Girls taking "equal rights" a bit too far...

Manip

Twin sisters fighting to play hockey with boys

Article wrote:
Girls who play on female hockey teams don't have as much passion or take the game as seriously as boys on male teams, say two 17-year-old girls who are fighting for the right to play on an all-boys hockey team in Winnipeg.

"Women's hockey is a lot slower. It doesn't appeal to me," said Amy Pasternak, who took the stand yesterday at a Manitoba Human Rights Commission (MHRC) hearing. "I have a lot more passion than they do."
Amy and her identical twin sister, Jesse, say they've been discriminated against by the Manitoba High Schools Athletics Association (MHSAA). [...]

Click header for full article

Damn that's bull ... It isn't some form discrimination that makes the girls play poorly or without "spirit" it is just how they play. Adversely the boys could be the ones playing that way under the same rules.

Let's say that they get what they want and instead of a girls and a boys team they instead had upper and lower skilled teams (unisex).

What happens if the best players happen to be the bigger stronger guys and you end up with a male only upper skilled team? Are they going to cry discrimination and sexism then, and go after some positive discrimination? Or will you end up with a token female on the upper team?

And should the guys have to worry about hurting the little ninety pound girl on the other team? And if the girls do get badly hurt are they going to revert back to their "I'm a princess" victim role and make the guy that hurt them look like some kind of monster?

sbc
GW R/Me

The next thing you know, you will get boys wanting to play on girls teams because they are not good enough to play for a boys one.

You can go the other way in discrimination - i.e. by giving priority to females / other ethnicities you are descriminating as well. It's a hard problem to solve. Jobs should be given based on skill, not race or gender.

In general, boys are stronger than girls. Girls are also smarter than boys as well. However, it is to the detriment of society when smart women become career orientated and never have children (if they did, the children would probably be clever as well and become productive, rather than claiming benefits). There will be a time when people in work will have to spend more time in a job to pay for those who have retired, simply because of the aging population (and may even be outnumbered by them).

Harlequin
http://twitter.com/TrueHarlequin

Same reason I'm not a fan of things like the Latin Grammys, and all of the "black" awards. It's like we haven't learned anything...

Could you imagine a "2006 White Film Awards" Perplexed

yman

sbc wrote:

Girls are also smarter than boys as well.

Girl's IQ are normally more stable and less known to flucuate. Boy's IQs can be very very high (165+) but can also be very very low. It is said that the ranges of the IQs for girls are less wide than the boy's.

Manip

Harlequin wrote:
Could you imagine a "2006 White Film Awards"

Very true...

Can you imagine if someone started a "White Men's" club? It will likely be shutdown and those running it charged with some kind of hate crime... But ethnic minorities and women can both start their perspective clubs or societies and be praised for it.

I wouldn't want to see a "White Men's" club started, and can't see it benefiting society... But for the same reasons I don't like clubs and societies for whom an ethnic minority or women are their only members.

I honestly believe that White Men are the most discriminated against; but also the least effected by that discrimination (i.e. the discrimination doesn't affect us financially, socially or legally).

yman

Manip wrote:

Harlequin wrote:Could you imagine a "2006 White Film Awards"

Very true...

Can you imagine if someone started a "White Men's" club? It will likely be shutdown and those running it charged with some kind of hate crime... But ethnic minorities and women can both start their perspective clubs or societies and be praised for it.

I wouldn't want to see a "White Men's" club started, and can't see it benefiting society... But for the same reasons I don't like clubs and societies for whom an ethnic minority or women are their only members.

I honestly believe that White Men are the most discriminated against; but also the least effected by that discrimination (i.e. the discrimination doesn't affect us financially, socially or legally).

heh, my father is a member of a men only gentlement club in London Sad

Angus
.

yman wrote:

heh, my father is a member of a men only gentlement club in London

I think he is talking about a club that is specific to white males, not just males in general. Gentlemens' clubs are traditional I believe.

Angus Higgins

Minh
WOOH! WOOH!

Harlequin wrote:
Could you imagine a "2006 White Film Awards"

Isn't any film awards from the year 1918-1967 effectively "White Film Awards" ? (I picked those years at random, but you know what I mean)

Minh
WOOH! WOOH!

Manip wrote:

Can you imagine if someone started a "White Men's" club? It will likely be shutdown and those running it charged with some kind of hate crime... But ethnic minorities and women can both start their perspective clubs or societies and be praised for it.

Surely, you jest. Name ONE "White Men's" club whose members got charged w/ a hate crime for being a member of that club -- and they HAVEN'T committed any hate crime.

I don't know how things are over there, but private groups here can do whatever the hell they want -- including making a race a membership requirement. Now, members will have to answer why they're in a "White Men's" club -- but there's no law against it.

Manip

Minh wrote:
Isn't any film awards from the year 1918-1967 effectively "White Film Awards" ? (I picked those years at random, but you know what I mean)

Isn't that because non-whites looked odd on black and white TV? How could you tell them from the scenery around them?

PS - I do note that this is slightly racist and slightly unfunny Tongue Out

Minh wrote:
I don't know how things are over there, but private groups here can do whatever the hell they want -- including making a race a membership requirement. Now, members will have to answer why they're in a "White Men's" club -- but there's no law against it.

I don't think you are allowed to stop an ethnicity from joining your club in the UK... But you can make a gender only club.

Manip

It appears I'm right, read:

Article wrote:
Race Discrimination: Clubs
Before the Race Relations Act 2000, private clubs, such as political and working-men’s clubs, were allowed to discriminate on race grounds. It is now unlawful for any club or society with 25 or more members to discriminate on race grounds in any of the following ways:

Refusing to allow you to join.
Offering you less favourable terms of membership.
Giving you fewer benefits, facilities or services or refusing to let you use or have any of these benefits (for example, social facilities).
Expelling you from the club or changing the terms of your membership.
Putting you at a disadvantage in any other way.
But a club or society whose main purpose is to provide benefits for people of a particular racial group, whatever its size, will continue to be allowed to discriminate on race grounds (although not on grounds of colour).

