Jump to content

Gender segregration in sports


Renegade

Recommended Posts

I probably should've read the tthread because someone must've already said this:

Girls should stay in the girls leagues and boys should stay in theirs. Either we have segregated sports or we have everyone playing in the same league. If we do the latter, most girls won't have an opportunity to play sports. I mean, let's face it....they've proven time and again in both tennis and golf that they can't compete on the same level as men. Sure, there's exceptions, but they're very few....so should we only allow the few women that can compete at that level to play? Of course not.

There's a distinct purpose for the seperate leagues and I believe these girls are setting women back by donig what they're doing. Men could easily argue on the same merit that they should be allowed to compete in the female leagues and the only answer once that happens is to eliminate segregation. Women, for the most part, will be left out of sports then.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 51
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

For those of you who think segregation is justified, I have two questions.

1. There are argueably some sports in which women are as good as or better than men (eg long distance swimming, figure skating). Do you think in such sports segregation is still justified?

2. If I can demonstrate that some races have characteristics which give them an disadvantage in certain sports, would you be a proponent that we should segregate those races in those sports?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, my daughter is 16 and plays hockey. She is the only female in her hockey school - going on right now. She is well put together and pound for pound probably the best "in shape" person I know.

The boys in her hockey school ALL can out muscle her and could - in a full contact game - pound the living hell out of her. Because it is a school they all allow her to use her skills but do not slam her into the boards as hard as they do each other - perhaps because they respect her capabilities as a young woman.

But is an all out match - with full contact -they would probably carry her off the ice. And my daughter admits this quite readily.

Stupid ruling. Stupid to mix the genders in something like this. But what else can we expect?

We have created this monster by doing nothing. Let the girls play. Let them get hit hard and then let's se the legal ramifications. A full out body check is a tough thing -I have had the broken bones to prove it - and I stood 6 plus and 200 plus during my youth on the ice during high school hockey.

I shake my head and wonder - Why is it wrong to think young people of different sexes have different capabilities?

If not, then what is good for the goose MUST be good for the gander - therefore boys MUST be allowed to play girls hockey.

Let the boys play the boys and the girls play the girls - no shame here and it is a heck of a lot safer.

Human Rights Commission?

Nah. Human Stupid Commission.

Best to all.

Borg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am very impressed with this thread, some full-out honesty, especially RB and Borg.

I mean Hello, the court also recognise that you'd always end up with an all male team that we call "girls team" and most likely end up with identity crises.

However hypocritical, I cannot deny that as much as women will try to fulfill their athletic abilities we cannot blame men that we are not as enduring or strong as they are. The guilt trip for keeping women in their place as being "weak" and discouraging them does not hold in sports. It is a reality check.

I am very impressed with your candor, RB, for while I know you champion women's rights and equality, you freely recognize the nuances of both 'equality' and 'difference'.
All we need folks is encourage sports for women to new heights and at our own level.
I totally agree. I shed a tear (ok, a few) when the Canadian Women's Hockey Team won gold, but not for the men. When I saw (most of) that game between the Canadian Women's team vs. the USA Women's (who had been undefeated internationally for some 40+ games) I saw some of the best hockey ever played. It was played with guts, and determination, and a passion to perform your best (and to win) that you don't often get to see, even in the NHL playoffs. The joy and sometimes disbelief in the faces of those girls when they were awarded the gold medal will be a memory I will always carry.

Perhaps the only way to ever see women in the NHL is to allow them to be smacked around just like all the boys up through minor hockey, and the cream will rise to the top, whatever gender. Mind you, for every player that IO met that made the NHL, I know about 3 or 4 that were crippled. Mostly knees, mind you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Women have historically been denied too many opportunities, participation in sports being one of them. According to the law women should not be discriminated in this instance, similar to other occupation requiring use of endurance. But, for argument I would downplay the law and suggest having strength such as occupation as a firefighter is a different issue.

