|
Post by renegade204 on Sept 26, 2006 16:45:07 GMT -5
first of all they DID have the option to play for thier girls team, also if it ment that much to them, they could have taken a class at Garden City to try for that team ... but they wouldnt have made it, not in a long shot. it isnt like they are THAT good, i use to play with them. Tomorrow im going to West K and demand to try out for thier girls team, it would be discrimination apperently if they dont let me .... who knew??? lol ... to bad Garden City isnt having a High School Hockey Team this year, i was kinda looking forward to play .... w.e, this makes for a better story The 'option' of playing for the girl's team was forced upon them. Garden city isnt their school. The only question should have been are they good enough to get on their team? If they get cut, so be it... they have the option of trying out now... hopefully the coaches will not be discriminatory in their assessment of these girls... Hmmm.... discrimination? Gary Bettman and Winnipeg? It hurts... im saying they could have gone to Garden City, and if it starts here when does it stop?? WK does not have a guys volleyball team, why cant they tryout for the girls team??
|
|
|
Post by ratzy on Sept 26, 2006 16:46:05 GMT -5
what message does this send to girls who are very talented hockey players? instead of trying to improve the girls program they jump ship. this can be compared to the case of Michelle Wie who is a talented golfer and could legitimately compete on the LPGA but prefers bottom feeding on the PGA. Why should they be responsible to improve the girls team? Should a talented male player be kept in High School Hockey when he has an option to play AAA or WHL? I know a guy that went and played as a 4th liner in Prince Albert a few years ago when he could've been a top scorer in MB AAA with Yellowhead. It was his choice to go play a higher quality even though he cut his playing time by about 75%. By him playing up, he improved his game and perhaps that's what the girls want to do. p.s. For the record...I'm TOTALLY against the $3500 that each of them got...that sh!t is whack!
|
|
|
Post by ratzy on Sept 26, 2006 16:49:47 GMT -5
im saying they could have gone to Garden City, and if it starts here when does it stop?? WK does not have a guys volleyball team, why cant they tryout for the girls team?? Get over the guys playing down...guys are stronger, faster, bigger. That is the reason why they can't try out for the girls team...however, if girls are good enough for the boys team...good for them.
|
|
|
Post by renegade204 on Sept 26, 2006 20:18:34 GMT -5
so what should the guys who get cut by girls do?? what if the right level for them is the girls team??
|
|
|
Post by Hannu Smail on Sept 26, 2006 22:30:42 GMT -5
......read somewhere today that they were cut and did not make the team. A mountain has been made out of a molehill here, as they were never good enough to compete in the first place. If they were, they would have been garnering serious attention at the elite levels of women's hockey, and I read (sorry - no link) that nobody at the National level of women's hockey had even heard of them prior to the whole debate.
Is it true that the Canadian national women's team played in boys AAA Midget league in Calgary for years, and only recently won their first game.....or is that a myth?
hs.
|
|
|
Post by AO8/EM71 on Sept 26, 2006 23:10:36 GMT -5
what message does this send to girls who are very talented hockey players? instead of trying to improve the girls program they jump ship. this can be compared to the case of Michelle Wie who is a talented golfer and could legitimately compete on the LPGA but prefers bottom feeding on the PGA. Why should they be responsible to improve the girls team? Should a talented male player be kept in High School Hockey when he has an option to play AAA or WHL? I know a guy that went and played as a 4th liner in Prince Albert a few years ago when he could've been a top scorer in MB AAA with Yellowhead. It was his choice to go play a higher quality even though he cut his playing time by about 75%. By him playing up, he improved his game and perhaps that's what the girls want to do. p.s. For the record...I'm TOTALLY against the $3500 that each of them got...that sh!t is whack! that's a totally different circumstance tho. mens hockey isnt at issue here. if women's hockey was as prominent as men's hockey then there's no problem here but the fact lies in that this sends a negative message to womens hockey. and it's not like they're even head and shoulders above men.. they probably won't even make the team.
|
|
|
Post by dannymcmanny on Sept 27, 2006 8:55:38 GMT -5
Yes, the canadian women's team plays in the midget league in calgary. That is a reasonable assessment of the caliber differential. I know that they didn't do well, but I can't verify their record.
|
|
|
Post by ratzy on Sept 27, 2006 9:27:11 GMT -5
so what should the guys who get cut by girls do?? what if the right level for them is the girls team?? Not that it matters now but they could've gone to play rec hockey just like all the other guys who get cut regardless of whether girls are trying out or not. Perhaps they could also spend a week at hockey school if they are poor enough to get cut because girls beat them out.
|
|
|
Post by macitect on Sept 27, 2006 13:36:11 GMT -5
Ratzy, I'm not sure what point you or the Pasternak sisters are trying to make. This shouldn't even be a question of "rights". We live in a society where we are priviledged enough to participate in these sports. This is NOT a human rights issue - if it truly were, everyone who enjoys a decent salary would have to be contributing to the "right" of all the underpriviledged of society to play hockey also.
