HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The Rink
The Rink For the not so ready for prime-time players, coaches, referees, and the people that have to live with them. Discuss experiences in local leagues, coaching tips, equipment, and training.

Winnipeg girls win right to play on boys' hockey team

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
09-26-2006, 12:01 PM
  #76
Ti-girl
Registered User
 
Ti-girl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Merida, Mexico
Country: Mexico
Posts: 7,913
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Ti-girl Send a message via Yahoo to Ti-girl
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nbr-17 View Post
Well in that case the girls should not be allowed on the boys team either, 'cause that also would be a saftey issue. How can that become 'her problem' ?

Maybe hockey teams should be divided by weight classes just like any fighting sport.
Do people expect guys to go easy on the smaller players? No. The same thing should go for girls if they're playing in a boys league.

No one coddles the boys playing who are small (take a look at the WHL Medicine Hat Tigers, they have a lot of players under 6') and why should girls?

I was never the biggest on the ice, but I threw my fair share of checks. Got into a few scraps. What does it matter if I was a girl if I could still play the game at the same level as everyone else?

Ti-girl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-26-2006, 12:10 PM
  #77
Seph
Registered User
 
Seph's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Oregon
Country: South Korea
Posts: 15,532
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Seph
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sammy View Post
So in other words, you are not in favor of male only league/teams, only merit based leagues/teams, but you are in favor of female only league's/teams?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Human Megaphone View Post
All are created equal, some are just more equal than others?

Given that this has moved into the legal realm then it can't be that subjective. They are either allowed or they aren't. If they aren't, however, than how can that be defended based on the fact that women can choose to play in either group? Personally I think the judge made a very improper decision when you look at the grand scheme of things.

Edit: Don't mean to hammer you on this, obviously some other poster's have echoed the same sentiments.
Quote:
Originally Posted by stick9 View Post
I don't disagree with any of that. However, once you open the door you have to let it swing both ways. Allowing woman to play on the mens team, but not allowing men to play on the woman's isn't really equal rights. Isn't that what this whole thing is about, equal rights?
Ideally, it would be nice if there were two "B" teams, one just for men, one just for women, and one "A" team which was purely merit based and non gendered (though even then, it would result in men getting essentially two teams, and women only one). But most schools simply don't have the funding to do that with their sports teams, especially not for all of them. So we have to stick with what is possible and try to find the best solution from those options, and seemingly for most sports what is possible is for most schools to have two teams, one men's (which usually gets more funding) and one women's. If you only have two strictly merit based teams, you're going eliminate most women from being able to play. That's unfortunately the most likely scenario. But I do think in everything, the highest levels possible should be strictly merit based.

When you refuse to let a girl join a men's team, even if she is good enough to make the team were she male, you have no other grounds than that she's a girl. It's a rare event that a girl is good enough to make the team, so it has little overall effect on the league and men still have their arena of competition. On the flipside, most men who play competitively would be good enough to make the girls team. At a small school where there aren't enough guys interested in playing to make up much more than one team, it wouldn't be a problem, but at bigger schools where there enough men who play competitively to form two full teams, it could potentially run the majority of girls off of a team. Then these mostly men are going around playing against either teams that are mostly women who they will likely defeat handily, or against other teams of mostly men. Either way, you are taking away women's arena of play.

Here's a question for you guys. If a handicapped person was able to and chose to compete in a non-handicapped tournament, would you start arguing that non-handicapped people should be allowed in the special Olympics? If a poor person manages to become wealthy and join a country club, would you suggest that means the wealthy people should now be eligible for welfare? Or to stick with hockey, if Crosby can play in the NHL though he is juniors eligible, how come 30 year olds who aren't good enough for the NHL play in the Q? Certain things are set up specifically for people with disadvantages so that they can compete.