What I don't understand RB, is that if you acknowledge that as far as strength, endurance and several other physical attributes that women are inferior to men, then does it not logically follow that professions which require strength and endurance would naturally give a preference to men? You say strength in an occupation such as a firefighter is a different issue. Why? It looks like the same issue to me, but with a double standard being applied.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dear Renegade,

You say strength in an occupation such as a firefighter is a different issue. Why? It looks like the same issue to me, but with a double standard being applied.
In a way, a double standard, but not really. Professional sports is merely entertainment, meaningless in the long run, really, where a fighefighter job is an actual real job. To compare the two, physical standards should not be lowered regarding life-saving abilities versus 'entertainment marketability'. (sorry, a poorly constructed sentence...I'm tired and ready for beddy-bye time)Those two should not be held up against one another.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some girls from the girls' team are not happy with these two sisters. Apparently they referred to the girls'

team as being a joke...or something to that effect.

More than likely, they're right. The calibre of coaching, and competition, and refereeing, and organization, in a typical girls hockey league is pathetic.

Young Canadian men who have the ability and ambition to achieve anything in the world of basketball attend college in the United States, not Canada. Why? Because by comparison with its US counterparts, Canadian collegiate basketball is pathetic. If they want to develop their skills, receive top quality training, compete against elite competition, and have the opportunity to become a professional, playing college basketball in Canada just isn't an option.

Same deal for a girl in hockey. If she has ambitions of becoming a top flight player, maybe getting an athletic scholarship, playing at a higher level... playing on a crappy team in a crappy league won't help her. So what are the options? Move to someplace that has a higher-quality girls hockey league, or play with the boys.

I don't recall ever hearing of a girl wanting to play on the boys' basketball team, or the boys' volleyball team, or boys' soccer team. Why is that? Probably it's because in most places basketball and volleyball and soccer are well-established as girls' sports, and the available programs at their schools or community leagues do not suck as badly as girls' hockey programs presently do. Maybe some day in the future, when girls' hockey is more widely accepted and more widely played, the calibre of girls' hockey programs will not suck so badly. Until then, girls with ambitions of achieving something as hockey players will probably continue to seek to play with the boys.

-k

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In a way, a double standard, but not really. Professional sports is merely entertainment, meaningless in the long run, really, where a fighefighter job is an actual real job. To compare the two, physical standards should not be lowered regarding life-saving abilities versus 'entertainment marketability'. (sorry, a poorly constructed sentence...I'm tired and ready for beddy-bye time)Those two should not be held up against one another.

Let me try and understand what you are saying: Occupations which put lives at risk (such as firefighter or combat arms), it is ok to consider physical standards, and by doing so we can justify segregation and discrimmination in those occupations. Occupations which are non-critical and simply for entertainment value, physical standards are less important, so integration of genders is ok.

Is that what you are trying to say?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting problem. In principle, I lean towards "if you can make the team you should be allowed to play" school. Of course that would have to apply to all teams including whose which are now women only. The downside is that if you opened all teams to both genders based on ability only, you would probably wind up with fewer women in the sport.

There are some sports, equestrian and shooting come to mind, where men and women can and do compete with each other at the highest level and there are some where they cannot and don't. Maybe that's just the way it should be and the rest is all politically correct crap.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The reason girls are allow to try out for boys teams but not vise versa is simple:

Girls generall suck at sports when compared to boys.

If boys went out for girls teams they'd dominate.

Think of the PGA. A bottom tier PGA player could go out for the LPGA (teeing off from the same tees as the women) and kick ass all over the place, winning virtually every tournament or coming in 2nd.

We can't have that. WOmen aren't good anough at sports. If there are a few mutants out there who want to play with the boys, let 'em at it, I say. There are never going to be more than a couple on every team - there just aren't enough women who can do it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The reason girls are allow to try out for boys teams but not vise versa is simple:

Girls generall suck at sports when compared to boys.

If boys went out for girls teams they'd dominate.

Yes they might. But who is to say that gender is a better qualifier of who gets to participate in sports than ability. If boys are better at sports, maybe there ought to be more of them playing it than women. Either that, or women would flock to those sports which they are better at.

Think of the PGA. A bottom tier PGA player could go out for the LPGA (teeing off from the same tees as the women) and kick ass all over the place, winning virtually every tournament or coming in 2nd.

The PGA and LPGA are commercial events. They are free to restrict the field of players to whatever generates teh most demand for the event. If they think there is market demand for segregated golf they are free to segregate by gender, race, age, or whatever they choose. As a society we have been used to segration by gender, so it doesn't really cause uproar. Race might be a different story simply because of sensitivities.

We can't have that.

We can't? Why not?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The reason girls are allow to try out for boys teams but not vise versa is simple:

Girls generall suck at sports when compared to boys.

