Unisex hockey

[Storm 0]

I just heard on the news that two girls were awarded $3500 (edit; each) for discrimination.

The Manitoba Human Rights Commission gave in to complaints of two hockey-playing sisters who were denied the right to try out for the boys' team at their high school — solely because the school had a, much weaker, team for girls.

What's more this challenge may allow boys on girls' teams.

Am I close-minded?

Today at a pick-up session two girls (not the same ones ) insisted on changing in the same room as the men's.

[Duder84 0]

were they hot?

[Chadd 916]

We had two women on one of the beer league teams I played for. I wasn't the least bit upset that they changed with us. US law, as I understand it, states that they would have to play for the girls team.

[Chadd 916]

Bad pic, but I've certainly seen worse hanging around the rink.

http://www.canada.com/topics/news/national...b9ba152&k=89247

[zrez 0]

See, whats gonna happen now, is the boys team will be full of boys, and the girls team will be full of boys. Because of this, girls are going to be pushed out of hockey, unless they are actualy good enough to play with the boys, and in msot cases, they arent.

Maybe i'll try out for a girls team next year.

[Meathead 0]

I wouldn't mind as long as they were hot. But they would have to follow the some rules as the rest of the team, which includes dressing in the same locker room and showering together. They would also be fair game for any hazing. (Fair is fair)

[zochi 1]

I heard about this story a couple of months ago on the news.

In my opinion heck if my son would go and play on a girls team that would kick some serious ass!

He would be scoring 5 goals a game.

They make girls teams for a reason and there should be no exception,

the only time there should be an exception if the girl is as good as crosby.

[delpiero81 0]

The size difference it's the major problem why girls cant play with guys.

This week we played a friendly game with "Agordo" womens team (half of the girls were in the Italian team in Torino olympics) and provided that we are crappy players we still beat them, they were great as a team and some have also very good skills but the size difference was too much for them (and we played no contact...) so i dont see the point of this girls, if they dont like their girl team they can go find another more competitive for them.

[zochi 1]

Yah I agree,

Most atheltic girls are running 115-125?

And there gonna be getting rocked against guys that are 60-70 pounds heavier then them.

I would be a little scared.

[Storm 0]

What annoys me is that they felt discriminated against when there is a girls hockey team at the school they could play on but in their words it was a joke.

I don't see the discrimination.

[hockeymom 2]

I actually like things the way they are right now, and hope this ruling doesn't change it. In high school, if there isn't an equivilent girls' team, a girl can try-out for a boys' team. That is fair. The only way you can MAKE the team is if your skills are good enough.

My daughter's teams have had many exhibition games against boys' teams over the years and often the girls have won (which really, really fries the boys). Before puberty, the genders are pretty much equal physically. Often the one or two girl players on a boys team are some of the strongest players on that team. Once the physical difference is there, a girl can't cover the ice as well as a boy can... bigger body, bigger strides.

But I really don't like the bit about sharing a dressing room - I can see how a girl would be tired of changing in the washroom or the first aid room, and want better space. And I can get how isolating it is socially. But really, there have to be limits.

The Manitoba girls', well if they are that good, I can understand their problem. Imagine being a AAA player and have to play house league? But presumably they already have a competitive team and would be better to look at the high school team as "fun" rather than as "development".

It is a possibility that, the boys' team might need them, and we're not hearing that in this media report.

[Storm 0]

But how is it discrimination? Since they do have an equivalent girl's team.

And what will stop a boy from trying out for the girl's team once he is cut from the boy's? Other than self respect.

While there are always other player dressing rooms available (not first aid rooms or toilets) some girls want to be part of the boys. They usually come in with their boyfriends and go in the shower room only to put on their undergarments. The guys don't and quite frankly where all secretly hoping the girl will start to blush.

Edit:"It is a possibility that, the boys' team might need them, and we're not hearing that in this media report."

We'll find out next week if they made the team but as far as I know it is not the case.