I don't think it's wrong of me to say that women are disadvantaged in comparison to men when it comes to most athletics, and especially in sports like hockey where things like size and muscle mass provide disctinct and significant advantages. Just because a few people are able to overcome these disadvantages does not mean that these things should suddenly be distributed equally to everyone, as the majority of cases remain at a disadvantage. But that doesn't mean we should prevent the disadvantaged from attempting to accomplish all that they can. It IS a one-way street, and it SHOULD be a one way street.

It's less about equal gender rights to me. It's about exclusion and trying to avoid it when it can be avoided. In the case of a couple girls trying out for a men's team that they hopefully will make or not make based on merit (though I see a real chance they make the team based on fear of lawsuit, and that would be messed up) there's no reason/need to exclude. In the case of allowing men into women's leagues, it disrupts the balance of competition. So by not excluding them, you're simply back to excluding women, and to protect that you have to exclude. In the end the fairest way seems to be exclude the men not good enough to make the men's team, and women not good enough to make the women's team.


Last edited by Seph: 09-26-2006 at 12:27 PM.
Seph is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-26-2006, 12:46 PM
  #78
KariyaIsGod*
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 4,140
vCash: 500
The hypocrisy continues...

A local radio station here has discovered the case of a young man who tried to play AA level ringette in a girl's league because he was plenty good enough and the lower level competition wasn't allowing him to be the best that he could have been.

He was a goalie. He couldn't play hockey because of medical reasons and he loved ice sports.

In 1998 this young man filed with the Manitoba Human Rights Commitee to play in the AA league. They ruled that not allowing him to play was JUSTIFIED DISCRIMINATION...

Utterly ridiculous.

KariyaIsGod* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-26-2006, 02:15 PM
  #79
Ti-girl
Registered User
 
Ti-girl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Merida, Mexico
Country: Mexico
Posts: 7,913
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Ti-girl Send a message via Yahoo to Ti-girl
Quote:
Originally Posted by stick9 View Post
Ti I think you missed my point a little. The best thing for the team would be for you to play on the girls team and help raise the level of play of that program.

No it's not selfish to train away from home and no it's not selfish for you to tryout for the WNHL team. Selfish would be NOT trying out for the WNHL and focusing on the NHL.

BTW, good luck on your tryout.
See, to me, they're conflicting arguments.

I obviously weakened my team at home by going and training and competing elsewhere.

There was no higher level for me to play at with the girls unless I wanted to drive almost 2 hours. It was embarassing for some of the other girls on the team when I would play. I would throw the ball to second base only to have the girl duck. One of the pitchers asked me to throw it back to her underhand. We never caught anyone stealing because my second baseman or shortstop wouldn't catch the ball thrown. How is one player playing a position like catcher supposed to carry the team?

Now is it selfish for an athlete like Adam Van Koeverdan to go train in another country because the level of compeition in Canada lesser than what he is?

Ti-girl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-26-2006, 02:20 PM
  #80
Slats432
Registered User
 
Slats432's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,426
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ti-girl View Post
See, to me, they're conflicting arguments.

I obviously weakened my team at home by going and training and competing elsewhere.

There was no higher level for me to play at with the girls unless I wanted to drive almost 2 hours. It was embarassing for some of the other girls on the team when I would play. I would throw the ball to second base only to have the girl duck. One of the pitchers asked me to throw it back to her underhand. We never caught anyone stealing because my second baseman or shortstop wouldn't catch the ball thrown. How is one player playing a position like catcher supposed to carry the team?

Now is it selfish for an athlete like Adam Van Koeverdan to go train in another country because the level of compeition in Canada lesser than what he is?
Then that is a problem with your coach. If he can't teach a pitcher to catch a ball, then they shouldn't be coach.

Slats432 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-26-2006, 02:27 PM
  #81
Ti-girl
Registered User
 
Ti-girl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Merida, Mexico
Country: Mexico
Posts: 7,913
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Ti-girl Send a message via Yahoo to Ti-girl
Quote:
Originally Posted by Messier View Post
Then that is a problem with your coach. If he can't teach a pitcher to catch a ball, then they shouldn't be coach.
The coach had to work with what he had. When the girls on the team don't want to be there and are quite frankly scared of the ball it is hard to coach them.

