Keep girls on girls' teams

bij · Post by **bij** » Sat Sep 23, 2006 4:19 pm

ronjeremy wrote:if these 2 girls make the team, can the 2 boys that will have been cut be allowed to try out for the girls team? or do they have to sit out a season?

It is a two way street...yeah, they will be allowed to play on girl's team

ronjeremy wrote: i just hope they don't cry and try to sue if they dont make the team.

A whole different issue all together...

bij · Post by **bij** » Sat Sep 23, 2006 4:22 pm

Another issue, do you think the selection process will be fair with all of the media attention surrounding this? Do you think the coaches have already decided, one way or the other, already?

MUSKEG · Post by **MUSKEG** » Sat Sep 23, 2006 4:25 pm

bij. I have absolutely no problem with your statements as long as you can do the job at hand. I was a firefighter just as the push for equal hiring was started. Most in my class were above average in size. Do you think you can drag my unconcious ass up 1 set of stairs. I was 6 3 and 260lbs in gear. I didn't think so. We saw how Haley Whickenhiser faired in a semipro league. Case closed. Would you step in a boxing ring with a pro light weight boxer and be close, no. Can you drive a race car, absolutely, the men are almost all below average in build. You can weight lift all you want but you will never lift what a man your size with as much training as you have will. You don't have to prove you are equal, you already are. You are better at some things and we are better at others.

bij · Post by **bij** » Sat Sep 23, 2006 4:59 pm

but they aren't trying out for the pro's, it's high school sports...and I doubt I could even drag my own sorry ass out of a burning building

TopperHarley · Post by **TopperHarley** » Sat Sep 23, 2006 5:39 pm

I read an article in the Winnipeg Free Press today about these two pretty cute hockey players. Apparently they were both awarded $3500 each for damage to their dignity! We'll find out Tuesday whether they made the team or not. If they get cut, I wonder if they will sue again? But like I said, they're pretty cute.

MUSKEG · Post by **MUSKEG** » Sat Sep 23, 2006 5:46 pm

Wow, If I got 3500.00 every time my dignity was bruised by life I wouldn't have to work anymore.

water wings · Post by **water wings** » Sat Sep 23, 2006 6:09 pm

there is an old saying : "pick your battles"
to me, girls getting on a hockey team designated for boys seems a huge waste of energy. Energy that could have been spent on developing a girls league. I believe that certain tasks, require a certain ability. Like Fire fighting, for example: someting i think is totally cool. Fire fighters are required to do a certain amount of lifting, hauling, smashing, bashing, ladder climbing, the works. Me, at 5'11", 160 lbs, and a regular at the gym, think that i MIGHT be able to pull it off. BUT if i can't, i should not be able to get the job just because i wanted to. BUT, you bet i should get the job if i could do all of the required duties and should not be discriminated against just because i was (wait - still am) female. So, even though i can lift more than some girls, and more than some guys, i may not be able to fulfill certain duties. I can haul barrels and lift generators into planes and have done so.
SO what the hell am i saying? base important shit, like job skills, on the individual, not the gender - a novel concept, really....
however, back to the kids hockey team
As far as them getting on a "boys" team, well.... if some dude hoser got on my "womens'" team, i'd be pissed. Have a mixed team and have at 'er... but, pick your battles kids... hockey isn't an important one, in my opinion.
Get equal treatment in so far as skills ... Some people can do certain things, some can't - regardless of X or Y
The NHL doesn't have a 'men only' subtitle, then, yeah, any woman who wants to, should try out, but follow any rule previously held by the NHL. Wow, i can't believe i just talked about hockey. retarded. hey, Tie Domi is a commentator? WTF?

Doc · Post by **Doc** » Sat Sep 23, 2006 6:19 pm

C-HRIS....CUTE????? Man, you've been in YTH WAY too long!!!!

TopperHarley · Post by **TopperHarley** » Sat Sep 23, 2006 6:24 pm

Doc wrote:C-HRIS....CUTE????? Man, you've been in YTH WAY too long!!!!