[NuggyBuggy 0]

On one hand, I have no problem with women playing with men if they are able to. On the other, I find it ironic that women's groups simultaneously demand the "right" to play with men, while the same groups will routinely work to prevent men or boys from playing on women's teams, even if there are no opportunities for the men or boys that sport otherwise. A boy who wants to play field hockey is probably SOL. A boy who isn't good enough to play on his high school team is SOL if he can't make his boy's team but could make the girl's team. But a girl who isn't good enough to play for her boy's team still has a girl's team to play for. I'm not sure what to call that, but it's not equality of opportunity.

Legislation like Title IX has lead to a perverse situation where women's teams exist in poorly-participated-in sports just because the university needs to field so many women athletes and offer so many scholarships to women, while simultaneously dropping popular men's sports. The US UCLA produced a ton of men who Olympic gymnasts. That program was cut. Other schools have to literally create women's teams that make no sense (Arizona State was talking about making a rowing team - in the desert) just so that they can offer more women's scholarships. In many, many cases women get athletic scholarships that they would have no business getting if they were men competing at an equivalent level. There is something wrong when the cut rates for men's and women's varsity teams differs so drastically.

And I will be honest, I have a hard time caring about, say, the Canadian women's hockey team when there are tons of boy midget AA/AAA players who are better than the women. But those boys will never be able to represent our country at the Olympics, simply because they are men and the bar for men is so much higher, both in absolute terms and statistically.

If availability of opportunity, independent of gender, is what is important, then we should just abolish women's and men's teams, and let everyone have the same opportunity.

[hockeymom 2]

If you take out our feelings for, and knowledge of, hockey, it IS discrimination. Laws in Canada say you cannot discriminate because of gender, religion, sexuality, ethnicity. So, if the only reason you can't try-out for a team is gender-based, it is discrimination. Remember, this case is about trying out for the team - not making one. It really is that simple.

What I suspect the Manitoba school board was asking for was an exception. That they ARE allowed to discriminate in this case, because an exception is for the greater good. EG. gender divisions are for the greater good and also for the greater good of girls.

Fact is, this ruling would allow boys to try-out for a girls team. And if boys "got over" the emotional and psychological barrier of trying out for a "girls team" it could, in effect, ruin all HS teams split along gender lines. We'd eventually end up with co-ed teams at different skill levels... and HS budgets aren't deep enough to run much more than two teams. So, ultimately some girls of lower skill levels wouldn't have the opportunity to play on a HS team... my guess is only the truly exceptional (like those on track for the Olympics) would make it at the high school senior team level.

I know some people would say tough because right now there are some boys who don't get the opportunity because they have lower skill levels. I think there is more to be gained from participating in sport, and I'd like to continue to see both genders have an equal opportunity.

It has been decades since girls won the right to try-out for a boys' team. In this case, because there is an existing girls team, the twins are essentially trying to take their rights further and eliminate all gender divisions. This might be good for them personally (they have played boys hockey all along, so we can assume they would be good enough to make the boys HS team, and logically some of their regular teammates will be on this HS boys team). However, this isn't good for sport and arguably (and I am a feminist) it isn't good for girls.

[hockeymom 2]

Equal doesn't actually mean same.

If we went simply with merit eg. fastest, biggest, strongest it would mean the elimination of women in virtually all sport. The fastest women runners are a few seconds slower than the men and so on.

NuggyBuggy: Usually the girls' field hockey is the alternative to boys' football. And, yes, one of my big issues with this ruling is that it will end the discrimination that PROTECTS girls' sport.

Metro: It is actually quite rare to have extra dressing rooms available - only the really huge rinks have "extras" available.

[KYHockey3 0]

see i play for my boys team and get dressed in the lobby because i dotn want to get dressed with the boys.

i am the only girl in the whole league.

but i believe if you have a boys team and a girls team you cant complain about not playin on the boys team.

[Storm 0]

I enjoy playing with girls from time to time and in the month of June many D1 and female Olympic players show up for shinny.

In many cases because of their knowledge of the game ( positional and level of anticipation ) I'd rather play with them rather than a boy/man who is stronger but has no hockey sense.

I have to agree with Hockeymom that it is discrimination but I think the judge should have taken in consideration what the law was trying to protect and like Hockeymom says in the end this will end up hurting the girls.

