Better idea? Don't give in to the fucking sexists by benching girls. LET THEM FORFEIT. If all the schools with mixed-sex sports teams did this, the sexists would either have to play them, or substantially get shut out of sports. Catering to that kind of nonsense is utterly unacceptable.
Let the Sexists Forfeit
Better idea? Don't give in to the fucking sexists by benching girls. LET THEM FORFEIT. If all the schools with mixed-sex sports teams did this, the sexists would either have to play them, or substantially get shut out of sports. Catering to that kind of nonsense is utterly unacceptable.
-
Character notes for "Good Food Choices Are Good Investments"
These are the character notes for "Good Food Choices Are Good Investments." Penina Trueblood -- She has tawny-fair skin, blue eyes,…
-
Poem: "Good Food Choices Are Good Investments"
This poem is spillover from the May 4, 2021 Poetry Fishbowl. It was inspired by prompts from chanter1944, technoshaman, and Anonymous. It…
-
Poem: "Who Can Create the Future"
This poem is spillover from the May 4, 2021 Poetry Fishbowl. It was inspired by prompts from chanter1944, technoshaman, and Anonymous. It…
-
Character notes for "Good Food Choices Are Good Investments"
These are the character notes for "Good Food Choices Are Good Investments." Penina Trueblood -- She has tawny-fair skin, blue eyes,…
-
Poem: "Good Food Choices Are Good Investments"
This poem is spillover from the May 4, 2021 Poetry Fishbowl. It was inspired by prompts from chanter1944, technoshaman, and Anonymous. It…
-
Poem: "Who Can Create the Future"
This poem is spillover from the May 4, 2021 Poetry Fishbowl. It was inspired by prompts from chanter1944, technoshaman, and Anonymous. It…
Yes...
January 17 2012, 17:59:15 UTC 9 years ago
and this adversely impacts their future.<<
So it does. And that penalty should fall on the sexists, not on the girls. Their prejudice should cost them something. They shouldn't fob off the cost on other people.
January 17 2012, 18:22:15 UTC 9 years ago
but...
Well, let us suppose the woman in question is pregnant,
and miscarriages subsequent to a tackle.
In some states, the players who tackled her
could be charged with a felony.
If I were a coach, I would be hesitant
to expose my players to that risk.
January 17 2012, 18:36:30 UTC 9 years ago
We have a strongly ingrained cultural idea of football as something that only boys can do, so we come up with excuses why only boys can do it. And that isn't right. If a teenage girl can play on a field hockey team or participate in a martial arts tournament, then she can play football just fine.
January 17 2012, 18:52:42 UTC 9 years ago
Namecalling in football is very different from namecalling in other sports;
in football, you use it to draw an opposing line offsides,
or to provoke an unsportsmanlike conduct call,
when you need the penalty.
Yes, women can play football,
but there are a number of points that must not be left to solve themselves.
I've only mentioned two of many "worst-case-scenario" possibilities;
if either of those were to actually occur,
the whole idea of women playing football, and of equality in general,
will be set back substantially.
It's good to stand up for equality,
but before you do, be certain of your footing.
January 17 2012, 19:20:24 UTC 9 years ago
But I think that allowing unlikely, alarmist worst-case scenarios to dissuade us from making changes would mean that nothing would ever change. It is always possible to come up with bad things that could happen if we enfranchise a whole group of people, because any group of people is large and diverse and yes, some of them probably will use their newfound freedom in unwise ways. But these possible, hypothetical consequences have to be weighed against the consequences of failing to enfranchise those people -- the very real, present, negative consequences to them now.
January 17 2012, 20:03:35 UTC 9 years ago
I'm a cautious incrimentalist,
and willing to take risks,
but never urge others to move forward
if I'm not certain they can do so safely.
Even though I think the two possiblities I cite
are reasonable concerns, I don't object to a young woman playing football,
but I can't argue on her behalf in good conscience
unless/until I'm reasonably certain regarding those points.
January 17 2012, 20:37:05 UTC 9 years ago
January 17 2012, 20:55:50 UTC 9 years ago
to draw me offsides...
:)
Well...
January 18 2012, 08:47:29 UTC 9 years ago
Re: Well...
January 18 2012, 15:02:26 UTC 9 years ago
I mean the possibility of other players
being sued for things they would normally do.
I'm repeating myself here,
but I think I should:
I'm not opposed to women playing football,
either in this instance or in general,
but I think anyone who supports the idea
must be aware of the two concerns I've raised,
because they are possible, and if they did occur,
it would be a serious setback.
But more imporantly, they are legitimate concerns,
and so long as prejudiced people can raise legitimate concerns
to support their prejudices, it lends legitimacy to their prejudices.
In the name-calling example,
I chose the word "pussy" because it IS something football players call each other,
and it's something a female player might construe as sexual harrassment.
So, other than reminding us that we knew playing football
involves risk, how do you intend to address this concern?
Likewise, if a few players find themselves facing felony charges
in a spontaneaous miscarriage case,
what consolation will you offer them?
You mentioned the Red Tails recently.
When Eleanor Roosevelt insisted that they be given combat assignments,
she knew that if they failed, she, personally, would have to explain
to the parents of the lost bomber crews, to the War Department,
and to the Republicans in Congress, why she had thought it was a good idea.
She didn't simply say that black men could fly,
and didn't simply circulate a petition to that effect.