Boy will get suspended if he joins girls bowling team

[moshquerade]

Originally posted by: deepred98

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: zendari
Feminists don't want equality.

Great thinking, zendari. Has it occurred to you that there are very good reasons for female only sports competition>

In general, males are physically bigger and stronger than females, and typically, they outperform females. A few very gifted females may be able to compete on a par with males. Michelle Wie is a good example. She's 6' tall, 150 lbs., 16 years old, and she drives the ball further than most guys.

I see no problem with allowing females to enter any competition where they can compete on at the level of males.

The opposite is not necessarily a viable condition. Allowing all males to enter events where their physical size and strength would give them an advantage that would deprive almost all females of any place to compete, at all.

It has nothing to do with "feminists." It has everything to do with providing fair competion for everyone, especially in a scholastic environment.

soooo... men are better than females

i'm sure your argument, however true, would spark some hard criticism form feminists

only fem-nazis would argue that women are equal to men on all levels.
i, for one, realize men are generally stronger physically than women.
that's life. that's how we are built. that's what nature intended.

 

[rahvin]

Strength, size, amount of testoserone in your blood or even the size, shape or location of your genitallia would have no effect on bowling. NONE. How would you explain that a majority of male bowlers are frequently overweight and couldn't run 10' without getting winded. In professional bowling competitions women score on exactly the same level as men and they aren't using shorter lanes or smaller pins. There is NO legitimate reason to seperate the sexes in a competition in which men and women compete equally and bowling is one of those competitions.

This is just so damned silly it's not even funny, especially the threat that he would be suspended if he even attended try-outs.

 

[kogase]

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: kogase

So should they get rid of weight classes in boxing? After all, that's... WEIGHT DISCRIMINATION <insert Dragnet theme>. In different sports, lines are drawn in different places. In many sports that line is drawn between different sexes. Bowling doesn't seem like a sport that needs a line, but whatever. The kid just sounds like somebody who wants to hammer home a petty little point. If he was really dead set on bowling he could join a real bowling team, but no, he's actually at it to pull the gender card. Lame.

If size and strength was a huge issue in sports like golf, as harvey claimed, we'd have weight classes in golf as well. Clearly it is not.

Personally I think a private league or organization should disciminate to their heart's content but while we have these feelgood discrimination laws they should be followed.

Uh, yeah, yeah. Of course if you look at the letter of the law, the kid has a point. But like I was saying, it's quite petty. And like moshquerade said, even if the kid is right he's still just being a little bitch. He is simply trying to prove a petty little point, and you support him whole-heartedly in his miserable little endeavor. To paraphrase The Simpsons: "One person can make a difference, but, well... most of the time he probably shouldn't."

 

[moshquerade]

Originally posted by: rahvin
Strength, size, amount of testoserone in your blood or even the size, shape or location of your genitallia would have no effect on bowling. NONE. How would you explain that a majority of male bowlers are frequently overweight and couldn't run 10' without getting winded. In professional bowling competitions women score on exactly the same level as men and they aren't using shorter lanes or smaller pins. There is NO legitimate reason to seperate the sexes in a competition in which men and women compete equally and bowling is one of those competitions.

This is just so damned silly it's not even funny, especially the threat that he would be suspended if he even attended try-outs.

i am going to call you on that, and please feel free to prove me wrong, but i believe that men do score higher in bowling, professional and amateur, on the whole.

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: zendari
Personally I think a private league or organization should disciminate to their heart's content but while we have these feelgood discrimination laws they should be followed.

Your record or consecutive moronic posts continues . . . .

By your reasoning, since it's well accepted that precocious teenagers are sometimes allowed to compete with the pros, then we should get rid of all age barriers and let adult men (who aren't good enough to be pros) compete on little-league teams. Similarly, if some precocious 7-year-old is good enough to compete in the 12-15 age-group chess league, then 12-15 year-olds should be allowed to compete in the 6-7 age-group chess league.

Another wonderful consequence of your great system is that men would get 95% of the college athletic scholarship, since athletic scholarships are awarded on the basis of merit. Not to mention that female professional sports would cease to exist, since most of the players would be men.

