Controversy pushes girl off hockey team

[Axxion89 32]

But hey, next time you're affirmative actioned out of a job (funny that a program that was supposed to be for minorities has almost exclusively benefited white women) or other opportunity I'm sure you'll be just so thrilled that we start girls on the special privilege train early... shrug

You're thinking Title IX, affirmative action has nothing to do with women at all. Title IX deals with collegiate sports. If you are going to bash others in the manner that you are doing in this thread, t least know what you are talking about thanks

[donkey87 0]

You're thinking Title IX, affirmative action has nothing to do with women at all. Title IX deals with collegiate sports. If you are going to bash others in the manner that you are doing in this thread, t least know what you are talking about thanks

Actually Affirmative Action does involve women.

Executive Order 11375 - "It is the policy of the United States Government to provide equal opportunity in Federal employment and in employment by Federal contractors on the basis of merit and without discrimination because of race, color, religion, sex or national origin."

Definition from Merriam Webster - " an active effort to improve the employment or educational opportunities of members of minority groups and women"

[ironic_chef 0]

Husband played AAA as a kid, and played with a girl all through his (minor) hockey career. This girl played contact, and was run by the other teams from time to time, but he insists she held her own and is quick to point out that she never complained. She legitimately made every team she played for, no question. When asked about playing with boys, she said she just wanted the most competitive opportunity, that she wanted to play with the best. She went on to play D1 hockey, win 2 national championships, the Patty Kazmaier award, and more individual awards than I can begin to list. I think she's maybe 5'2 and 110# - in equipment.

Maybe the comparison can't be made in adults or physically mature players, but players in this particular issue are comparable, size wise. They're 10-11 years old! Honestly, the young girls teams around here aren't developed enough to offer competition for someone who has aspirations to play NCAA or Olympic hockey (until a certain age, where there are competitive teams).

The comment about Wickenheiser is well put, though - I find that irritating. If you're going to play the game, you expose yourself to all aspects of it, including tough rub-outs along the boards. I hate females who play with males and whine like that - shut up and play if you're going to play.

[hockeymom 2]

Whew Chippa, what an exchange! I remember a coach telling me the absolute worst parents to have on a team were lawyers. This story seems to hold true to that!

I'm in arguably the largest hockey market in the world with several well developed girl's leagues, the largest girl's hockey tournament in the world (running some 40 years) and hockey is split (last time I counted them) roughly 70 boys leagues to 4 girls leagues.

Girls being able to play on Boys' teams and boys not being able to play on girls teams (other than HS) is discrimination. The purpose for the discrimination is to give girls opportunities they otherwise would not have. I can accept that. I do not accept arguments that historically girls have been discriminated against (that hockey legal battle was won some 30 years old and those factors did not affect my 18 year old daughter in her 13 years of playing competitive hockey). I also cannot accept arguments that girls are "just as good" as boys because the physical differences (at puberty, not so much before) are such that the comparable girl is always exceptional.

What this discrimination does do is limit the development of girl's leagues in favour of the development of a few elite girl's individual skill level. So far, this has been judged to be an acceptable trade-off, but, as female leagues continue to grow and mature, the days are coming when the women's hockey associations will likely take a firmer stand on it.

But stepping slightly into the sexist conversation that has run like a ribbon through this thread; I would like to point out to Rachel that tactics such as not allowing a man his legitimate complaints and observations by shouting him down with things like "wambulance" takes away men's rights to speak of their experience. This is sexist in my world.

[iceNsteel 0]

You're thinking Title IX, affirmative action has nothing to do with women at all. Title IX deals with collegiate sports. If you are going to bash others in the manner that you are doing in this thread, t least know what you are talking about thanks

Actually, Affirmative action is all about women. Racial preferences have have been repeatedly struck down by the courts, to the point that in terms of benefiting minorities AA has been neutered for decades. However, American courts nearly always permit situations that unfairly advantage women. Thus we have a program like AA that was sit up to help minorities and in reality the only ones that have seen any real benefit are affluent white women.

Title IX is supposed to help with women's athletics, on that front it's just turned out into a policy that punishes men because women are less interested in sports. So you're just SOL if you happen to play a less popular sport. Title IX, as it relates to hockey, has been a big set of concrete shoes on the growth of NCAA hockey.