He would be teaching them how to bring the bat around with their hips versus their arms while I would be working with the other coach on pulling the ball to the opposite field to conteract the shift.

They would work on catching flyballs, I would work on target practice.

How is it fair to them to be playing with a player who is heads above them? I heard a lot of "God do we suck, look at her play." I tried to explain that I started playing ball as soon as I could walk. I played T-ball when I was three. It was better for them and for me when I switched leagues.

Ti-girl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-26-2006, 03:11 PM
  #82
stick9
Registered User
 
stick9's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Country: United States
Posts: 9,941
vCash: 500
Ti I've seen your name over at modsquadhockey.com. Head over and read the thread Unisex hockey. There are some excellent points by a female poster. Some of which you are arguing against.

Maybe the reason your team sucked so bad was because all the good players were playing on the boys team. That's my point. If all the good players leave to play on boys teams, woman's sports become a joke.

stick9 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-26-2006, 03:51 PM
  #83
Boozers
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,408
vCash: 500
These girl are ****** many of their former girl teammates said they trashed women's hockey and thats not right the way to go about it

Boozers is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-26-2006, 04:16 PM
  #84
Ti-girl
Registered User
 
Ti-girl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Merida, Mexico
Country: Mexico
Posts: 7,913
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Ti-girl Send a message via Yahoo to Ti-girl
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05271/578985.stm

Intresting article.

"Of course, there will be yahoos out there insisting if girls can play on boys' teams, then boys have a right to play on girls' teams. That's not even apples and oranges; that's apples and meatloaf.

Does this make sense?

If freshmen are eligible to play on the varsity -- and they are -- should seniors be eligible to play on the freshman team?

Of course, they shouldn't. Seniors would have an unfair advantage in any number of areas over freshmen. Just as boys have any number of advantages -- speed, size, strength -- over girls.

Girls who are athletic enough to compete on a boys' team should be congratulated, much the same as a freshman who can make the varsity. Boys who compete on girls' teams should be condemned, much the same as a senior wishing to compete against freshmen."


(of course it seems appropriate that my 500th post will be somewhat political.)


Last edited by Ti-girl: 09-26-2006 at 04:22 PM.
Ti-girl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-26-2006, 04:22 PM
  #85
Seph
Registered User
 
Seph's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Oregon
Country: South Korea
Posts: 15,532
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Seph
Quote:
If freshmen are eligible to play on the varsity -- and they are -- should seniors be eligible to play on the freshman team?

Of course, they shouldn't. Seniors would have an unfair advantage in any number of areas over freshmen. Just as boys have any number of advantages -- speed, size, strength -- over girls.

Girls who are athletic enough to compete on a boys' team should be congratulated, much the same as a freshman who can make the varsity. Boys who compete on girls' teams should be condemned, much the same as a senior wishing to compete against freshmen.
I guess this sums up the bulk of my argument. When someone overcomes a disadvantage to succeed on a level with those who do not have the disadvantage, we should applaud. These girls haven't yet done that, but if they do it should be something we look favorably upon. That is in no way the same as going the other direction with it. There is nothing noteworthy, or even remotely fair, about gaining success against lesser competition.

Sorry if this comes off as somewhat sexist, and I do not mean to come off as disrespecting of women's sports (I'm not, many are tremendous athletes in their own right) but the simple fact of the matter is that if women and men could compete on an even level in athletics, we wouldn't even be having this debate.

Competition and sportsmanship to me are the heart of sports and why they are valuable within our society. There is nothing sporting about guys looking to play competitively in a girls' league (assuming this guy is decent).