So if the main purpose of the club is to help X race then you are allowed to stop Y race from joining... But otherwise you can not block anyone.

Edit: That article is actually wrong, it is not included in the 2000 ammendment to the Race Relations Act, but instead part of the original 1976 act... So in effect has been law since that time.

John Galt

Let 'em play with the boys. They'll either end up in a hospital the first day or they'll survive and show themselves to be equal to the task.

Wickenhiser plays with the boys in Finland and holds her own, but with that one exception women playing in men's sports have been largely a disaster (tennis with a has-been on the men's side not withstanding) and the women try it for a while and then go back to the women's teams. (Golf anyone?)

This isn't sexist, it's biology. That being said, the averages are averages. Each individual should have the right to play in the league that they can actually earn a spot in. Screw guys/girls leagues and just play in the league you can handle. God knows there are a lot of guys that shouldn't even be playing with the women.

Greatness is greatness, male or female. Embrace it, and allow them to see if they are that kind of great, or fail horribly as the case may be. I for one hope that they are THAT GOOD and push the men to be better if for nothing else but ego.

Shining Arcanine

Manip, you are one of the last people I would have expected to say that anyone took equal rights too far.

Anyway, if the girls feel that they should play on the same team as the boys, then they should also feel that they should share the same locker rooms and lavatories, as having separate facilities would be discrimination.

Pon

Hah, I laugh at this.Femi(I need to watch my language)s give us a bad name :<

JohnAskew
9 girl in pink sweater

yman wrote:

sbc wrote:
Girls are also smarter than boys as well.

Girl's IQ are normally more stable and less known to flucuate. Boy's IQs can be very very high (165+) but can also be very very low. It is said that the ranges of the IQs for girls are less wide than the boy's.

So you are saying that besides not being able to think outside the box, they can't smash it open either?

Pon

JohnAskew wrote:

yman wrote:

sbc wrote:
Girls are also smarter than boys as well.

Girl's IQ are normally more stable and less known to flucuate. Boy's IQs can be very very high (165+) but can also be very very low. It is said that the ranges of the IQs for girls are less wide than the boy's.

So you are saying that besides not being able to think outside the box, they can't smash it open either?

We don't need to be able to; that's what males are for Tongue Out

ScanIAm
On a scale of 1 to 10, people are stupid.

It happens at every highschool eventually and for them, it's a way of expressing themselves.

"Look, I got on the boys team and unfortunately, the rest of my peers don't want to do it, but I guess you could say I paved the way for other women." Unfortunately, it's a path that most women won't want to take.

It's not the men's teams that are keeping out women players, it's lack of women who really want to compete with a bunch of neanderthals. And the few who do aren't exactly revered amongst their gender.

I guarantee, if a full team's worth of hockey/soccer/football/baseball/rugby/lacross(er wait) players decided that they wanted to form/join the 'mens' team, they could.

Manip

Shining Arcanine wrote:
Manip, you are one of the last people I would have expected to say that anyone took equal rights too far.

I was being facetious in the title... I don't believe this is about some girls getting equal rights. They have equal rights today, in that both the girls and boys have an equal opportunity to play on a team. What they're going after is more than equal rights, they want to have their cake and eat it too.

sbc
GW R/Me

As George Orwell said: "Everyone is equal, but some are more equal than others"

The reality is, not everyone is equal. Some are stronger, faster, more intelligent etc. There will always be someone 'better' than you (and you may be 'better' than them as well in another area).

Manip

sbc wrote:
As George Orwell said: "Everyone is equal, but some are more equal than others"

'All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.'

That only applies to animals, duhh Tongue Out

sbc
GW R/Me

Manip wrote:
sbc wrote:As George Orwell said: "Everyone is equal, but some are more equal than others"

'All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.'

That only applies to animals, duhh

OK, I was paraphrasing him rather than directly quoting. But the book is an analogy - he just used animals instead of humans.

Manip

And 1984 is just an analogy for how we treat animals... Tongue Out

PS - I've read both books, it was a joke...

Pon

Shining Arcanine wrote:

Was that not the point after the women got suffage and the women's movement was not disbanded?

The physical requirements for women in fire departments and the military were watered down so they could get into them in more "equal" numbers, which is rediculous considering that they cannot pull 300 pound men from burning buildings or respond to terrorist insurgents while carrying 80 pounds of equipment, someone will die.

I think that you're perfectly right. Although, I am glad they did this, because I wouldn't mind being a fire... Fireperson lol.

But still, lives come before peoples' wishes, if you ask me Perplexed

Shining Arcanine

Manip wrote:

Shining Arcanine wrote:Manip, you are one of the last people I would have expected to say that anyone took equal rights too far.

I was being facetious in the title... I don't believe this is about some girls getting equal rights. They have equal rights today, in that both the girls and boys have an equal opportunity to play on a team. What they're going after is more than equal rights, they want to have their cake and eat it too.

Was that not the point after the women got suffage and the women's movement was not disbanded having carried out its "purpose?"

The physical requirements for women in fire departments and the military were watered down so they could get into them in more "equal" numbers, which is rediculous considering that if they cannot pull 300 pound men from burning buildings or respond to terrorist insurgents while carrying 80 pounds of equipment, someone will die. Then again, from what I have been told, they are not allowed to go to the front lines, so they are getting a pass on the physical requirements and then are being sheltered by the people who actually met the physical requirements.

Girls taking &quot;equal rights&quot; a bit too far...

Twin sisters fighting to play hockey with boys