Let's stop being petty and accept what's actually going on here: Occasionally, an athelete (I'm being general here) is so superior to others in the same "category" that he/she wants to "play up" and test him/herself against even better competition. Typically, the organization that sponsors the "higher" group (the PGA, for example) is not required to allow the person from the "lower" category access. But in the spirit of good sportsmanship, the "higher" organzation often does. Does anyone REALLY have a problem with this sort of situation? If I were a male golf pro, and Annika Sorenstam (a MUCH better golfer than Michelle Wie, by the way) wanted to test her mettle against me and others in the PGA, what's the problem? But what on earth would be the motivation to make a special exemption and let someone "play down"? Does anyone REALLY think allowing a rare talent to "play up" requires us to allow anyone who wants to "play down"?

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: kogase

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: kogase

So should they get rid of weight classes in boxing? After all, that's... WEIGHT DISCRIMINATION <insert Dragnet theme>. In different sports, lines are drawn in different places. In many sports that line is drawn between different sexes. Bowling doesn't seem like a sport that needs a line, but whatever. The kid just sounds like somebody who wants to hammer home a petty little point. If he was really dead set on bowling he could join a real bowling team, but no, he's actually at it to pull the gender card. Lame.

If size and strength was a huge issue in sports like golf, as harvey claimed, we'd have weight classes in golf as well. Clearly it is not.

Personally I think a private league or organization should disciminate to their heart's content but while we have these feelgood discrimination laws they should be followed.

Uh, yeah, yeah. Of course if you look at the letter of the law, the kid has a point. But like I was saying, it's quite petty. And like moshquerade said, even if the kid is right he's still just being a little bitch. He is simply trying to prove a petty little point, and you support him whole-heartedly in his miserable little endeavor. To paraphrase The Simpsons: "One person can make a difference, but, well... most of the time he probably shouldn't."

So when do we "look at the letter of the law" and when do we not? When liberals say so?

Keep women out of men's sports leagues and you might have a point.

Of course when Annika fails on the PGA she is a hero, and if a guy does that he is petty.

 

[moshquerade]

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: kogase

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: kogase

So should they get rid of weight classes in boxing? After all, that's... WEIGHT DISCRIMINATION <insert Dragnet theme>. In different sports, lines are drawn in different places. In many sports that line is drawn between different sexes. Bowling doesn't seem like a sport that needs a line, but whatever. The kid just sounds like somebody who wants to hammer home a petty little point. If he was really dead set on bowling he could join a real bowling team, but no, he's actually at it to pull the gender card. Lame.

If size and strength was a huge issue in sports like golf, as harvey claimed, we'd have weight classes in golf as well. Clearly it is not.

Personally I think a private league or organization should disciminate to their heart's content but while we have these feelgood discrimination laws they should be followed.

Uh, yeah, yeah. Of course if you look at the letter of the law, the kid has a point. But like I was saying, it's quite petty. And like moshquerade said, even if the kid is right he's still just being a little bitch. He is simply trying to prove a petty little point, and you support him whole-heartedly in his miserable little endeavor. To paraphrase The Simpsons: "One person can make a difference, but, well... most of the time he probably shouldn't."

So when do we "look at the letter of the law" and when do we not? When liberals say so?

Keep women out of men's sports leagues and you might have a point.

the only time i am for a woman being involved on a men's sports team is when she is clearly not getting any competition on the women's level.

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: zendari
Of course when Annika fails on the PGA she is a hero, and if a guy does that he is petty.

No.

Any time David defeats Goliath, David is a hero. When Goliath beats David (or a 98-pound woman) he's a bully.

Or as has been said: Man bites dog is a story. Dog bites man is boring.

 

[kogase]

Originally posted by: zendari
So when do we "look at the letter of the law" and when do we not? When liberals say so?

Keep women out of men's sports leagues and you might have a point.

What point? My only point is that the whole debate is just damn pettiness. You look at the letter of the law when something of actual importance is on the line, not when you've got a petty little example of a petty technicality and you want to hammer home a petty little point to establish the supremacy of your petty fine line reading ability.

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: zendari
Of course when Annika fails on the PGA she is a hero, and if a guy does that he is petty.

No.

Any time David defeats Goliath, David is a hero. When Goliath beats David (or a 98-pound woman) he's a bully.