If boys went out for girls teams they'd dominate.

Yes they might. But who is to say that gender is a better qualifier of who gets to participate in sports than ability. If boys are better at sports, maybe there ought to be more of them playing it than women. Either that, or women would flock to those sports which they are better at.

Think of the PGA. A bottom tier PGA player could go out for the LPGA (teeing off from the same tees as the women) and kick ass all over the place, winning virtually every tournament or coming in 2nd.

The PGA and LPGA are commercial events. They are free to restrict the field of players to whatever generates teh most demand for the event. If they think there is market demand for segregated golf they are free to segregate by gender, race, age, or whatever they choose. As a society we have been used to segration by gender, so it doesn't really cause uproar. Race might be a different story simply because of sensitivities.

We can't have that.

We can't? Why not?

Because then we wouldn't have an LPGA - underachieving PGA players would flock in to clean up the cash leaving nothing for the weak and feeble women.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because then we wouldn't have an LPGA - underachieving PGA players would flock in to clean up the cash leaving nothing for the weak and feeble women.

No I think you misundersand what I ask. The incident I gave at the top of the thread is for a publicly institution putting barriers to sports based upon gender.

Your example is of a commercial event. The commercial event, has every right to put the best mix of players together which generates demand for that event. If they choose to segregate men and women because then it can sell two events, more power to them.

BTW, the PGA might actually benefit by letting the men an women play together, but could even the playing field by handicapping the stronger players (presumably the men)

My question is for public sporting facilities and institutions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dear Renegade,

Is that what you are trying to say?
Almost.
Occupations which are non-critical and simply for entertainment value, physical standards are less important, so integration of genders is ok.
No, lowering the minimum performance standards is ok. Becasue the bottom line is sales, not 'life-saving'.
Occupations which put lives at risk (such as firefighter or combat arms), it is ok to consider physical standards, and by doing so we can justify segregation and discrimmination in those occupations.
No actually justifying discrimination, but justifying the action of refusing someone who doesn't meet set physical performance standards and ignoring cries of 'discrimination'.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, lowering the minimum performance standards is ok. Becasue the bottom line is sales, not 'life-saving'.

If the bottom line and end goal is sales, then perhaps the criteria for the event shouldn't be restricted to athletic ability. Perhaps "saleability" is more important. Rules should be stacked such that tennis players such as Anna Kournikova and Maria Sharapova are given a "bye" so that the qualify, regardless if they are the top skilled individuals, because afterall they may be more saleable.

No actually justifying discrimination, but justifying the action of refusing someone who doesn't meet set physical performance standards and ignoring cries of 'discrimination'.

I agree. It isn't discrimmination to have one set of physical standards that anyone applying for the position should meet. In fact, it woudl be diliberately discrimminatory to have a dual set of standards.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Where is this going? I am hearing discrimination in two completely different scenarios:

1) a commercial and private event

2) a public service funded by tax-payers

If the bottom line and end goal is sales, then perhaps the criteria for the event shouldn't be restricted to athletic ability.
This is a commercial event. They can discriminate one way all they want.
It isn't discrimmination to have one set of physical standards that anyone applying for the position should meet. In fact, it woudl be diliberately discrimminatory to have a dual set of standards.
This is a public service. They can discriminate the other way all they want -- but they must answer to the tax-payers.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a commercial event. They can discriminate one way all they want.

Yes, I'm aware. I think I said that before. The question is this case is not "can they?" but "should they?" from a moral pov.

This is a public service. They can discriminate the other way all they want -- but they must answer to the tax-payers.

I think they woudl have to answer to the courts not the tax-payer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, I'm aware. I think I said that before. The question is this case is not "can they?" but "should they?" from a moral pov.
If it is a moral point of view that you want, the answer is the same.
I think they woudl have to answer to the courts not the tax-payer.
Morally, I think you are wrong. In this case, since it is a public service, the public should be the boss -- not the courts.

While, I am at it, the courts should be serving the public.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Women have historically been denied too many opportunities, participation in sports being one of them. According to the law women should not be discriminated in this instance, similar to other occupation requiring use of endurance. But, for argument I would downplay the law and suggest having strength such as occupation as a firefighter is a different issue.

