbest reasons to forfeit a game.
Submitted by balboa on Tue, 05/15/2012 - 4:32pm.
From the article:
their "decision [to forfeit] is pursuant to school policy which rules out participation in co-ed sports"
So it's dumb of them to forfeit because they're not allowed to play the game in accordance with their school rules? Gotcha! I guess they should have called an emergency meeting of all school governors to change the rule in time for one game to please balboa and the idiot who wrote the original article. Umm hmmm
You've made plenty of fallacious statements over the years son. More than I can count
The rule is dumb.
Submitted by balboa on Tue, 05/15/2012 - 7:03pm.
The rule is dumb.
Another bal classic!
Submitted by TempusFugit on Tue, 05/15/2012 - 7:11pm.
And it's a fallacy. Appeal to ridicule:
X, which is some form of ridicule is presented (typically directed at the claim).
Therefore claim C is false.
http://nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-ridicule.html
I have stated why it's
Submitted by balboa on Tue, 05/15/2012 - 7:15pm.
I have stated why it's flawed, or did you miss those posts?
Really bal?
Submitted by TempusFugit on Tue, 05/15/2012 - 7:23pm.
Where????? Show me where you made an inductive or deductive reasoning argument that said why the rule is dumb. Basically throughout the thread you just said it's stupid then made lame responses to why I showed you the rule is sound. Your entire argument was "the odds of a boy touching a girls breasts are low" and "he could tag the girl somewhere else besides her breasts". No argument anywhere that I can see as to why it's a dumb rule.
Troll baiting is so much fun. I'm enjoying this way too much
As I said, I don't see what
Submitted by balboa on Tue, 05/15/2012 - 7:36pm.
As I said, I don't see what boundaries they are protecting their students from by making this rule and then implementing it in this fashion. How is this helping the students?
And I countered all of your arguments by pointing out how slim the odds were of any situation occurring and not seeing how, if the incident did in fact occur, it would be such a horrible thing, and how it could be so detrimental as to need a rule such as this to keep it from occurring. She's a girl, not a potted plant. If she agrees to play on a boy's team, she agrees to all the dangers or situations therein.
bally boy
Submitted by TempusFugit on Tue, 05/15/2012 - 7:45pm.
You can't counter an argument by saying the odds of it happening are low. I could invite you to play Russian Roulette. The odds of you getting killed are about 17%. Pretty low, huh? Now are you going to do it? Parents should always let their children walk by themselves because the odds of a pedophile snatching them are pretty low, yes?
All you've done is say it's stupid and not give a single reason why. Epic fail bally boy
You need to learn how to
Submitted by balboa on Tue, 05/15/2012 - 7:52pm.
You need to learn how to read.
I was reading at age 4 thank you
Submitted by TempusFugit on Tue, 05/15/2012 - 7:59pm.
You need to learn how to reason, because, as I've said before, your reasoning levels are about the same as a preschooler
Sure, bal; much like the females who demanded ---
Submitted by matthewdean on Tue, 05/15/2012 - 7:48pm.
equality in order to perform as firefighters - and then squawked about not having their own separate bathroom facilities in the station.
Equal would be using the existing amenities on an as needed basis- but instead, let's demand our own - never mind the budget strain as a result of unfunded monies having to be spent on ensuring the distaff side's access to "equality".
Unintended consequences, indeed.
MD
BAl
Submitted by cocodrie on Tue, 05/15/2012 - 6:56pm.
Either you did not read the article or you have no understanding of the terms "school policy" or "co-ed sports". Your endless stream of stupidity came through right on cue and once again revealed your total lack of maturity.
Jesus Loves You so much He died for you
I understand the term. The
Submitted by balboa on Tue, 05/15/2012 - 7:09pm.
I understand the term. The policy is flawed. The presence of one girl hardly seems to merit designation as a coed sport.
Very good Bal
Submitted by cocodrie on Tue, 05/15/2012 - 7:15pm.
Once again you come out against the the freedom of others and wish to force compromise on those that have principles.
What does one girl make it? A little bit co-ed? I have two sons so I suppose my wife was a little bit pregnant twice.
Jesus Loves You so much He died for you
I'm not forcing anything on
Submitted by balboa on Tue, 05/15/2012 - 7:23pm.
I'm not forcing anything on anyone. I'm not demanding they change their "policy" am I? Did I demand they play the game?
One girl makes it all guys and one girl. Sure. Technically it's coed. Congrats on that.
How dense can you be?
Submitted by cocodrie on Tue, 05/15/2012 - 7:37pm.
How dense can you be? You have no understanding or conception of morality or principle.
How can you be so decietful? You've been all over this thread demanding that they need to change their decision and abandon their principles.
Jesus Loves You so much He died for you
Please show me where I
Submitted by balboa on Tue, 05/15/2012 - 7:39pm.
Please show me where I demanded they change their decision or abandon their principles.
In every one of your posts
Submitted by cocodrie on Tue, 05/15/2012 - 8:08pm.
In every one of your posts you rant about how she deserves to play and how wrong the Our Lady of Sorrows School is to stand by their principles. You did a very good job at being obtuse though.
Jesus Loves You so much He died for you
Fail.
Submitted by balboa on Tue, 05/15/2012 - 8:14pm.
Fail.
That's right bal
Submitted by TempusFugit on Tue, 05/15/2012 - 8:16pm.
You fail. Glad you admit it
balcrap
Submitted by cocodrie on Tue, 05/15/2012 - 8:25pm.
They would have to abandon their principles to play against the Mesa team as you keep demanding. You have more crap with you than jasoncrap
Jesus Loves You so much He died for you
Again, SHOW ME where I
Submitted by balboa on Tue, 05/15/2012 - 8:30pm.
Again, SHOW ME where I demanded anything.
Go to school
Submitted by cocodrie on Tue, 05/15/2012 - 9:00pm.