I am guessing that you play or played hockey. Do you remember what it was like in the dressing room? I can't even imagine the compromises and concessions that would have to be made to have females in the same dressing room as males - and having a separate dressing room is not an argument for economic reasons and because of the nature of a team sport.
There is an existing dynamic between males and females that nobody can deny and it is important for the two sexes - especially during the all important developing years - to have outlets in life where they can be free of one another. Sport has always been and remains one of the few areas of life where we can be segregated - and with good natural reason. Nobody in their right mind can argue that women are as physically big or fast or strong as men.
I personally cannot get excited by female sports. To me they seem like real sports in slow motion- but that is pure opinion and I can accept that. No argument from me that females should be allowed to participate in any sport that is available to males. And if there is no place for a female team/league then in particular circumstances we could certainly look into concessions to allow them places in teams and leagues dominated by males. However we live in a time and place where all this is readily available to females.
Unless somebody signs up for a co-ed league (another completely viable option) why should we force our young boys to accept girls on their teams or our young girls to accept boys on theirs. And yes - if we are to be completely fair and egalitarian this would imply that boys should be able to try out for girls teams if they are not good enough for the boys teams.
Honestly - where does a boy who is "too good" for the boys league go? That isn't fair - is it?
|
|
|
Post by dbp1990 on Sept 27, 2006 16:22:00 GMT -5
Did anyone hear Bob Holiday unload on Cosmo on 92 this afternoon about the Twins, The Human Rights Counsil and the Stupidity of the whole situation, that's the most sense he's made in recent memory!
|
|
|
Post by ~Jiffy~ on Sept 27, 2006 17:58:51 GMT -5
I am sick of this subject... basically play if you want.. get hurt you asked for it.. I did.. and i loved it... it was the best choice i made... I could play cause i was good.
|
|
|
Post by renegade204 on Sept 27, 2006 20:25:28 GMT -5
Macitect is completly right on this one .... no questions asked
|
|
|
Post by ratzy on Sept 27, 2006 21:00:41 GMT -5
I still stand by my opinion on the matter. And yes I have played hockey pretty much my whole life so I have seen girls in the dressing rooms many times in many different towns. There is no problem trying to find a dressing room or making arrangements for the girls. I don't picture this as a gender issue but more of a skill level issue. And this doesn't mean that boys share the same right to go play with girls...in comparison, this would be the same as allowing older kids to move down and play with younger kids just because younger kids can move up an age group. The older kids are already bigger, stronger, faster, just as boys should be versus girls. Maybe the answer lies in co-ed hockey teams but if someone feels that they are good enough to "try-out" for the better team, I feel they should be given the opportunity. Once again, this is different than someone trying to move down a category. That's like a heavy weight boxer fighting a featherweight for the featherweight title. However, if the featherweight wants to challenge for the heavyweight belt...give him (her) a shot.
|
|
|
Post by ratzy on Sept 27, 2006 21:04:55 GMT -5
Ratzy, I'm not sure what point you or the Pasternak sisters are trying to make. This shouldn't even be a question of "rights". We live in a society where we are priviledged enough to participate in these sports. This is NOT a human rights issue - if it truly were, everyone who enjoys a decent salary would have to be contributing to the "right" of all the underpriviledged of society to play hockey also. Actually, this has a lot to do with Human rights...when you discriminate against someone because of their sex...that is in violation of their human rights. Boys moving down however is disallowed because they are bigger, stronger, faster...not because of their sex.
|
|
|
Post by macitect on Sept 28, 2006 9:35:22 GMT -5
WHY are boys bigger, stronger, faster? It is exactly BECAUSE OF their sex! Do we need to argue the physical differences between the sexes? If that is the case then it is a question of gender discrimination across the board.
So what about boys who are weaker, slower, and smaller? Is it not then also a human rights issue that they wouldn't be allowed to try out for a girls team?