What I don't understand RB, is that if you acknowledge that as far as strength, endurance and several other physical attributes that women are inferior to men, then does it not logically follow that professions which require strength and endurance would naturally give a preference to men? You say strength in an occupation such as a firefighter is a different issue. Why? It looks like the same issue to me, but with a double standard being applied.

Little people such as: women and shorter folks have adapted useful techniques to handling heavy equipment, they don't have to be the "muscled man". For example: "many women firefighters have found that using a reverse grip on a ladder halyard (with the thumb edge of the hands facing downward) allows a more efficient use of strength. Hose-handling techniques that allow a single firefighter to control an 1-1/2" or 1-3/4" line by crossing it in front of the body and allowing the fire fighter's body weight to lean into it are often more effective for lighter-weight firefighters.)"

Also, firefighters can always rely on a coordinated effort as in team work.

The truth is that women who enter the firefighter occupation have strong academic background usually without mechanical knowledge and tools hands on where the firefighters training is geared for males based on tools and mechanics - this however should not preclude women from being a good fire fighter.

There is an inherent cultural difference in the genders and how they respond to being a firefighter. For example: men will always want to appear confident, and women would always verbalise they did not understand.

I believe being a fire fighter even though it is a requirement is less about strength and endurance and more about teaching a person to function hands on and keeping their skills up to date whether it means exercising and being fit, adapting to the right techniques of handling tools and being the best they can to serve the community.

We need to get rid of the notion that only men are strong, and that fightfighters should be men and replace it firefighter being a rewarding career and an opportunity for civil service. Both men and women should have access to equal participation and to supply their labor for a worthy career choice.

I mean a firefighter is more likely to die on the job than the sports person who only wishes to entertain us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Women have historically been denied too many opportunities, participation in sports being one of them.
Granted. That was then. This is now.

That was then and now - its why we have girls going to the courts to play with the boys - not much have change. If a boy wanted to enter into the boys league no problem eh.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think this controversy trivializes the great fight against discrimination. What opportunities, really, are being lost if women cannot access men's sports teams? This is PC run rampant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Little people such as: women and shorter folks have adapted useful techniques to handling heavy equipment, they don't have to be the "muscled man". For example: "many women firefighters have found that using a reverse grip on a ladder halyard (with the thumb edge of the hands facing downward) allows a more efficient use of strength. Hose-handling techniques that allow a single firefighter to control an 1-1/2" or 1-3/4" line by crossing it in front of the body and allowing the fire fighter's body weight to lean into it are often more effective for lighter-weight firefighters.)"

So why does not the same adaptability apply to sports. Many experts say that women's physiology is in some ways superiour than men (endurance and pain threshold). Why is it that women cannot develop techniques which allow them to compete on the same field as men? It seems to me illogical that if you claim that women can find ways of doing the same job as men in fields which require physical attributes, than the same should be true of sports.

Also, firefighters can always rely on a coordinated effort as in team work.

Yes, but so can virtually all team sports.

The truth is that women who enter the firefighter occupation have strong academic background usually without mechanical knowledge and tools hands on where the firefighters training is geared for males based on tools and mechanics - this however should not preclude women from being a good fire fighter.

There is an inherent cultural difference in the genders and how they respond to being a firefighter. For example: men will always want to appear confident, and women would always verbalise they did not understand.

I believe being a fire fighter even though it is a requirement is less about strength and endurance and more about teaching a person to function hands on and keeping their skills up to date whether it means exercising and being fit, adapting to the right techniques of handling tools and being the best they can to serve the community.

Your argument is essentially that the physical attributes is only one aspect of being a firefighter and a minor one. I would argue that based upon the current requrements for a firefighter, it is an essential attribute. If a firefighter needs to rescue a 200lb man who has passed out from smoke inhalation, would you say that strength and physical attributes can be worked around?

We need to get rid of the notion that only men are strong, and that fightfighters should be men and replace it firefighter being a rewarding career and an opportunity for civil service. Both men and women should have access to equal participation and to supply their labor for a worthy career choice.

Personally, I'm ok with the notion that firefighting should be open to both men and women, however, for the same reasons I am ok with removing gender segration in sports. I think the same arguments you use to justify why women can be firefighters, also justify why women should compete on the same field in sports as men.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,712
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    nyralucas
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Jeary earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Venandi went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • Gaétan earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • Dictatords earned a badge
      First Post
    • babetteteets earned a badge
      One Year In
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...