Go to school, learn to read, then read your own rants where you insist that the school should abandon their policy of not participating in co-ed sports. Even after you can understand what you posted, I don't expect anything sensible from you.
I knew from the start that someone standing on their principles and not compromising was beyond your comprehension.
Jesus Loves You so much He died for you
SHOW ME the quote. Please
Submitted by balboa on Tue, 05/15/2012 - 11:13pm.
SHOW ME the quote. Please show me where I insist the school abandon their policy.
Are you incapable of reading your own posts?
Submitted by cocodrie on Tue, 05/15/2012 - 11:30pm.
You insisted they abandon their policy by playing against a team that was co-ed.
Read your own posts after you learn to read.
Jesus Loves You so much He died for you
That's what I thought. Now go
Submitted by balboa on Tue, 05/15/2012 - 11:38pm.
That's what I thought. Now go away.
➚ Condescending Bull Pap
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Tue, 05/15/2012 - 8:31pm.
Open that door, bal, and it makes just as much sense for a boys team to go up against the girls teams in the same league.
Tell me why I'm wrong, and I'll tell you you're a sexist pig.
bal is a lib, so a word means what he wants it to mean ---
Submitted by matthewdean on Tue, 05/15/2012 - 7:30pm.
Coed is short for coeducational. This means both men and women can play on the same team.
An athletic competition wherein there is a female member on the playing field, but on the opposition's side, disrupts bal's thought process to the point of causing him to utter inanities.
In bals' world, having only one female in play apparently voids the entire, time proven definition of coeducational.
There is no merit, you see, in that particular phraseology; either because bal just can't get his head around it - or because he says it has no merit.
MD
Bal
Submitted by Radical1979 on Tue, 05/15/2012 - 6:39pm.
it was explained, you simply deny the explanation. I don't forfeiting a game is avoidance "at all costs". It's simply a decision made by the school.
The following says all we need to know about you, Bal.
Submitted by UpNorth on Tue, 05/15/2012 - 8:48pm.
"I don't understand how these principles are that important that they forfeit the game".
Those with few principles usually seem to have that problem.
You asked for it
Submitted by TempusFugit on Tue, 05/15/2012 - 5:46pm.
I kind of doubt you know much about baseball. In split second timing can you PICK a spot to tag her on? NO! Maybe he doesn't want to touch her on any part of her body. Her butt can just as easily be tagged.
Pitchers have to sometimes pitch inside. A boy might be more reluctant to brush back a girl. A catcher might be more reluctant to block home plate if a girl is about to score
Who cares about the odds? I could just as easily say I'll go shoot my gun in my neighborhood because the odds of a bullet hitting someone are low. ANY odds of it happening are too high.
I stand by what I said yesterday. Arguing with you is like arguing with a preschooler. You're either a troll or stubbornly obtuse
I played many years of
Submitted by balboa on Tue, 05/15/2012 - 5:53pm.
I played many years of baseball, so I know a split-second tag happens. Which is why I asked if that does happen...so? What is so bad about that? What do you think is going to happen as a result?
Sure you have bal
Submitted by TempusFugit on Tue, 05/15/2012 - 6:00pm.
You're as ESPN masculine as Obama. Read my post up above where I give the possible results of boys thinking where to tag girls
you need to become a muslim, I have decreed it
Submitted by dmacleo on Tue, 05/15/2012 - 7:12pm.
you see if freedom of religion and following the chosen religions practices means nothing to YOU I get to tell you what religion you MUST practice.
I look forward to see what mosque you join.
still feel ok deciding what religious rules others must follow?
its pretty telling you advocate them just dumping their principles over a game.
There's the likelihood that
Submitted by Ken Shepherd on Tue, 05/15/2012 - 5:35pm.
There's the likelihood that she could be accidentally hit by the pitcher when she's up to bat. There's the likelihood that she could be injured by a sliding runner coming into second on a double play attempt. Two injury scenarios where the team would feel bad about injuring a player of the fairer sex.
They'd feel bad injuring
Submitted by balboa on Tue, 05/15/2012 - 5:50pm.
They'd feel bad injuring anyone, wouldn't they? And maybe they'd feel a little worse because it's a girl. That's the worst thing that can happen? I think these guys are a little tougher than that. Or at least I hope so.
And they know this girl has freely decided to put herself in this situation, as well as her coach, her parents, the school, the team. I don't think there's such a greater chance of injury to her than anyone else as to merit forfeiting.
Oh my, did you miss biology?
Submitted by Radical1979 on Tue, 05/15/2012 - 7:32pm.
Boys and girls, men and women, are built differently.
IMO, parents who allow a girl
Submitted by motherbelt on Tue, 05/15/2012 - 7:37pm.
IMO, parents who allow a girl to play on a boys' sports team in high school are idiots.
And I don't care about "it's what she wanted to do."
Teenagers can be idiots. That's why God gave them parents.
What does that have to do
Submitted by balboa on Tue, 05/15/2012 - 7:37pm.
What does that have to do with what I said.
The worst that could happen
Submitted by motherbelt on Tue, 05/15/2012 - 7:41pm.
The worst that could happen is they'd feel bad because they hurt a girl?
That's the way it's supposed to be, Bal! Guys, being bigger and stronger, are supposed to be conditioned NOT to hurt girls. At least if they're brought up right!
So decent boys would go easy on her, even at the cost of the game. That's fair?
Yes, but if they dont intend
Submitted by balboa on Tue, 05/15/2012 - 7:42pm.
Yes, but if they dont intend to hurt the girl, if its an accident in the course of competition, I don't see the problem. The girl is entering freely into the competition. She knows the dangers and has accepted them.
OMG but the team doesn't want the
Submitted by Radical1979 on Tue, 05/15/2012 - 7:46pm.
responsibility of possibly hurting a girl. For the life of me I cannot see why that is a problem for you.
Who says they don't want that
Submitted by balboa on Tue, 05/15/2012 - 7:55pm.