Seph is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-26-2006, 04:26 PM
  #86
Hawker14
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,016
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ti-girl View Post
The coach had to work with what he had. When the girls on the team don't want to be there and are quite frankly scared of the ball it is hard to coach them.

He would be teaching them how to bring the bat around with their hips versus their arms while I would be working with the other coach on pulling the ball to the opposite field to conteract the shift.

They would work on catching flyballs, I would work on target practice.

How is it fair to them to be playing with a player who is heads above them? I heard a lot of "God do we suck, look at her play." I tried to explain that I started playing ball as soon as I could walk. I played T-ball when I was three. It was better for them and for me when I switched leagues.
now the coach can recruit boys for the team so those girls who aren't very good won't be playing anyway. that's the slippery slope when gender is no longer a factor.

Hawker14 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-26-2006, 04:37 PM
  #87
puttinonthefOIL
Registered User
 
puttinonthefOIL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Kelowna, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 95
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ti-girl View Post
From the article:

Sure, there's no boys' volleyball teams at those schools. So what. Let these aspiring athletes try another sport if the competitive urge is so great in them.

So why is it okay to tell boys "tough luck, try something different", but girls need to be accomodated? If these Pasternak girls don't want to play on their HS girls hockey team they can a) play another all-girls sport that is more competitive b) move to a more competitive school c) play on a non-school team - even with boys d) develop their skills at a high level at any number of hockey camps

My HS didnt have a football team, I didn't complain that my obvious talent (joking) on the field was being unjustly suppressed. If football was important I would go to a different school or play on a team outside school or what I actually did - play rugby. What makes these girls so special?

puttinonthefOIL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-26-2006, 04:54 PM
  #88
Ti-girl
Registered User
 
Ti-girl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Merida, Mexico
Country: Mexico
Posts: 7,913
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Ti-girl Send a message via Yahoo to Ti-girl
Quote:
Originally Posted by hawker14 View Post
now the coach can recruit boys for the team so those girls who aren't very good won't be playing anyway. that's the slippery slope when gender is no longer a factor.
So you're telling me that it would have been better for me to be playing on the girl's team?

That is like telling Justin Morneau (of the Twins) that he shouldn't have played for Minnesota, he should have stayed with the National program Team canada has in effect when he was obviously the best player on the team and the Majors were the next step for him.

The boys had a "AAA", "AA", "A", "B" and "C" teams (One "AAA", one "AA", two "A", four "B" and 6 "C". We had THREE teams, all in the D divison. When I tried out I didn't tryout for the "AAA" team. I talked to the coach of the "AA" team who had seen me play and went to their tryouts. There were 2 other catchers there. I beat them fair and square.

How is it unfair that the girls had one team to choose from one level where the guys have 5?

Ti-girl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-26-2006, 04:55 PM
  #89
Ti-girl
Registered User
 
Ti-girl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Merida, Mexico
Country: Mexico
Posts: 7,913
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Ti-girl Send a message via Yahoo to Ti-girl
Quote:
Originally Posted by PuttinOnTheFoil View Post
From the article:

Sure, there's no boys' volleyball teams at those schools. So what. Let these aspiring athletes try another sport if the competitive urge is so great in them.

So why is it okay to tell boys "tough luck, try something different", but girls need to be accomodated? If these Pasternak girls don't want to play on their HS girls hockey team they can a) play another all-girls sport that is more competitive b) move to a more competitive school c) play on a non-school team - even with boys d) develop their skills at a high level at any number of hockey camps

My HS didnt have a football team, I didn't complain that my obvious talent (joking) on the field was being unjustly suppressed. If football was important I would go to a different school or play on a team outside school or what I actually did - play rugby. What makes these girls so special?
I do also know that these girls have played other sports, lacrosse in specific, where they made it to the men's under 17 Nationals with Team Manitoba.

I know because my brother played against them.