[stuie7 6]

As for the play making vs. physicality of the game people say this crap about European vs North American hockey. End of the day the gold medal game was played between the North American teams in Vancouver, and it's hardly the first time that's happened. Or watching the US throttle the Germans 4 to zip, or the Canadians run over Norway 10 to 1. Hitting is a part of the game, this isn't basketball.

Did you notice that at the previous Olympics in 2006 that Canada and USA finished 7th and 8th respectively, 1st-6th were all European teams.

If 2006 was too long ago, maybe you should check who's been dominating at the World Juniors.

Not quite sure what point you're trying to make about international ice hockey here.

[forbs02 20]

Title IX is supposed to help with women's athletics, on that front it's just turned out into a policy that punishes men because women are less interested in sports. So you're just SOL if you happen to play a less popular sport. Title IX, as it relates to hockey, has been a big set of concrete shoes on the growth of NCAA hockey.

If football didn't have 85 full scholarships, it would be a lot easier for a school to be Title IX compliant. It's not fair to say that Title IX is the reason that schools aren't funding NCAA hockey. Hockey is a niche sport outside of the north/northeast. I would guess that most of the top programs are financially independent, but outside of those how many of the men's hockey programs are covering their own expenses? At that point they are most likely being covered by the school's football or basketball program, just like every other non-revenue sport.

I can't believe that this thread is still going strong for as far off topic as it has gone.

[iceNsteel 0]

If football didn't have 85 full scholarships, it would be a lot easier for a school to be Title IX compliant. It's not fair to say that Title IX is the reason that schools aren't funding NCAA hockey. Hockey is a niche sport outside of the north/northeast. I would guess that most of the top programs are financially independent, but outside of those how many of the men's hockey programs are covering their own expenses? At that point they are most likely being covered by the school's football or basketball program, just like every other non-revenue sport.

I can't believe that this thread is still going strong for as far off topic as it has gone.

It is extremely fair to say that it does, and it's not only hockey. The entire fault of Title IX lies in it's simple and idiotic refusal to recognize that women are less interested in sports. The player pools are thinner, and the talent pools are equally thin. This very strongly factors into decisions on what kinds of sports are going to get varsity status because a school must consider not whether the men's program could be a success, but funding for a women's program that could easily become an albatross on the university. Thus there are without a doubt many universities that could, and would, have varsity hockey, LAX, rugby, and the like but are crippled by Title IX.

[Chadd 916]

If football didn't have 85 full scholarships, it would be a lot easier for a school to be Title IX compliant. It's not fair to say that Title IX is the reason that schools aren't funding NCAA hockey.

There are a number of schools that generate enough income from their football programs to pay the costs for the rest of the athletic department. Schools have also proven via their actions that they are more willing to cut male sports in order to meet compliance than add female sports. The end result has been a reduction in the opportunities for men as well as an increase in opportunities for women. I don't think many people who have actually studied the issue feel that it has been a success on most levels.

[rachael7 1]

But stepping slightly into the sexist conversation that has run like a ribbon through this thread; I would like to point out to Rachel that tactics such as not allowing a man his legitimate complaints and observations by shouting him down with things like "wambulance" takes away men's rights to speak of their experience. This is sexist in my world.

It might be sexist and honestly, your argument would be fair, in a different world. But the problem is that for virtually all of human history, only men had the right to have their experiences heard and considered, and women were expected to be quiet little servants. And considering that women have been fighting tooth and nail for the right to be heard for centuries, I find it pathetic that the first time a man's opinion is given full attention and primacy in consideration, he cries foul. So yeah, maybe I'm a sexist. As if the person I was responding to isn't.

[iceNsteel 0]

And thus we have it, what all "isms" turn into in the end: the abandonment of ethics, morality, and principal. Leaving nothing but one group trying to secure special privileged and advantages over others. Often complete with hair brained justifications, such as trying to paint the history of the whole world one way....

[rachael7 1]

And there we have it - the dictionary definition of male privilege, dismissive of every possible viewpoint except its own, ignoring or rewriting history to suit the predetermined ends, and simply sweeping aside any uncomfortable or inconvenient facts with a pat on the head and a condescending sneer. Well done, mate.

[NuggyBuggy 0]

And we thought this guy was a tool before...............

Taken from my personal email account. No harm done if this guy plans to "expose" me in his blog.....

Tell him there is no way that any email provider is going to divulge their members' identity to non-law-enforcement agencies and call his bluff.