Who says they don't want that responsibility? You're treating this girl as if she were made out of crystal.
That doesn't mean that boys
Submitted by motherbelt on Tue, 05/15/2012 - 7:47pm.
That doesn't mean that boys will immediately shed any sense of chivalry they've been brought up to have.
It's one of the reasons men don't like women in combat.
confusing*
Submitted by cajun2 on Tue, 05/15/2012 - 7:53pm.
If girls "freely" choose to play on a co ed team then why dont we see more girls on boys basketball teams? Why dont we see girls on a boys relay track team? Why dont we see more girls in a boys weight lifting team? Is it because "girls are different"? The teams dont want to lose? How about unfair competition?
So balboa, how about girls dont play on boys teams for just COMMON SENSE!!!!
I believe she was playing on
Submitted by balboa on Tue, 05/15/2012 - 7:56pm.
I believe she was playing on the baseball team because her school doesn't have a softball team.
Then, under Title IX, shouldn't Mesa have done away
Submitted by UpNorth on Wed, 05/16/2012 - 12:28am.
with the baseball team?
No.
Submitted by balboa on Wed, 05/16/2012 - 9:02am.
No.
I'm pretty well done
Submitted by TempusFugit on Tue, 05/15/2012 - 7:57pm.
trying to educate this troll with his histrionics, logical fallacies and one sentence arguments. It all boils down to "I'm right because I say so!"
I'll leave the troll to you folks, MD, MB, cocodrie, Rad etc
Tempus
Submitted by Radical1979 on Tue, 05/15/2012 - 7:59pm.
I'm with you. Bal's being a jerk, he just keeps jumping up and down saying "no no no" refusing to listen to anyone else's reasoning.
Boring.
That's a fat load garbage.
Submitted by balboa on Tue, 05/15/2012 - 8:01pm.
That's a fat load of garbage. I've given reasons or counter arguments at every turn.
Bal you're a liar
Submitted by TempusFugit on Tue, 05/15/2012 - 8:05pm.
OK I'm swallowing the bait. Name one reason you gave that isn't " the chances of it happening are low". Show me the exact post and quote
What boundaries are you in
Submitted by balboa on Tue, 05/15/2012 - 8:16pm.
What boundaries are you in danger of crossing in a baseball game?
They'd feel bad injuring anyone, wouldn't they? And maybe they'd feel a little worse because it's a girl. That's the worst thing that can happen? I think these guys are a little tougher than that. Or at least I hope so.
And they know this girl has freely decided to put herself in this situation, as well as her coach, her parents, the school, the team. I don't think there's such a greater chance of injury to her than anyone else as to merit forfeiting.
if they dont intend to hurt the girl, if its an accident in the course of competition, I don't see the problem. The girl is entering freely into the competition. She knows the dangers and has accepted them.
He's not going to fall apart because this happens. What do you think is going to happen? What tragic event?
I played many years of baseball, so I know a split-second tag happens. Which is why I asked if that does happen...so? What is so bad about that? What do you think is going to happen as a result?
No one here has explained any kid of consequence so awful that it needs to be avoided at all costs.
Oh the drama!!
Submitted by Radical1979 on Tue, 05/15/2012 - 8:22pm.
Avoided at all costs, is not the same as the simple act of forfeiting a game.
Fair enough. I retract "at
Submitted by balboa on Tue, 05/15/2012 - 8:26pm.
Fair enough. I retract "at all costs" and stick with "avoid."
OK bal
Submitted by TempusFugit on Tue, 05/15/2012 - 8:26pm.
Nowhere in that post is a argument that makes your case that the rule is dumb. It just states that the girl knows she could get hurt while ignoring the original arguments in favor of the school's decision which are that it's a school rule and that the boys will feel uncomfortable making a tag on a girl
You're also making another fallacious argument by using burden of proof. In that the school is wrong because no one has proved that it would be hurtful to the boys.
Again no deductive or inductive reasoning to support your argument. You lose again bal, but I'm sure you're used to it by now
Good evening Rad
Submitted by cocodrie on Tue, 05/15/2012 - 8:18pm.
C'mon now, you know that's all a three year old can do when it can't get it's way.
Jesus Loves You so much He died for you
True Coco
Submitted by Radical1979 on Tue, 05/15/2012 - 8:29pm.
Especially when the issue really doesn't concern the three year old! Oh my, someone else is playing a game the wrong way! Oh dear, the drama!
Indeed Mr Shepherd
Submitted by TempusFugit on Tue, 05/15/2012 - 5:50pm.
Add those points to my list and you have several good reasons why they forfeited
Surely you can't be serious.
Submitted by lotr on Tue, 05/15/2012 - 8:45pm.
Surely you can't be serious. He is serious, and don't call him Shirley.
Last time I checked, baseball was considered a "contact sport." There are reasons for this -- it's not so labeled for the hell of it. Look the term up if you are unfamiliar with it, think about it and then get back to me.
Oh stewardess
Submitted by TempusFugit on Tue, 05/15/2012 - 8:48pm.
I speak jive
You're making me want to watch that movie
I don't think baseball is
Submitted by balboa on Tue, 05/15/2012 - 11:20pm.
I don't think baseball is considered a contact sport.
Wrong again Mr Fallacy
Submitted by TempusFugit on Tue, 05/15/2012 - 11:29pm.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contact_sport
"Limited-contact sports are sports in which the rules are specifically designed to prevent contact between players either intentionally or unintentionally. Although contact can still happen, strong penalties are often used to disallow substantial contact between players. These penalties, including physically removing players from the field of play, mean that contact is moderate or rare. Examples include baseball"
When I think contact, I think
Submitted by balboa on Tue, 05/15/2012 - 11:41pm.
When I think contact, I think football, hockey, lacrosse, rugby. Baseball is not one of those.
The broken record keeps on playing
Submitted by TempusFugit on Tue, 05/15/2012 - 11:45pm.