Either that or your standards are WAY too high

politically_incorrect · Sat Sep 23, 2006 6:31 pm

bij wrote:It is a two way street...yeah, they will be allowed to play on girl's team

I'm not sure how you say that with such certainty. The adjudicator said that the ruling specifically applies to hockey only. She made no comment about boys trying out for the girls' team. The MHSAA is currently studying that possibility as one of the considerations for whether or not to appeal the ruling.

the_professor · Post by **the_professor** » Sat Sep 23, 2006 6:39 pm

Something else to think about... Was this really a "human rights" issue? Does this really qualify as something that should be taken to a panel that was created in order to deal with things like employers not hiring people of a certain ethnic background, or for people who were being persecuted for certain beliefs.

Seems pretty petty to be consuming the panel's time with something as stupid as two girls to play on a boys hockey team.

If we only had *real* problems to worry about in this country... Women in Afghanistan are still trying to get out from under the burka. I would be embarrassed for them to hear about this B.S.

bij · Post by **bij** » Sat Sep 23, 2006 6:48 pm

the_professor wrote:If we only had *real* problems to worry about in this country... Women in Afghanistan are still trying to get out from under the burka. I would be embarrassed for them to hear about this B.S.

Well put. The only difference is that I think this hockey thing is not an issue for society on a whole, it was simply two girls who wanted something they were told they couldn't have. Nothing more. The outcome will not affect you or me in the least bit. Our lives change in no way, and it is not a *problem*, real or imagined, for our society. It is nothing more than a social interest news story.

the_professor · Post by **the_professor** » Sat Sep 23, 2006 7:04 pm

bij wrote:
the_professor wrote:If we only had *real* problems to worry about in this country... Women in Afghanistan are still trying to get out from under the burka. I would be embarrassed for them to hear about this B.S.
Well put. The only difference is that I think this hockey thing is not an issue for society on a whole, it was simply two girls who wanted something they were told they couldn't have. Nothing more. The outcome will not affect you or me in the least bit. Our lives change in no way, and it is not a *problem*, real or imagined, for our society. It is nothing more than a social interest news story.

Will it affect me directly? Not really. But we are a long way down the slippery slope that has been created by all these incremental decisions, all of which serve to try and mould a society that is ridiculously politically correct. And that eventually affects everyone.

Men and women, and different races for that matter, have unique qualities and abilities, but we are not all equal. If we were all truly equal, we'd be a bunch of hermaphrodites with the same skin colour, same height, same intelligence, same build, and same motivations and desires.

As much as some people (like those who sit on the human rights panel) may want to try and live in, or create, a fairy tale world where all is equal, it is totally unrealistic. And unnecessary for that matter.

bij · Post by **bij** » Sat Sep 23, 2006 8:09 pm

professor:

I completely agree with you. I would never want to live in a world that would be that way...I enjoy our differences on all levels, and would never want for all humanity to be seen as the same.

With that said, I also don't ever want to be told that I can not be a part of something simply based on gender. Tell me I can't be a fire fighter because I don't have the strength,or tell me i can't play hockey because I suck at it, but don't tell me that these options are closed to me simply based on my gender, race or creed. I think this case is somewhat unique in so far that IF the school didn't already have a girls hockey team, they would have been playing on the boys team anyways. There are communities all across Canada without seperate leagues and if the girl's can make the cut then they play. If not, they don't, case closed.

Chantal · Post by **Chantal** » Sat Sep 23, 2006 11:34 pm

Why should only (men) be allowed to play in the top leagues and make millions of dollars???

Not all guys on the hockey team are hitters

North Shore · Post by **North Shore** » Sun Sep 24, 2006 12:00 am

A couple of points.

Now that this decision has been handed down, would any self-respecting boy ever try out for the girl's team?? Man, a recipe for merciless taunting if it were to happen.

Do they get to share the locker room and showers too? I'm with C-HRIS on this - I'd certainly take a shower with them! (Pending the approval of the missus, of course!)

WRT car racing, it's really surprising that more women aren't driving at a top level. Teams will spend millions on R&D for parts made of unobtanium and carbon fiber to shave a few pounds here and there, and yet when it comes to drivers, they hire fat bastards like Paul Tracy to drive when they could recruit a 120lb woman, and increase their power-to-weight-ratio that way.

w squared · Post by **w squared** » Sun Sep 24, 2006 7:43 am

Chantal wrote:Why should only (men) be allowed to play in the top leagues and make millions of dollars???

