The National League was founded in February of 1876, and since the senior circuit kicked off baseball in this country women have gained equal rights and made a huge impact on the sports landscape both in the United States and abroad.
Recently a story came out of Arizona where Our Lady of Sorrows Academy forfeited a state championship game, refusing to play Mesa Prep solely because the team’s starting second basemen is a girl.
Mesa Prep is a Phoenix high school and the school does not have a softball team, so Paige Sulzbach, a 15-year-old girl decided to try her hand in baseball. Not only did Sulzbach make the team but she is the squad’s starting second basewoman.
Out of respect for Our Lady of Sorrows, Sulzbach sat out during Mesa Prep’s two regular season match ups against them, but with the State Championship on the line, she was determined to play. While no one from the school has commented on the issue, Our Lady of Sorrows released a statement saying the decision to forfeit the game was consistent with the school’s policy prohibiting co-ed sports.
In the past female athletes have competed at high levels against male counterparts, recently Mo Isom, an LSU soccer player tried out for the school’s football team. She was cut, but Isom vows to go out for the Tigers again.
At the high school level do you think girls should be allowed to compete on a boys team?
If a second basemen (or second basewomen) can hit, run and field better then her male counterparts then I think she should be allowed to play and I would love to have her on any team I play for or coach.
But I'll put it this way: What you say is fine as long as it goes for boys on girls' teams, too.
Then again, some people are content to remain ignorant.
For the moment, however, I'll point out that the result shouldn't surprise you. The women's world record for the mile is 4:12; the boys' American high school record is 3:52. (And this is easily verified.) In fact, boys' high school records are far better than women's world records in all the events, and this intersex performance gap, with some variation, holds across all physical sports. Thus, that the best high school soccer players would be superior to the best women is intuitive. To tell you the truth, the boys probably had an extremely bad game to only have won 2-1. In fact, a gap between the sexes exists even in most non-physical endeavors. In chess, the best women can't hold a candle to the best men (this is what prompted Gary Kasparov to say that a woman would never be world champion). In auto racing, while there is Danica Patrick, not only isn't she as good as the better men, but she's also a rarity. And then there's putting in golf. When I checked the statistics some years ago (I'm a golf fan), I found that the best putter on the LPGA Tour would only have ranked about 60th on the men's tour. This, despite the fact that the men play on tougher greens.
As often the Politically Correct are more Political than Correct. They want it both ways allowing girls on boys teams but want to protect exclusive girls teams too.
You are correct, of course. But remember that liberalism has nothing to do with fairness. It's a mental disorder.
Not necessarily so. Girls are often allowed to play in boys' competitions even if there's a corresponding girls' competition. Equality would dictate that we should return the favor. In this case, boys who couldn't qualify for the boys' arena could take over the girls" one. And why not? If we're all "equal," why should girls have a separate, protected, inferior arena in which to compete? And if we're not equal, then why assume that it's wrong to exclude girls from boys' arenas simply because they're girls? People need to think these matters through more carefully, as opposed to just adopting PC dogma.
http://espn.go.com/new-york/story/_/id/7933109/new-york-boy-keeling-pilaro-play-girls-field-hockey-team
I am glad to see the young man is allowed to play the sport he loves, I just hope he doesnt get hurt by social stigmas that will follow a young man playing on a girl's team.
The right in this country will not be happy until all states look like Mississippi.
Since you're trumpeting liberals' erudition, this rightist will mention that the word you're looking for is "populace." As to your claims, as usual, you're wrong. Utah, one of the most Republican states in the nation, is number one in quality of life. (See here: http://www.forbes.com/2009/03/11/united-states-healthy-lifestyle-health-healthy-living.html) Massachusetts did come in eighth; however, if you examine the rankings, you'll find the upper echelons occupied by both red and blue states. Moreover, the main factor in this is wealth and whiteness: states ranking highly are wealthier and generally have small minority populations (although there are a couple of exceptions to the last thing, such as West Virginia). For instance, in the state you cited, Mississippi, blacks are upwards of 36 percent of the populace. (Hmm, perhaps liberal MA can finance the migration of poor blacks to MA; the libtards would be doing their good deed for the day and increasing their "diversity," which they claim is so beneficial). As for contributing to the federal treasury, the libtard states' greater taxation is poetic justice. They vote for big government, so I'm happy as can be that they're getting hosed. Heck, if I had my way, liberals would be taxed at 90 percent so that they'd experience the true consequences of their ideology. Lastly, I'll point out that, despite red states' lower income, they give more to charity even in inflation adjusted dollars. Libtards are skinflints.