And I thought Obama was a narcissist. I present you with evidence that it's considered a limited contact sport and your response is "I don't consider it so". Everything we say is wrong because you think it's not, and everything you say is right because you say so. Wow! Drsam could write a book about your personality disorder
Yeah, "limited."
Submitted by balboa on Wed, 05/16/2012 - 9:01am.
Yeah, "limited."
I'll grant you that baseball
Submitted by lotr on Wed, 05/16/2012 - 1:02pm.
I'll grant you that baseball is a "borderline" contact sport (as the Wikipedia entry cited by my NB colleague suggests), certainly not in the same realm as football, etc., but also not in the same realm as bowling, golfing, track, etc.
But it's certainly reasonable to consider it more contact sport than not, and that's where the rub is. Certainly you can disagree with that assessment, but given the "gray area" (as considered from a neutral POV), their decision was perfectly sensible, which is the bone that I'm picking with you.
Sure, the decision is really
Submitted by balboa on Wed, 05/16/2012 - 1:37pm.
Sure, the decision is really nothing more than going along with policy. (...a policy that, to me, doesn't make sense.)
I wasn't talking about the
Submitted by lotr on Wed, 05/16/2012 - 2:58pm.
I wasn't talking about the "policy," which I'm not clear on. What was the policy that "doesn't make sense"?
However, I was talking about the common sense of not mixing boys with girls in contact sports, this not being anything new (rather the opposite), and based upon an underlying principle that respects boundaries between the sexes, and instills in boys a profound respect uniquely accorded to girls/women.
Don't you think boys can
Submitted by balboa on Wed, 05/16/2012 - 3:12pm.
Don't you think boys can compete against a girl and still have respect for them? I do. I have and I do.
That is why the policy doesn't make sense to me: I don't know that what it _seems_ to be protecting is necessary. Competing against a team with a girl isn't going to ruin those boundaries, isn't going to make the boys' team not respect girls, is it? You're not going to confuse them by letting them compete against each other, and not in this situation for sure.
spinning our wheels here
Submitted by lotr on Wed, 05/16/2012 - 9:34pm.
Sigh. What part of the notion of "contact sport" don't you understand? Until you understand that distinction, then we're getting nowhere here. We're not talking about coed league bowling here.
If you disagree that baseball is a contact sport, that's your opinion, but that's the premise we're talking about here; the decision to not compete follows logically from the premise, and the only thing "dumb" is not recognizing that for being blinded by media-driven political correctness.
"Respecting girls/women": What's being referred to here is the special treatment that civil society expects of boys/men in their treatment of girls/women. Two boxers can "respect" one another as worthy adversaries. That's not what we're shooting for here. Girls/women are to be treated "differently" when it comes to aggressive physical contact, without exception. There are boundaries there. Or are you saying differently?
In most of the world, and throughout most of history, this was never an issue. Boys do not compete in contact sports against girls. End of story.
Gugh... If you say it's a
Submitted by balboa on Wed, 05/16/2012 - 9:43pm.
Gugh...
If you say it's a contact sport, fine, but the odds of actually coming into contact with the other team aren't that high.
And as for respect, as I've said, if the girl enters into a competition like this freely, then she is to be treated as a competitor. it's not a cotillion.
lotr
Submitted by Radical1979 on Wed, 05/16/2012 - 9:49pm.
It's more of the same from the left. Pretend men and women are interchangeable, we're all the same, so that will justify gay marriage, beating on women, etc. I saw a study a year or two ago showing that violence against women on tv has dramatically increased. Hey, we're equal!! Yay!
As you said, we aren't the same, nor do I want to be the same as a man. I prefer to be the nurturer and the caretaker, and have my husband be the protector. As has been stated here previously, girls shouldn't be making these decisions. Their parents should and their parents should know better than to put their girls into situations in which they might be hurt. All anyone has to do is google baseball sports injuries to see it.
Yes, let them stick to
Submitted by balboa on Wed, 05/16/2012 - 10:05pm.
Yes, let them stick to gardening, cooking, sewing...nothing too strenuous.
Ah, always with the b.s.
Submitted by Radical1979 on Wed, 05/16/2012 - 10:10pm.
How about girls compete against girls?
Wait, maybe we should open the Special Olympics up to regular kids?
I can't believe you'd want
Submitted by balboa on Wed, 05/16/2012 - 10:12pm.
I can't believe you'd want girls to compete against each other, what with injuries and all.
I can't believe you keep coming back here
Submitted by Radical1979 on Wed, 05/16/2012 - 10:14pm.
what with getting your behind kicked around all the time.
It's because your arguments
Submitted by balboa on Wed, 05/16/2012 - 10:24pm.
It's because your arguments are not very good. All I've heard is that if boys compete against girls, the girls might get hurt, and the boys will not show the girls the proper respect if they compete fully, and won't be able to compete fully if they show the girls the proper respect.
None of these are worth creating a school policy that results in the baseball team forfeiting a baseball game because of one girl.
When you run the school
Submitted by Radical1979 on Wed, 05/16/2012 - 10:26pm.
or have a child at the school, it will matter. Until then, the school followed it's policy. Again, why does a school having standards and following them bug you so much?
Because the policy doesn't
Submitted by balboa on Wed, 05/16/2012 - 10:42pm.
Because the policy doesn't seem necessary.
Well you should call the school
Submitted by Radical1979 on Wed, 05/16/2012 - 10:50pm.
and maybe even the Bishop, oh hell call the Pope and let him know. Because you, as a non-member of the school, or a non-parent of the kids, have no right to pass judgement on a religious institution.
It's a private school, bal.
Submitted by drsamherman on Wed, 05/16/2012 - 10:30pm.
It's their policy.
Your opinion of that policy is as worthless to them as it is to us.