Or as has been said: Man bites dog is a story. Dog bites man is boring.

I guess miss 200 lb bench press Williams sisters are bullies then.

If I'm a PGA golfer and I can't cut it I should be allowed to play in the LPGA to make a living. For the guy who needs his cash, yeah, it is a problem. Do what you want in your amatuer little leagues.

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: kogase

Originally posted by: zendari
So when do we "look at the letter of the law" and when do we not? When liberals say so?

Keep women out of men's sports leagues and you might have a point.

What point? My only point is that the whole debate is just damn pettiness. You look at the letter of the law when something of actual importance is on the line, not when you've got a petty little example of a petty technicality and you want to hammer home a petty little point to establish the supremacy of your petty fine line reading ability.

So why the hell did the feminists whine and create this title IX BS creating a whole sh1tload of worthless college sports?

 

[kogase]

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: kogase

Originally posted by: zendari
So when do we "look at the letter of the law" and when do we not? When liberals say so?

Keep women out of men's sports leagues and you might have a point.

What point? My only point is that the whole debate is just damn pettiness. You look at the letter of the law when something of actual importance is on the line, not when you've got a petty little example of a petty technicality and you want to hammer home a petty little point to establish the supremacy of your petty fine line reading ability.

So why the hell did the feminists whine and create this title IX BS creating a whole sh1tload of worthless college sports?

Female teams?

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: kogase

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: kogase

What point? My only point is that the whole debate is just damn pettiness. You look at the letter of the law when something of actual importance is on the line, not when you've got a petty little example of a petty technicality and you want to hammer home a petty little point to establish the supremacy of your petty fine line reading ability.

So why the hell did the feminists whine and create this title IX BS creating a whole sh1tload of worthless college sports?

Female teams?

Then give this kid a male bowling team and lets be done with it. And kick all girls off boys teams since the reverse is apparently not allowed.

 

[kogase]

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: kogase
Female teams?

Then give this kid a male bowling team and lets be done with it. And kick all girls off boys teams since the reverse is apparently not allowed.

That wasn't an answer, it was a question.

 

[moshquerade]

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: kogase

Originally posted by: zendari
So when do we "look at the letter of the law" and when do we not? When liberals say so?

Keep women out of men's sports leagues and you might have a point.

What point? My only point is that the whole debate is just damn pettiness. You look at the letter of the law when something of actual importance is on the line, not when you've got a petty little example of a petty technicality and you want to hammer home a petty little point to establish the supremacy of your petty fine line reading ability.

So why the hell did the feminists whine and create this title IX BS creating a whole sh1tload of worthless college sports?

you are off base here a bit. i don't see an issue with equal monies going towards girls sports and boys sports, do you?

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: zendari
So why the hell did the feminists whine and create this title IX BS creating a whole sh1tload of worthless college sports?

you are off base here a bit. i don't see an issue with equal monies going towards girls sports and boys sports, do you?

Not especially, if it worked both ways. Not sure whether it applies to high school sports or just college.

But if you want integrated sports don't complain when men try to play in women's leagues.

 

[moshquerade]

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: zendari
So why the hell did the feminists whine and create this title IX BS creating a whole sh1tload of worthless college sports?

you are off base here a bit. i don't see an issue with equal monies going towards girls sports and boys sports, do you?

Not especially, if it worked both ways. Not sure whether it applies to high school sports or just college.

But if you want integrated sports don't complain when men try to play in women's leagues.

i wasn't complaining inasmuch as i said if the girls are allowed to play on the boy's teams then the visa versa has to be allowed.

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: zendari
Of course when Annika fails on the PGA she is a hero, and if a guy does that he is petty.

No.

Any time David defeats Goliath, David is a hero. When Goliath beats David (or a 98-pound woman) he's a bully.

Or as has been said: Man bites dog is a story. Dog bites man is boring.

I guess miss 200 lb bench press Williams sisters are bullies then.

Sorry, not even remotely, when compared with guys who can bench press 300+ pounds and can serve tennis balls 40+ mph faster than the fastest woman.

If I'm a PGA golfer and I can't cut it I should be allowed to play in the LPGA to make a living.

Nonsense.