The real danger in this type of scenario being brought to a human rights commission is the precedence it sets. Is there to be no place for boys to play with boys and girls with girls?
"Human rights" i think is a catch phrase that gets thrown around way too easily these days. Human rights are much more fundamental than being able to play on a hockey team that is reserved for one or the other sex. If this were actually a question of human rights and we sought to get rid of any discrimination then we would have to get rid of age discrimination, physical disability discrimination and any other factor that could be considered discriminatory. Do we really want to tread into these water over a recreational sport?!
respectfully, macitect
|
|
|
Post by ~Jiffy~ on Sept 28, 2006 12:15:07 GMT -5
First of all ... Mac.. yes .. boys are bigger and stronger and yes in some cases faster... I am female and I rather watch mens sports... (and no its not for the butts or anything) I have played many sports with guys... football (for fun only girl) and soccer and hockey and goodddddddd everything else. At one point like I stated before.. i got too small... I am only 5'2... so you can imagine the huge difference.... BUTTTTT I have played hockey with girls that were 6' and huge.. they were great athletes and if they wanted to could play on the boys team in which they did. Now.. since women are more lighter and less boned then men.. if we have a couple girls that can put up with the physical strain in mens hockey and actually compete.. LET EM. This is a tough issue tho.. because now limpy boys wanna go on the gals team... I am sure most are just trying to make a point which i might add is a good one. But the sisters didn't make it so lets drop this issue...
VERY TIRESOME
|
|
|
Post by wagner3 on Sept 28, 2006 14:26:52 GMT -5
well what do expect from the "Human Rights Commission" these extra-judicial kangaroo courts were promoted by a coalition of far leftists to enforce change upon society in spite of the common wisdom of the common man...how democratic... not to mention there is already a charter of rights upon which you could have an action through the normal courts to find a remedy.. and, yes, there are boys that are too small, slow, feable, etc. to make any team for their age group and sex...so I guess they should be permitted to play with the girls, lest their human rights are violated...but it'll likely never happen...
|
|
|
Post by ~Jiffy~ on Sept 28, 2006 16:54:27 GMT -5
I used to work for the Human Rights Commission... and I know everyone there.. my Auntie actually was one of the higher up there... so saying...
Really doesn't sit right with me at all....
|
|
|
Post by wagner3 on Sept 28, 2006 18:12:40 GMT -5
what the decision or my characterization?
maybe my comment was a little overboard, but you have to wonder with some of the decisions coming out of some of these tribunals, not just in Manitoba, but across the country...
|
|
|
Post by macitect on Sept 28, 2006 18:15:14 GMT -5
If you are referring to this thread, then by all means avoid it. If you are referring to the whole question of the Pasternak sisters, I agree, it is tiresome and silly, but this is definitely the kind of thing we ought to be rationally arguing in a democratic society. And all Winnipegers who care about the national/international perceptions of the city might be interested to know that as tiresome as it is, we don't hear about Winnipeg on the news here in Montreal, ever... but we heard about this one. It doesn't put a very good face on the city!
As far as your post goes, that's great that you've played on boys teams. Growing up I also played on teams that included girls - both soccer and hockey. Some of them were pretty good, and even past puberty some of them could keep up with the boys.
But the point I was trying to make is that this is by no means a question of human rights. If girls want to play on boys teams, then we should be actively discussing the merits and/or detriments of having sex specific leagues. At the moment however, we DO have sex-specific leagues AND co-ed leagues (albeit they are rare - but might that not be an indication that it isn't really a great success), so the question is essentially whether it is a human rights violation to set up any type of sexual exclusivity in terms of sports teams or any other organization.
I am afraid that the level that this scenario attained rather belittles the very idea of human rights when you stop to think of the battles raging around the globe for the rights to life, religious freedoms, access to water etc.
And when we finally, as a society, enter into a debate over the question of sex-specifiec leagues a case for either side cannot be argued based on anecdotal evidence. I am sure that we can agree that the fact that there may be some very gentle grizzlies would not be enough to convince you to get into a cage with several of them. Just because some girls are fit to play with the boys doesn't mean that they all are - in fact very few are.
cheers, macitect
ps I am curious to know if your view of the human rights commission would be different if you weren't so closely connected to it. I have to say that in large part I agree with what Wagner3 said, but I don't see how that reflects poorly on the employees that work there.
|
|