But, as per liberals versus society, if ---
Submitted by matthewdean on Wed, 05/16/2012 - 10:59pm.
a policy is not formed, presented, and then implemented by them; or if said policy, regardless of who draws it up, does not conform explicitly to either their designs or wishes - then it is, ipso facto, not only worthless, but likely dangerous to the point of threatening civilization as we know it.
Bunch of damned fools, these libs.
MD
.
What would happen if . . .
Submitted by Galvanic on Tue, 05/15/2012 - 4:37pm.
. . . a high school girls' softball team showed up at a state championship game with a boy playing secondbase. And let's take it a step further -- the boy insists that he believes he is a girl in a male body (The "T" in LGBT).
Would Pierce blast the other team for refusing to play?
Only the left
Submitted by Radical1979 on Tue, 05/15/2012 - 5:21pm.
Can bash an organization for making a sacrifice to uphold what they believe in rather than pitching a fit.
So I'll pitch a little fit. It's unfair of girls to play in boys sports. If all teams were co-Ed few girls would have the opportunity to play, so girls have been allowed to compete in their own leagues. How selfish to invade the league of the boys.
They should get bashed...and I'm not on the left
Submitted by ckc1227 on Tue, 05/15/2012 - 6:31pm.
It was a stupid decision. And some of the lame responses here attempting to justify it only serve to make it appear even more stupid. If anything, they disrespected her even more with this decision.
Good evening ckc
Submitted by cocodrie on Tue, 05/15/2012 - 7:27pm.
I don't agree. The school has policy of not participating in co-ed sports. Why should they compromise their principles and policy?
Violating their own rules would give students the message that abandoning principle is OK if it advances your own personal desires.
Jesus Loves You so much He died for you
They didn't disrespect her
Submitted by Radical1979 on Tue, 05/15/2012 - 7:31pm.
She was a girl playing in a boy's league. When you do something like that what do you expect to happen?
This is Bizarro World
Submitted by motherbelt on Tue, 05/15/2012 - 7:45pm.
The school that fields a girl in a boys' league is the one who should have to "justify" it, not those who object!
This is liberal B as in B, S as in S. Do whatever the H you want and challenge others to "justify" why you shouldn't have your way in everything.
Only an injury lawyer
Submitted by CJohnson on Tue, 05/15/2012 - 6:13pm.
could promote such a stupid idea as girls versus boys sports.
Grantland sucks!
Submitted by NJRightWinger12 on Tue, 05/15/2012 - 6:13pm.
Its just another way for liberal ESPN to spout off their left winged sports views!
My Daughters
Submitted by Boudin on Tue, 05/15/2012 - 7:51pm.
Fast pitch softball team was forced to forfeit a game for having a student only prayer after the game. Even though about half of the opposing team participated. Seems the other team needed one more win to make the play-offs, and didnt care how they got it.
Fast pitch Softball is enough to give any girl or woman the challenge she wants.
Challenge Boudin*
Submitted by cajun2 on Tue, 05/15/2012 - 7:57pm.
Broken nose and broken fingers as well .....LOL
There are legitimate concerns from all sides
Submitted by gopcongress on Tue, 05/15/2012 - 8:01pm.
There are legitimate concerns from all sides. For instance, would a school not want to participate in a chess tournament with both males and females? Or student decathlons?
And don't forget Little League. They have been integrated since the 80's. There are even some teams with more girls than boys! Also, there are high school football teams with females as well. (One link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ONODmSEClUA)
But what it comes down to is a simplification of the "swimsuit rule," where if any contact can legally be made, such as a tag in baseball or a tackle in football, that would consist of handling or hitting any part of an opponent of the opposite sex in areas where their swimsuits (trunks for males, bikinis for females) cover, then that would constitute a breach per school rules.
It's really a shame, as I see the point from both positions. First, as an American who prefers everyone be judged on individual merit regardless of gender. If someone is good enough to make a team, then that person should be allowed to play.
On the other hand, I respect a school's right to allow their students to play team sports only against other men for reasons of their own morality.
The bottom line is that this is an issue for the high school federation to take up. The rule MUST be consistent from school to school so no ambiguity can ever pop up during the course of a season. Keep in mind it is not just the feelings or the morality of one team (or their school's) policies at stake; also at stake is the feelings of the other team from playing within the rules, yet having to win by forfeit because they justifiably don't want to hinder their chances. Keep in mind the female is a starting infielder for a championship-caliber baseball team who is most probably better than anyone on the bench at that position.
So a district- or federation-wide edict is needed from the get-go to negate any chance of this happening. This is truly a very sad dilemma, and frankly, one in which the school leadership had best take into consideration for future endeavors.
"The news and truth are not the same thing." -Walter Lippmann (1889-1974) FOLLOW ME ON TWITTER
Well put.
Submitted by balboa on Tue, 05/15/2012 - 8:04pm.
Well put.
Which school?
Submitted by Boudin on Tue, 05/15/2012 - 8:15pm.
The one getting wins for not playing, or the one who's kids lost due to no fault of their own?
Girls play softball, I doubt we would be hearing these arguments if some boys decided to play Vollyball?
Chess, student decathlons,
Submitted by lotr on Tue, 05/15/2012 - 9:05pm.
Chess, student decathlons, bowling, golf, scrabble, beach volleyball, etc.... these are not contact sports. That's where the rub is.
If I'm taught as a boy to go full bore against a girl playing, say, baseball, then I'm gonna go full bore. That includes aggressive playing such as blocking the plate, etc. That's what they mean by "proper boundaries can only be respected with difficulty." But furthermore, to achieve this, to actually compete without discriminating, the mentality of "not laying a hand on a girl/woman" goes out the window -- indeed, it has to go out the window if boys will be boys and wanna actually compete.
So, you're OK with the
Submitted by UpNorth on Wed, 05/16/2012 - 12:45am.
district or federation telling the school in question to throw away their principles, man-up and play a team with a female on it?
Which school leadership? I take it you aren't referring to Mesa H.S., right? So, we're back to OLS having to compromise their principles?