If you're a PGA golfer, you should be competing in the PGA. If you're an LPGA golfer, you should be competing in the LPGA. If an LPGA golfer thinks she has a shot at doing well in the PGA, she can ask (or get a PGA sponsor to ask) the PGA for an exemption, and if the PGA grants it, she can play in the PGA event. Note that NOTHING compels the PGA to honor the request; if they decide to do so it will be because such situations generate "good" publicity and money.

A PGA golfer can of course request an exemption to compete in an PGA, but I can see no reason why the LPGA would want to grant his request. Any publicity would be NEGATIVE.

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: zendari
So why the hell did the feminists whine and create this title IX BS creating a whole sh1tload of worthless college sports?

Worthless college sports? Why don't you ask female athletes what they think of the sports teams on which they play? Schools are now REQUIRED to spend approximately equal amounts on men's and women's teams because prior to Title IX, women had no options.

Frankly I have no idea why you have a problem with women's sports. Just what do you think is happening on college campuses? Do you think there are hordes of women forcing their way onto MEN's teams? Frankly, the existence of women's teams has almost completely eliminated women "playing up". BEFORE women's teams were required, women had no options, and that motivated some to try to get on men's teams. Now that women have their own sports, the number of women requesting access to male teams is extremely small.

But of course, you operate on the fringes. You think the fact that because ONE failing PGA golfer wants to play on the LPGA, that means there's some groundswell of activity of this sort. You're completely wrong, as usual.

 

[Kibbo86]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

There is nothing to discuss.

It is discrimination, period.

Enjoy the new America

Nothing new about discrimination in America. Your "new" America is probably closer to the ideal of a discrimination-free area than ever before in history.

But the school's policy is pretty stupid.

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: shira
Sorry, not even remotely, when compared with guys who can bench press 300+ pounds and can serve tennis balls 40+ mph faster than the fastest woman.

Not every guy can bench 300 or serve at 150. Maybe the guys benching 200 should play women's tennis. For every spot Wie and Annika take on the men's tour there's 1 less man with a job.

If you're a PGA golfer, you should be competing in the PGA. If you're an LPGA golfer, you should be competing in the LPGA. If an LPGA golfer thinks she has a shot at doing well in the PGA, she can ask (or get a PGA sponsor to ask) the PGA for an exemption, and if the PGA grants it, she can play in the PGA event. Note that NOTHING compels the PGA to honor the request; if they decide to do so it will be because such situations generate "good" publicity and money.

A PGA golfer can of course request an exemption to compete in an PGA, but I can see no reason why the LPGA would want to grant his request. Any publicity would be NEGATIVE.

More of Shira's discrimatory double standard, as usual. So much for gender discrimination in employment.

What's next with you? Baseball players with 20/10 vision have an unfair advantage so they can't play in the MLB? Marathon runners with longer legs take less steps so they have an unfair advantage?

If you don't want your physical condition to affect your performance play chess.


This is why discrimation laws are utter BS. Liberal elitists can just ignore them at their will. Maybe you should give your message to that Martha lady who keeps protesting at Augusta.

 

[montanafan]

Shira seems to be one of the few people responding to this thread who has a working knowledge of the history and reasoning behind Title IX.

I hate it when petty people take a piece of legislation that was actually useful and made a difference in people's lives by giving them opportunities they were denied and try to twist and trivialize it.

I attended junior high and high school in the '70s. I was a tomboy and loved to play sports. I learned to play tennis on my own and played against the guys and beat them and played pick up basketball and baseball with the guys as well, but I was not able to play sports at school because they did not offer any sports to girls. Title IX was passed when I was in 9th or 10th grade, but my school district didn't take it seriously. They couldn't really mean that you had to do something as silly as provide girls the opportunity to play sports, right? So they just didn't. I never got that opportunity.

Finally, the year after I graduated the federal government caught on and laid down the law, offer girls sports or lose funding. Since then I've watched girls enjoying those opportunities that I never had and I even coached for a while. I've seen them cheered for as enthusiastically as any of the boys' teams as they've gone on to state championships and I've seen them receive athletic scholarships to college and go on to play there. I've seen the pride it made them feel in their accomplishents. I celebrate with them and I'm very happy for them, but a there are times that I think about what I was forced to miss out on and the opportunities I was denied.