Ti-girl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-26-2006, 05:13 PM
  #90
puttinonthefOIL
Registered User
 
puttinonthefOIL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Kelowna, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 95
vCash: 500
Basically, these girls are complaining that their HS girls team "is a joke" so they think they should be accomodated on a better team. What I'm trying to get at is why do some people think it is their right to be provided with every opportunity to play sports at *their* highest level. If a boy is a volleyball prodigy, but his school doesn't have a boys team is he being discriminated against? No. If my basketball team just plain sucks and gets beaten by every team we played, is that the schools fault? No. If my baseball team dominates every team in our league to the point that it is no fun to play, should we be compensated for "lack of suitable competition"? No. These girls think they're too good for their HS team, boo hoo. Suck it up and try and pass on some of your skill or play a different sport or move somewhere else. The fact that their girls HS team isn't up to *their* standards is not an injustice worthy of anything more than a "Too bad" remark and a pat on the back from Mom and Dad.

puttinonthefOIL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-26-2006, 05:20 PM
  #91
Ti-girl
Registered User
 
Ti-girl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Merida, Mexico
Country: Mexico
Posts: 7,913
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Ti-girl Send a message via Yahoo to Ti-girl
And that is helping women's sports?

At my old club I was the only girl. I was 13 and I trained against 16-19 year old guys. Sure I didn't race against them but I was at every training session, 3 times a day, six days a week. Should I have been not allowed to train?

Ti-girl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-26-2006, 06:14 PM
  #92
puttinonthefOIL
Registered User
 
puttinonthefOIL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Kelowna, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 95
vCash: 500
Let me clarify, I am only referring to sports under the umbrella of the public school system.

puttinonthefOIL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-26-2006, 06:23 PM
  #93
Le Golie
...
 
Le Golie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,735
vCash: 500
They were both cut today.

Le Golie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-26-2006, 06:34 PM
  #94
Twist and Shout
Registered User
 
Twist and Shout's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Calgary, Alberta
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,264
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Le Golie View Post
They were both cut today.
Shocker!

I hope they enjoy the free cash + lessons though ..

Twist and Shout is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-26-2006, 06:44 PM
  #95
Le Golie
...
 
Le Golie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,735
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Holy Kaberle View Post
Shocker!

I hope they enjoy the free cash + lessons though ..
Yeah, all that fuss, just to end up robbing a not for profit organization, having no place to play and having the entire country hear about you getting cut from a high school hockey team.

Pretty crappy result.

Le Golie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-26-2006, 07:08 PM
  #96
dafoomie
Eat Mor Chikin
 
dafoomie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Boston
Country: United States
Posts: 14,120
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to dafoomie
Quote:
Originally Posted by stick9 View Post
Ti you do realize that when you ditch the girls teams for the boys team you are doing two things.

1 - You are being selfish. You've put your own needs ahead of the teams and the game itself. You'd rather leave then stay and help develop the woman's program.

2 - You are lessoning the quality of those girls teams.
I don't think women have any obligation to be forced to play at a lower level than their abilities would dictate. If they're good enough for the mens team, with no special treatment or reduced requirements, then let them play. What good does it do to have them be the Bobby Orr of the girl's team when they could continue to improve their skills on the men's team? It does a great disservice to the girl. A woman's team is by definition an inferior team, this is creating a glass ceiling by limiting how good a girl can become in that sport.

To me, this is like letting a younger player play in an older age group. Are they being selfish by lessening the quality of their own age group's team? Do the older kids deserve a shot at the younger kids team? Thats just silly.

I like what another poster suggested. Have one top level team for any gender to play in (which will still be 90%+ men), and two JV teams, one each for men and women. A lot of the time, the men have a varsity and JV team, while the girls just have one team anyway.

dafoomie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-26-2006, 07:29 PM
  #97
Ol' Jase
PLAYOFFS??
 
Ol' Jase's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,681
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Le Golie View Post
They were both cut today.
I smell another lawsuit...