On Baseball
Submitted by truckinmann on Tue, 05/15/2012 - 8:09pm.
Not just a tag to an inappropriate spot is all they would worry about. The pitcher is more likely to not throw the ball as hard, or to try an inside pitch on a girl. A base runner is not likely to just run over top of her if she gets in the way trying to block a bag, or to slide with reckless abandon into any bag she may be covering. What about chatter? Does that have to be sexually tolerant? Is she required to wear a cup like all the boys do? Watching a girl run can be a hypnotic thing for a young man, and take his mind off of that throw coming right at his head from the outfield.
These rules need to be made apparent before a school joins these organizations. I don't know why everyone is whining anyway. The school decided to forfeit the game so the girls team wins anyway. Quit your bitchin' Pierce and get over it!
WOW
Submitted by balboa on Tue, 05/15/2012 - 8:15pm.
WOW
I always figure folks who insist their kids play
Submitted by Boudin on Tue, 05/15/2012 - 9:38pm.
The opposite sex sports, must of wished they had the other sex.
Once again, "insightful" commentary from blaboa
Submitted by Blonde on Wed, 05/16/2012 - 12:51am.
Doesn't his little "wow" just say it all?
Add to the convo......and enlighten you all to hell?
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
Actually Ms Blonde
Submitted by TempusFugit on Wed, 05/16/2012 - 1:28am.
I would say his "wow" was his best comment in the entire thread. It was his only post where he didn't look like a complete fool
You may have a point, TF
Submitted by Blonde on Wed, 05/16/2012 - 1:33am.
Of course, "complete fool" is blaboa's normal look on these boards.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
That's his definition of
Submitted by NC Cop on Wed, 05/16/2012 - 9:05am.
That's his definition of insight and counter arguments. Impressive, no?
I am sure Paige,
Submitted by Jer on Wed, 05/16/2012 - 12:14am.
her parents, and her teammates were enormously gratified by the profound respect she was accorded by Our Lady of Sorrows Academy [which curiously disregarded its own rules barring participation in co-ed sports by playing (and losing) two regular season contests against Mesa Prep--games which Paige chose to sit out].
However, if the heightened "risk of injury" argument--as advanced by several here--is valid, then...
Shame on the major league ball teams which disrespected one-handed pitcher Jim Abbott by not forfeiting the games he started. And shame on the basketball team which remained on the floor in a flagrant show of disrespect for the opposing team's autistic manager who suited up and played in the final game of the season (and scored 20 points, and was honored by President Bush, etc. etc.)
That said, Our Lady of Sorrows was certainly within its rights to enact and implement school policy as it saw fit and make decisions accordingly, even dumb ones like this.
Jer
I'm shocked, Jer.
Submitted by UpNorth on Wed, 05/16/2012 - 1:04am.
that you took away that Paige "chose" to sit out the two previous games, when the article is ambiguous, at best, over whether she "chose" to sit out those two games, or whether Mesa sat her down, on their own. OK, I'm not shocked.
Baum said he wishes Mesa Prep had been more consistent in its policy rather than sitting her in the regular-season games and insisting she play in the state championship. That would be Randy Baum, the director of the Arizona Charter Athletic Association.
And, she didn't play in the two previous games. And there's this, "Before the baseball season started, Our Lady of Sorrows asked all of its potential opponents if they had girls on their teams. At that point Mesa Preparatory did not -- Sultzbach came on board later -- so the religious school did not learn of her participation until the first time they played".
UpNorth
Submitted by TempusFugit on Wed, 05/16/2012 - 1:47am.
I gather that the young lady in question sat out the two previous games of her own accord:
"During Mesa Prep's two previous games with Our Lady of Sorrows, Paige didn't play out of respect for the opposing team's beliefs, but that wasn't going to be an option this time, Pamela said.
"We respected their school rule ... but she took it hard," Pamela said. "She didn't like it and neither did her teammates. They went out and played the best they could because they wanted to prove a point." "
Read more: http://www.azcentral.com/sports/preps/articles/2012/05/09/20120509school...
I'm shocked, UpNorth...
Submitted by Jer on Wed, 05/16/2012 - 2:00am.
that you consider at whose behest the decision was made--Paige, the coach, or the school--to be particularly significant. OK, I'm not shocked. Presumably, either the coach [or the school] asked her if she would be willing to sit out the game and she chose to do so, or they informed her of the decision which she could choose to abide by or quit the team. It appears she chose to sit out the games and remain on the team. But that issue is of little relevance unless Paige had been considering some form of legal recourse against Mesa.
I already noted that she didn't play in the previous games against Our Lady of Sorrows. I'm not sure why you are repeating that fact.
Regarding Baum's remark, do you really think it would have been fair for Mesa to tell Paige, who had been an integral part of the team for at least most of the year, that she would not be permitted to participate in the state championship [because OLoS Academy had too much "respect" for her]?
Jer
Fair?
Submitted by UpNorth on Wed, 05/16/2012 - 11:22am.
Life ain't fair, Jer. That's about all we'll agree on, yet again.
As for "the previous games", you seem to think that Paige was being the bigger guy by sitting voluntarily, I merely pointed out that it could be that Mesa sat her.
And, it would be significant as to whose idea it was to sit her. If it was Mesa, it would indicate that they knew OLS's stand on coed teams.
And, "do you really think it would have been fair for Mesa to tell Paige, who had been an integral part of the team for at least most of the year, that she would not be permitted to participate in the state championship"? How about if Mesa hadn't recruited her in the first place? I'm not that familiar with Title IX, as it pertains to equal opportunities to participate. I'm willing to admit that, not just utter one word responses, but, in my limited understanding of what's happened at schools I've worked at and volunteered at, if there wasn't an opportunity for Paige to play softball, shouldn't Mesa have done away with the baseball team? After all, there was no equal opportunity.
Title IX provides a number of
Submitted by balboa on Wed, 05/16/2012 - 11:50am.