The guy gets more annoying with each turn of the worm. He is everything that is wrong with kids' hockey. Has anyone been able to find his kid's stats ? Is he a star or fighting with this girl for playing time ?

[NuggyBuggy 0]

Title IX... ooh I'm getting mad again.

I did my graduate work at UCLA, where they cut their men's swimming, diving, and gymnastics programs and others in order to get into IX compliance. These are programs that have produced many Olympic medalists. Cal State Northridge was going to cut their national championship baseball team among others, in order to get into compliance USC cut a bunch of programs so that they could put in, among other things, women's rowing. There is no large body of freshwater anywhere near USC. Now as it turns out, the USC women's rowing program has been quite successful, but a large number of the beneficiaries have hailed from the Eastern bloc.

It seems absurd that high profile programs were getting dismantled in order to create scholarships in a bunch of sports which are themselves poorly participated in, and in which participation is based exclusively on gender.

When do we extend IX to provide for scholarship representation among different guidelines ? Why is gender a reasonable criteria but not, for instance, race, religion, or height ?

[twistoffate19 0]

I agree with the points being made that if a woman is talented enough that she should be allowed to play with the boys. However, from what I've seen in my area, the biggest problem with women on men's teams is the "protection" factor. I'll explain with an example:

I played high school hockey all 4 years I was there. In my grade 11 year, my team has an exhibition game against one of the county high schools, where Meghan Agosta (Canadian Women's Hockey Olympic Team) was playing. Meghan and two other females were on that team. Now I play right-defense, and on my first shift out there, Meghan comes flying down my side with the puck, so I throw a hip-check and hammer her to the boards. She goes down hurt, and the first thing that happens as I turn around is that 3 of the people on her team (all guys) on the ice at that time come and jump me for "Laying out a girl".

I am also a referee in the city and I see it all the time in any level of hockey where there is contact. Coaches, other players, parents, they throw fits anytime a girl on their team is touched. I have noticed that a majority of the girls playing never complain about it, it is other people. The protection factor is the biggest problem I have with women playing in men's hockey.

Anyone else have similar experiences?

[chippa13 1844]

Tell him there is no way that any email provider is going to divulge their members' identity to non-law-enforcement agencies and call his bluff.

The guy gets more annoying with each turn of the worm. He is everything that is wrong with kids' hockey. Has anyone been able to find his kid's stats ? Is he a star or fighting with this girl for playing time ?

My response was simply this:

"Now George, I'm sure you understand the dangers inherent in posting someone's personal information without their expressed premission."

Shockingly, I never heard back.

[ktang 34]

I agree with the points being made that if a woman is talented enough that she should be allowed to play with the boys. However, from what I've seen in my area, the biggest problem with women on men's teams is the "protection" factor. I'll explain with an example:

I played high school hockey all 4 years I was there. In my grade 11 year, my team has an exhibition game against one of the county high schools, where Meghan Agosta (Canadian Women's Hockey Olympic Team) was playing. Meghan and two other females were on that team. Now I play right-defense, and on my first shift out there, Meghan comes flying down my side with the puck, so I throw a hip-check and hammer her to the boards. She goes down hurt, and the first thing that happens as I turn around is that 3 of the people on her team (all guys) on the ice at that time come and jump me for "Laying out a girl".

I am also a referee in the city and I see it all the time in any level of hockey where there is contact. Coaches, other players, parents, they throw fits anytime a girl on their team is touched. I have noticed that a majority of the girls playing never complain about it, it is other people. The protection factor is the biggest problem I have with women playing in men's hockey.

Anyone else have similar experiences?

Yes, there is still a lot of "white knight" syndrome at the adult levels. But, at the Pee-Wee level around here, there doesn't seem to be much if any of that at all. Maybe it's because the players have played with girls enough that it isn't a big deal any more.

[zebra_steve 11]

I agree with the points being made that if a woman is talented enough that she should be allowed to play with the boys. However, from what I've seen in my area, the biggest problem with women on men's teams is the "protection" factor. I'll explain with an example:

I played high school hockey all 4 years I was there. In my grade 11 year, my team has an exhibition game against one of the county high schools, where Meghan Agosta (Canadian Women's Hockey Olympic Team) was playing. Meghan and two other females were on that team. Now I play right-defense, and on my first shift out there, Meghan comes flying down my side with the puck, so I throw a hip-check and hammer her to the boards. She goes down hurt, and the first thing that happens as I turn around is that 3 of the people on her team (all guys) on the ice at that time come and jump me for "Laying out a girl".