Not all guys on the hockey team are hitters

Um...maybe you should go back to talking about the pope, Chantal. Women have been making inroads into men's sports in the past decade. Manon Rheaume? Hayley Wickenheiser? Anneke Sorrenstam? I can name those three off the top of my head, and I'm not even close to being a hockey or golf fan.

One other thing that I would mention is that not all the players on a hockey team hit...but they all will GET hit at some point. Regardless of their gender. If a woman wants to play in a men's league, she had better be prepared to play at the same level and take the same hits.

When I played minor hockey, during one season, we had two girls on our team. It simply wasn't an issue. There wasn't a girl's league, and they wanted to play, so they played on a guy's team. Once we had our pads on, there was no apparent difference. Of course, I was in grade four at the time, so there was little or no difference in our physical sizes or strengths.

When I was in high school, there was a girl that insisted in trying out for the football team every year. She was allowed to every year, and then failed to make the team every year. She was a good athelete, and vey fit...but she also weighed about 120 pounds. The urge to do what she was told she couldn't or shouldn't blinded her to the simple fact that she wasn't even close to weighing enough to effectively play on a team made up of guys that ranged from 160 to 260 pounds.

When it comes to things more serious than hockey, we need to bear in mind that there may be things at risk that are more important than someone's sense of injustice.

If I'm in a burning building, I don't care what the ratio of women to men is in the fire department that's arriving on scene...I just want the strongest, most qualified firefighters possible. If one or more of those people happens to be woman, that's fine...but in the blind rush to make traditional "male" jobs accessible to women, the selection and assessment process has been skewed.

In the military as well, standards are different. Women and men who have the same job are held to different standards. The mandatory fitness testing has two different levels written into it. More than that, the institutional pressure to have more "qualified" female soldiers in operational units has led to pressure being applied to the officers that make deicisions within the schools that train our soldiers and leaders. This pressure means that failures which would be fatal to the career of a male soldier are overlooked or swept under the carpet in the press to have women succeed.

Not only does this mean that soldiers and leaders who can't meet the standard are allowed to proceed, it undermines the accomplishment of those women that can meet the standard. Everywhere they go, their competence is called into question...not because there is a perception that women don't belong, but because there is a history of political pressure causing women who can't do the job to have their failings overlooked.

Essentially, I'm saying that if we're going to have equality, we should have actual equality...not a system that is designed to promote women out of proportion with their abilities because it makes people feel good.

Doc · Post by **Doc** » Sun Sep 24, 2006 7:47 am

Never could figure out why girls wanted to be boys? Not very "PC" of me, buy I dont GARA!
Cant see many boys wanting to try out for the girl's team. And that's pretty dumb. Afterall, that IS where the really "hot" chicks are! hehehehe

BTD · Post by **BTD** » Sun Sep 24, 2006 8:28 am

Wow, this is so pointless.

I'm just waiting for the time when some women are going to the human rights board because they aren't included when a bunch of guy friends get together to go to the bar without their significant others.

Not to redirect the conversation but it kind of parallels all this hype about the current Survivor, which I don't watch.

Who cares if people are seperated by race. It is a fact of life that the world has a number of different races. One is not better than the other and they are given equal opportunities on the show. I doubt there would be as much hype if they seperated the teams based on who has a shoe size over 10 and who has a size under 10.

I'm all for equality, but we are not all the same, and to pretend we are is really going to screw up society years down the road.

BTD

LT · Post by LT » Sun Sep 24, 2006 8:59 am

bij wrote: Have you ever been told you couldn't do something you really wanted to do just because of what hangs between your legs?

YES, I can't play on the GIRLS TEAM...

I can't play on the special olympics.......

LT · Post by LT » Sun Sep 24, 2006 9:11 am

w squared wrote:
When I was in high school, there was a girl that insisted in trying out for the football team every year. She was allowed to every year, and then failed to make the team every year. She was a good athelete, and vey fit...but she also weighed about 120 pounds. The urge to do what she was told she couldn't or shouldn't blinded her to the simple fact that she wasn't even close to weighing enough to effectively play on a team made up of guys that ranged from 160 to 260 pounds.