Title IX provides a number of ways for schools to become compliant, one of which is the elimination of sports (which is why collegiate wrestling has nearly disappeared). At many high schools, if the equivalent sport isn't offered for a girl, then she can play on the boys' team.
Eliminating male sports is the easiest way to become compliant, which is why colleges do it. That doesn't seem to have happened as much at the high school level, for whatever reason.
Jer
Submitted by TempusFugit on Wed, 05/16/2012 - 1:22am.
"I am sure Paige her parents, and her teammates were enormously gratified by the profound respect she was accorded by Our Lady of Sorrows Academy [which curiously disregarded its own rules barring participation in co-ed sports by playing (and losing) two regular season contests against Mesa Prep--games which Paige chose to sit out]."
I'm guessing that Paige is the girl in question. If Paige was sitting out those games then Our Lady of Sorrows wasn't disregarding their own rules at that time, since technically Mesa wasn't co-ed when those games were played. No active girl on the squad means they aren't co-ed at the time in question.
"Shame on the major league ball teams which disrespected one-handed pitcher Jim Abbott by not forfeiting the games he started."
I wasn't aware that Jim Abbott is female. The argument was that girls could get hurt playing against boys. I stand corrected
Tempus...
Submitted by Jer on Wed, 05/16/2012 - 2:30am.
In my opinion, unless Paige had been formally dismissed from the squad she would still be a member and the team still technically "co-ed". But maybe that's putting too fine of a point on it.
As far as your closing comment, I thought the argument was predicated on the notion that girls would be more susceptible to injury. My reference to the two cases was meant to address this 'potential for injury' issue while illustrating that elevated risks are not necessarily tied to the sex of the participant.
Jer
Jer
Submitted by TempusFugit on Wed, 05/16/2012 - 3:13am.
From what I gather Our Lady of Sorrows took the position, and let Mesa know in no uncertain terms, that they would not play the games with a girl on the team. Mesa complied, whether Paige was coerced, or did so of her own free will, is unknown. So apparently Our Lady was satisfied that Mesa was no longer co-ed and played those 2 games. When it came to the championship game Paige dug in and refused to sit out, with results we all know.
Jim Abbott, as you must know but others here might not, was born with only one hand, his left. When he pitched he kept a glove to be worn on his left hand in his right armpit. His follow through put his left hand so close to the glove that he simply slipped it on his left hand while the batter was swinging. I believe he won at least one Gold Glove, for excellence in fielding, so my opinion would be that he'd be better able to defend himself than most pitchers with two hands. Other people than me made the arguments that Our Lady forfeited because they believed the (presumably) larger, stronger boys on their team might hurt the girl. I believe that might be the case if it came to brushback pitches, that a boy might be reluctant to brush a girl off the plate. But I think the refusal to play the game against a co-ed squad had more to do with simple biology: girls have different bodies than boys, and the administration doesn't want the boys to potentially touch parts of female anatomy that they shouldn't be. See my long argument with balboa for more info (if it doesn't put you to sleep.)
Anyway cheers and good night!
And to you as well...
Submitted by Jer on Wed, 05/16/2012 - 3:24am.
Jer
Thank you Our Lady of Sorrows
Submitted by kellyjack on Wed, 05/16/2012 - 1:10pm.
Thank you Our Lady of Sorrows for standing on principle. People visit this site thats stated goal is too combat liberal bias and then sound like the panel from "The view" because it dose'nt agree with them. It has no bearing at all on whether she is competitive in baseball or not.
Women don't need to be in the locker room after the game, they don't need to be on the front line with a Marine/Army infantry unit or playing on teams that are all boys, even if (some) can physically do the job. If you want it that way then totally open the Girls sports up for open try-outs and let the best player win.
Good evening kelly
Submitted by cocodrie on Wed, 05/16/2012 - 1:21pm.
Amen to that.
Jesus Loves You so much He died for you
Thankfully there are tons of
Submitted by balboa on Wed, 05/16/2012 - 1:39pm.
Thankfully there are tons of female athletes who disagree. Some of the best female athletes ever started out as young kids playing against the guys. Doesn't happen as much now because there are so many more opportunities for girls to play sports.
And what principle would that be?
Submitted by Jer on Wed, 05/16/2012 - 7:22pm.
That the fairer but weaker sex best not intrude upon the manly endeavors associated with hitting, catching, throwing and fielding a ball lest the close proximity to--indeed, the active involvement in--such brute and sweaty physicality should induce a case of the vapors? Oh my!
The principle--barring coed participation--has been in steep decline for the past forty years, the commencement of which [at the time] had been only recently preceded by the demise of a somewhat related principle that disposed southern football Caucasian powerhouses to refuse to take the field against opponents with Negroes on their rosters. That stand was likewise applauded by many for its fidelity to the noble principle of separation of the races. It left with the wind of change blowing through the New South.
Our Lady of Sorrows may not be subject to Title IX nor in contravention of its requirements even if within its purview, but the Academy's philosophical position was clear enough and would hardly have been compromised by playing the championship game. Its forfeiture was an act of patronizing disrespect, churlish and petty, and although it may win them praise from some quarters in the short run, I think the longer view will not be especially favorable--even among the school's own players.
Jer
➚ Title IX
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Wed, 05/16/2012 - 7:31pm.
Eliminating Title IX would be a great idea. Since being female is the same as being black, as far as physical ability goes.
Certainly don't want to be churlish.
The one thing I don't like
Submitted by balboa on Wed, 05/16/2012 - 7:50pm.
The one thing I don't like about Title IX is how colleges have implemented it, mostly by cutting men's sports. But I think it's great how many girls are playing sports. It has lead to growthin club sports in college, too.
Title IX scam
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Wed, 05/16/2012 - 7:55pm.
Do big football schools still offer scholarships to novice female rowers in order to offset their bloated male rosters?
Hard to say. Many rowers come
Submitted by balboa on Wed, 05/16/2012 - 8:20pm.