Ol' Jase is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-26-2006, 09:49 PM
  #98
Luongownage
Kassian? #epicfail
 
Luongownage's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Terrace, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 656
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ol' Jase View Post
I smell another lawsuit...
They don't stand a chance if they try it. There is no legal leg to stand on for them in this case, as it is a judgement call of coaches that opposing them in this instance, rather than written regulations that can be ruled on or against. They can scream *SEXISM* until they are blue in the face, but all the coaches would have to do is get up and say 'they lacked the chemistry/skill/size/style/etc.. that we were looking for on this team. Their lack of inclusion on our squad is not based in anyway to their gender, but rather their performance during tryouts', and unless there was overt and obvious documented sexual discrimination against these two, there is little they can do to persuade a judge to force their inclusion on this team. If they were to go ahead with more legal wrangling, I think public opinion would shift from "brave women's lib'ers" to "attention seeking so-and-so's that want to lengthen their 15 minutes of fame". The fact is is that they got their fair shake, and they couldn't cut it. Maybe there is a reason why the best female hockey player in the world can't crack the top 2 lines in a european leauge and that the only female NHL'er was a publicity stunt that didn't last longer than the pre-season.....

Luongownage is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-27-2006, 09:33 AM
  #99
Seph
Registered User
 
Seph's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Oregon
Country: South Korea
Posts: 15,532
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Seph
Quote:
Originally Posted by PuttinOnTheFoil View Post
Basically, these girls are complaining that their HS girls team "is a joke" so they think they should be accomodated on a better team. What I'm trying to get at is why do some people think it is their right to be provided with every opportunity to play sports at *their* highest level. If a boy is a volleyball prodigy, but his school doesn't have a boys team is he being discriminated against? No. If my basketball team just plain sucks and gets beaten by every team we played, is that the schools fault? No. If my baseball team dominates every team in our league to the point that it is no fun to play, should we be compensated for "lack of suitable competition"? No. These girls think they're too good for their HS team, boo hoo. Suck it up and try and pass on some of your skill or play a different sport or move somewhere else. The fact that their girls HS team isn't up to *their* standards is not an injustice worthy of anything more than a "Too bad" remark and a pat on the back from Mom and Dad.
Personally, I think you're interpreting this wrong. It's not their right to be provided with this. It's their right not to be excluded from it. What they want is right there, and openly available to many, but they are kept out of it for no other reason than gender. And as I've stated many times in here, when boys are excluded from the girls sports, it is for reasons beyond just gender. It is to protect those leagues from becoming boys' leagues. Girls in boys' leagues do not threaten in the same way.

If a boy is a volleyball prodigy he should be looking for a higher level of competition anyway, not a lower one. If your freshman basketball team sucks, and you are far and away the best player on the team, would you not want to try out for the varsity team? If your baseball team is that good, there are other options out there (various tournaments and whatnot that you can play in). The thing about making these kinds of comparisons to boys sports is the assumption that boys sports and girls sports are equal, which they are not. There are far more options for boys than girls, as well as far more funding. Generally speaking in high school, there are fewer sports for girls to choose from, fewer levels of play, and fewer outside options beyond the school system. As such, it's far easier to exhaust one's options.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Le Golie View Post
Yeah, all that fuss, just to end up robbing a not for profit organization, having no place to play and having the entire country hear about you getting cut from a high school hockey team.

Pretty crappy result.
This is what annoys me the most about all this. Suing a non-profit organization for money over this. If it was just about wanting to play, then the decision of "OK, girls can try out" should have been perfectly satisfactory. There was zero reason to bring money into this, and it just makes their motives look all the more suspect.

Seph is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-27-2006, 09:50 AM
  #100
ryanz4
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 50
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to ryanz4
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seph View Post
It's not their right to be provided with this. It's their right not to be excluded from it. What they want is right there, and openly available to many, but they are kept out of it for no other reason than gender.
There not being excluded from playing HS hockey. They can play if they want to, just not boys hockey.

ryanz4 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:46 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.