Aren't most punters little guys?
Aren't a few running backs little guys?
Don't we have a few little QB's?

Surely they could have found her a task. Oh well... Atleast she didn't sue.

BTD · Post by **BTD** » Sun Sep 24, 2006 9:29 am

LT wrote: Surely they could have found her a task.

I don't mean to be argumentative here, but this is where the problem lies. They shouldn't have had to find anything for her. If she can play at the same level as everyone else for sure give her a place on the team because of her skill.

Otherwise nobody should be found a task on any team (male or female).

I admire her for going back and trying over and over though, never give up.

LT · Post by LT » Sun Sep 24, 2006 9:41 am

BTD wrote:
LT wrote: Surely they could have found her a task.
I don't mean to be argumentative here, but this is where the problem lies. They shouldn't have had to find anything for her. If she can play at the same level as everyone else for sure give her a place on the team because of her skill.

Otherwise nobody should be found a task on any team (male or female).

I admire her for going back and trying over and over though, never give up.

I didn't mean a pity task or something of sorts, W2 was saying that she was 120 and the other guys were 160+, surely a girl with low weight could run faster then some of them, or toss the ball as far as them(don't see what weight would do with that) and also punt or play for the special teams, and kick in field goals...

I mean, sure if she got sacked or tackled she'd probably be dying but if that was the criteria on the coaches mind, that shouldn't count... She could have been the toss her in 1 time chick that gets the first down and goes off in a stretcher..

Like I said, surely she could have been good at something, or was it "nope, not a good linebacker, phuck off."

Hotel Tango · Post by **Hotel Tango** » Sun Sep 24, 2006 9:43 am

Chantal wrote:Why should only (men) be allowed to play in the top leagues and make millions of dollars???

The "top" leagues are not gender specific. I'm going to be politically incorrect here and just come out and state the truth. There just haven't been any women good enough to. Some have tried but none have suceeded. yet

I think these girls are hurting female athletes more than they are helping. By fighting for an equal oportunity to play on the "boys" hockey team they are going to essentially make all the teams unisex and the reality is, if men and women are trying out for the same team, it's going to be almost 100% men. Women/girls have fought so hard and so long for an opportunity to have a team or their own so they can participate in the sports they enjoy just like the men do. Now in one single act of vanity/selfishness/egotism (Oh you'd agree if you actually heard these girls talk on the news) they have ruined all the progress that female athletes have made in creating a place where they can play too. Now there will just be a "Hockey Team" and not a girls or boys team.
What happens to all the other girls who want to play?

One of them is a goalie, she may do ok. The other is a defenseperson, i'm sorry but a 200 pound forward coming in on a break is just going to run her over, i don't care how fast, agile or skilled she is, physics will win.

These girls are just a bunch of whiny little brats. They put down the entire girls hockey team and basically said that the (other) girls are not good enough for them. Now when they get cut from the boys team should they be allowed back into the girls team? They aren't even that good, nobody even knew who they are before this whole incident. And if they are sooooooo good why, WHY, WHY! were they awarded a private hockey coach as part of the settlement?

In the end i don't even really blame these two (extremely annoying) girls. I blame the female "role models" around them. If you saw/heard any of the press conferences then you'd see that it's these feminazi lawyers and activists around them, playing up to the cameras that are probably putting this all in their heads. They're probably not even old/mature enough to really understand the long term effects they will have on female athletics and how much they are hurting the movement to get more funding and more attention paid to girls teams at the high school and university levels. You think with the budget cuts at high schools and universities that they won't eventually realize that "HEY! I only have to fund one team. I'll put all of our small and shrinking budget into the more popular and profitable team (the mens) and the women/girls who get left behind and deprived of a place to play can just try out for the men/boys team!" Give it a couple of years.

and to end this rant...
IT'S NOT A HOCKEY TEAM! IT'S A BOYS HOCKEY TEAM! Why can't we have anything of our own anymore? There are girls teams, even all girls gyms (so I have to drive farther instead of using the one down the street because of my gender). But if there was anything that was specifically for men we have violated someones human rights. If women can play in the PGA, then there shouldn't be a LPGA. Let them all play together and let their performance sort them out!

Keep girls on girls' teams

Re: Keep girls on girls' teams