Hard to say. Many rowers come into college as novices because there isn't a whole lot of high school rowing in the US.
Women's lacrosse is one of the fastest growing DI sports in the US because teams carry large rosters.
➚ That's the point
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Wed, 05/16/2012 - 8:26pm.
Rowing was brought in after Title IX for the purpose of maintaining a program that is low-cost, and requires very little by way of perishable equipment
Same with lacrosse. Colleges
Submitted by balboa on Wed, 05/16/2012 - 8:32pm.
Same with lacrosse. Colleges already have the field if they play soccer.
Yep that's why I sent my daughter to college
Submitted by Radical1979 on Wed, 05/16/2012 - 8:32pm.
to play sports.
? Point being?
Submitted by balboa on Wed, 05/16/2012 - 8:35pm.
?
Point being?
The absurdity of this statement by bal
Submitted by TempusFugit on Wed, 05/16/2012 - 9:40pm.
is beyond the comprehension of normal thinking human beings. The King of the fallacy and one sentence response to a complex argument is mocking someone for not proving their point to his satisfaction. That's like Bill O'Reilly telling someone "stop interrupting me!"
Shhh.
Submitted by balboa on Wed, 05/16/2012 - 9:44pm.
Shhh.
So women and men, boys and girls,
Submitted by Radical1979 on Wed, 05/16/2012 - 8:50pm.
will compete on the same teams. Because males are generally stronger and faster the number of women playing sports will decline until relatively few are allowed to play.
➚ Full circle, Rad
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Wed, 05/16/2012 - 9:01pm.
You knocked it out of the park.
Put a boy and a girl onto a wrestling mat, and the boy has everything to lose, and nothing to gain.
OK, unless they snuck into the gym at night.
While being more accepted,
Submitted by balboa on Wed, 05/16/2012 - 9:05pm.
While being more accepted, coed athletics aren't very common except in adult rec leagues. So we'll never reach the point you described.
Correct, Rad.
Submitted by SickofLibs on Wed, 05/16/2012 - 9:08pm.
And perhaps we can turn this to our advantage by labeling this "The Liberal War on Sporty Girls and Wussified Guys"
SoL
Submitted by Radical1979 on Wed, 05/16/2012 - 9:10pm.
Why bring Rachel Maddow and Obama into this? ;-)
Rad...this discussion could easily explode into a debate
Submitted by Jer on Wed, 05/16/2012 - 10:41pm.
over the reach and wisdom of Title IX, the role of gender in the workplace, women in the military, etc.--any of which could produce a 300-comment thread.
I hope to limit my further remarks, if any, to the practical aspects of Our Lady of Sorrows policy, and the reasonableness of the forfeiture.
But, for those interested in a fairly comprehensive analysis of the historical and legal origins, development, and the common applications of Title IX--specifically with respect to girls and baseball--I'll be back shortly with a link.
Jer
Here. [Scroll to p. 17 for chapter on baseball]
Jer
Submitted by Radical1979 on Wed, 05/16/2012 - 10:46pm.
For me this is about one school which does not participate in co-ed baseball. When presented with playing against a co-ed team, they chose to forfeit instead, because it was against their principles. I don't know why some people are getting so upset about it.
Do those of you who are bothered by this feel as upset about the muslim girls who staged an all girl prom because they don't believe in dating, showing their hair to the opposite sex, etc?
Protecting their boys from girl-germs
Submitted by cocodrie on Wed, 05/16/2012 - 10:52pm.
Protecting their boys from girl-germs is a good enough reason if you need a reason for not participating in co-ed sports. What is it about you liberals that you can't let people live their lives as they see fit? It's a private religious school, leave them alone. If they're happy forfieting a game let them do it in peace.
Jesus Loves You so much He died for you
The Our Lady of Sorrows flap
Submitted by TempusFugit on Wed, 05/16/2012 - 11:30pm.
To me there are two issues at play here. One is that I'm worried that people might start thinking that government intervention is needed. Someone might decide to start suing schools that won't play against co-ed teams. Or some state legislature might make laws that say that all schools must participate in co-ed sports, or they won't be allowed to play any team sports. Number two, and most important, I think any organization, or individual, should be allowed to make a moral choice and not fear ridicule for it. Our Lady was called stupid and dumb, both here and in comments elsewhere, for standing by their principles. I have a rule that I won't kiss any woman who is not my wife, even if it was as innocent as standing under mistletoe at a Christmas party. I'd be deeply offended if someone said "hey that rule of yours is stupid!" It's my rule and I live up to it. Our Lady of Sorrows has a rule and they live up to it, and no one should call them dumb and stupid for it
coco...
Submitted by Jer on Wed, 05/16/2012 - 11:32pm.
Please note in my very first post I acknowledged the school was perfectly within its rights. But I in return am perfectly entitled to criticize the decision. And your "cooties" justification makes me all the more comfortable with my opinion.
Jer
A question, cocodrie, that libs either cannot, or will not ---
Submitted by matthewdean on Wed, 05/16/2012 - 11:39pm.
answer:
"What is it about you liberals that you can't let people live their lives as they see fit?"
MD
Which, coincidentally,
Submitted by Jer on Thu, 05/17/2012 - 12:02am.
is virtually the same question gays have been asking conservatives for years.
Jer
As do most lefties, Jer, you miss the point; that being ---
Submitted by matthewdean on Thu, 05/17/2012 - 1:24am.
that homosexuals are not satisfied with keeping their sexual lives to themselves - they flaunt their difference(s), then get bent out of shape when heterosexuals don't adhere to their demands to be accepted, respected, and even venerated - treated as you super socially conscious libs do, ad nauseam.
When the poofters and the manly women crossed over into demanding how they are to be perceived by those not so inclined, their contention that they 'only' want to live their lives in the "live and let live" mode, pretty much turned out to be nothing more than fairy dust and flatulence.
MD