I know I would have loved playing sports in school and I think I would have been pretty good, maybe even good enough to get an athletic scholarship and save my parents a great deal of money sending me to college. I wonder what it would have been like to have had those opportunities, but I'll never know because other people decided I didn't need or deserve them because I was just a girl.

To equate that sort of discrimination with this boy wanting to be on the girls bowling team is ridiculous. If he wants to be on a bowling team then he should just get one of the teachers at the school to start one for boys. No one can deny him that opportunity the way that girls were denied it in the past.

 

[SNiPeRX]

From what I have seen of title IX it is worthless...

In college my roommate played soccer and he was an excellent athlete. Well they decided that they would cut all funding of the soccer program and start a female soccer team. He lost his scholarship and everything. And a very bad female soccer program was created. This school gives scholarships to girls who want to play who have never played soccer in their life. This is bull ******!

I will list the athletic program at this school for women and men...

Men
Baseball
Basketball
Cross Country
Football
Tennis
Track
Rifle
Wrestling

Women
Cross Country
Golf
Soccer
Track
Rifle
Volleyball

So men sports take up 53% of total sports.. yet women represent 14% of the schools populations... Doesnt make sense. Shouldn't the number of teams be equal in percent to the population. I think so and most people should agree. But idiotic title IX retards don't see it that way.

Edit: Mdchesne your post makes me so sick to think about man... I agree with you 100%... "Oh I want equality I can be a firefighter!, but um guys can you lower the standards for the test I am a women I can't lift that ladder. What I will do is waste three guys time to help me lift it up and then more then likely get someone killed when I do a so called rescue effort. But hey mom and dad and world I am a firefighter I told ya I can do it, no man can hold me down." Same with women in war, should never happen, I really don't think the average women can pick a person up and carry them to safety on their shoulders... If they can't do that, they should be on the front lines ever!

 

[kogase]

Originally posted by: SNiPeRX
So men sports take up 53% of total sports.. yet women represent 14% of the schools populations...

And what school is this?

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: shira
Sorry, not even remotely, when compared with guys who can bench press 300+ pounds and can serve tennis balls 40+ mph faster than the fastest woman.

Not every guy can bench 300 or serve at 150. Maybe the guys benching 200 should play women's tennis. For every spot Wie and Annika take on the men's tour there's 1 less man with a job.

If you're a PGA golfer, you should be competing in the PGA. If you're an LPGA golfer, you should be competing in the LPGA. If an LPGA golfer thinks she has a shot at doing well in the PGA, she can ask (or get a PGA sponsor to ask) the PGA for an exemption, and if the PGA grants it, she can play in the PGA event. Note that NOTHING compels the PGA to honor the request; if they decide to do so it will be because such situations generate "good" publicity and money.

A PGA golfer can of course request an exemption to compete in an PGA, but I can see no reason why the LPGA would want to grant his request. Any publicity would be NEGATIVE.

More of Shira's discrimatory double standard, as usual. So much for gender discrimination in employment.

What's next with you? Baseball players with 20/10 vision have an unfair advantage so they can't play in the MLB? Marathon runners with longer legs take less steps so they have an unfair advantage?

If you don't want your physical condition to affect your performance play chess.


This is why discrimation laws are utter BS. Liberal elitists can just ignore them at their will. Maybe you should give your message to that Martha lady who keeps protesting at Augusta.

Your assertions are completely illogical. You're thinking is so black and white that you don't seem to be understand that there's no law barring "discrimination", per se. Discrimination is unavoidable in a working society, and it is often a GOOD thing. Anti-discrimination laws have been put in place to eliminate or reduce HARMFUL discrimination.

We have age categories for sports teams because it is a GOOD thing that, say, five year olds compete against other youngters and not against 15 year olds. Would ANYONE think this is a BAD thing?

But there is also HARMFUL discrimination. It is harmful, for example, if a company has a policy (explicit or otherwise) to not hire people older than 50.

The sorts of sports discrimination this thread has been discussing has been 99% beneficial to women, with no negative affect on men. And whatever exceptions are allowed (Annika Sorenstam playing in a PGA event, for example) is also a good thing.

Yet you take these obvious, good types of discrimination and read into them motives that are not there.