[chippa13 1844]

I don't think it is discrimination since the school had a girls team. If these girls felt the talent of the girls was beneath them then they could have done what plenty of boys do in that situation and transfer to a school that has a better program.

[hockeymom 2]

NuggyBuggy: You raised the issue of scholarship at university level. For a variety of reasons, the money WAS disproportionately invested in men’s teams and sport… I agree with you that, while the system adjusts, there are some nutty decisions being made.

The issue here I think is development. By making more female scholarships available, there will be a higher number of female athletes in sport and, because there is now a place to take their skills, more of a reason for younger athletes to develop their skills. Between that and the introduction of women’s hockey in the Olympics, we’re already seeing the benefits of it in women’s hockey – it is getting increasingly more competitive, with a higher number of athletes with greater skill levels. The bar is getting higher every year.

[ChrisGP 0]

Any roller hockey playing ladies should come over to the UK, as far as I know there are no restrictions on female players playing in any team (correct me if I'm wrong UK people), the mum of one of our players plays for our B-team!

Our NM is female and has been on the team for years, I always feel bad for her at league games as she always goes and finds somewhere separate to get changed...when she doesn't kick the rest of us out of the changing room that is :P

[hockeymom 2]

If these girls felt the talent of the girls was beneath them then they could have done what plenty of boys do in that situation and transfer to a school that has a better program.

I don't know the ins and outs of the Manitoba school board, but transferring may not have been an available option. Many school boards don't allow you to transfer, and others' are highly restrictive.

In Toronto, and I assume girls' hockey is as strong here as it is in Winnipeg, very few high school teams actually ice a girls' hockey team and even fewer have sufficient budget to ice a junior and a senior team. Hockey is one of the most expensive sports for a high school. The strongest girls' teams are with the private schools (I don't have $20,000 to send my kid there - and those Manitoba parents have a double whammy with two daughters!) or with the largest public schools (that makes sense, they have a larger pool to select from). And smaller schools, if they ice a team, tend to be weaker.

In my daughter's case, we did apply to transfer to schools that had 1. strong girls' teams and 2. great academics (the order would depend on whether you were speaking to me or to my daughter...lol). Any spots remaining after the kids in the existing catchment areas were enrolled, were open for transfers - by blind lottery. Not grades, not sports - just an equal chance to be selected or not. My daughter didn't win any of the lottery spots.

She was accepted at a small specialized school we picked because of its academics (integrated technology), and happily it will ice a girls' hockey team. I predict it will get hammered by the larger schools and she will have great joy playing sport in high school. Her skills development will continue to come from competitve hockey. If she were good enough to make the stronger boys team (and I doubt she would be, but for arguments sake) I don't think I would want her to, because that would either weaken the girls team significantly... or possibly eliminate the team entirely.

Although I certainly do understand their dilema, I wish the sisters in Manitoba had opted for "fun" rather than open this whole can of worms.

[Chadd 916]

You would think that the coach/school would have made an exception if they were good enough to make the guys team.

[hockeymom 2]

You would think that the coach/school would have made an exception if they were good enough to make the guys team.

They wouldn't be able to even if they wanted to - it's against the school board rules.

The local high school could be encouraging them because they'd like them to be able to try-out for the boys' team or if they could be reeling in horror because, if they do make it, the "elimination" of two players' on the girls' team might fold the girls' team.

I hope this will all just go away.

[zochi 1]

So my wife brings home to paper today and front page what does it say.

"Girls Win Hockey Fight"

And on top of this they were awarded $3500 for discrimination?

I can tell you right now that money is going to be going strait to their lawyer and then on to the mall.

Like come on the girl goalie hasnt played in 2 years you think shes acaully any good?

And so they can try-out what does that mean?

I have known the coach of the team for when my son used to play around that area some time now and I know for a fact he wont be putting the girls on the team even if they are good.

Why you ask?

Well hes 1 of those skin head guys very strong religion, very strong beliefs about hockey.

[hockeymom 2]

Zochi - Do you know for a fact they haven't played in two years at all - or is it they haven't played for the high school team?

Media reports seem to say they have been playing competitive boys' hockey.

I will be incredibly po'd if these two have opened this whole can of worms if they don't have the TALENT to be legitimately considered.