I am also a referee in the city and I see it all the time in any level of hockey where there is contact. Coaches, other players, parents, they throw fits anytime a girl on their team is touched. I have noticed that a majority of the girls playing never complain about it, it is other people. The protection factor is the biggest problem I have with women playing in men's hockey.

Anyone else have similar experiences?

And this is different from those same 3 guys jumping you for laying out their "all star"?

There's a difference between a good proper body check and the BS that is accepted for a good hard check these days. Everyone wants the "bug on the windshield" glass rattling, teeth loosening BOARDING that goes for hard checks these days. No one has the balls to call it like it is and get rid of it. Then they whine when someone proposes raising the "checking age" because no on knows how to do it properly.... But that's a bit off topic for this conversation.

[iceNsteel 0]

And there we have it - the dictionary definition of male privilege, dismissive of every possible viewpoint except its own, ignoring or rewriting history to suit the predetermined ends, and simply sweeping aside any uncomfortable or inconvenient facts with a pat on the head and a condescending sneer. Well done, mate.

There aren't any uncomfortable or inconvenient facts. You have an "interpretation" of history that you seem to think entitles people who didn't even live then advantages and special privileges at the expense of other people that also were not yet alive, even if your "interpretation" was accurate. It's nothing short of arguing that Anglo-Americans were right to treat Italian immigrants like crap because once upon a time in history the Romans were selling the ancestors of those some Anglo-Americans as slaves..... There's nothing valid, principled, or ethical to even consider in such an inane argument. It's being dismissed because anyone that thinks that way should be dismissed out of hand.

[chk hrd 164]

I agree with the points being made that if a woman is talented enough that she should be allowed to play with the boys. However, from what I've seen in my area, the biggest problem with women on men's teams is the "protection" factor. I'll explain with an example:

I played high school hockey all 4 years I was there. In my grade 11 year, my team has an exhibition game against one of the county high schools, where Meghan Agosta (Canadian Women's Hockey Olympic Team) was playing. Meghan and two other females were on that team. Now I play right-defense, and on my first shift out there, Meghan comes flying down my side with the puck, so I throw a hip-check and hammer her to the boards. She goes down hurt, and the first thing that happens as I turn around is that 3 of the people on her team (all guys) on the ice at that time come and jump me for "Laying out a girl".

I am also a referee in the city and I see it all the time in any level of hockey where there is contact. Coaches, other players, parents, they throw fits anytime a girl on their team is touched. I have noticed that a majority of the girls playing never complain about it, it is other people. The protection factor is the biggest problem I have with women playing in men's hockey.

Anyone else have similar experiences?

When I coached I taught that there are no boys or girls on the ice, only hockey players. You play them all the same including hits and cleaning out the crease. No special treatment. You give them the same respect you give anyother player.

In a beer league I played in there is a team made up of mostly ex college girls with a few guys thrown in.. They are by far the worse team to play against because most of the local refs will not call anything short of a stick to the head by them. I (as well as other male players) have been run at, boarded, chopped and cheap shotted without any calls. You make any incidental contact with one of the girls and it's a shoving match with one of the guys and off to the box.If the ref doesn't make a call for them they bitch like no tomorrow. This always leads to no good as some guy gets tired of taking crap without a call and makes it a point to get even. Call it all the same and then no one can complain (but still will)

[chippa13 1844]

There aren't any uncomfortable or inconvenient facts. You have an "interpretation" of history that you seem to think entitles people who didn't even live then advantages and special privileges at the expense of other people that also were not yet alive, even if your "interpretation" was accurate. It's nothing short of arguing that Anglo-Americans were right to treat Italian immigrants like crap because once upon a time in history the Romans were selling the ancestors of those some Anglo-Americans as slaves..... There's nothing valid, principled, or ethical to even consider in such an inane argument. It's being dismissed because anyone that thinks that way should be dismissed out of hand.

That is not even close to what she is saying. She is not arguing for advantages or special priviliges. All she is asking for is the equal opportunity, and no, that doesn't mean separate but equal.

[rachael7 1]

There aren't any uncomfortable or inconvenient facts. You have an "interpretation" of history that you seem to think entitles people who didn't even live then advantages and special privileges at the expense of other people that also were not yet alive, even if your "interpretation" was accurate. It's nothing short of arguing that Anglo-Americans were right to treat Italian immigrants like crap because once upon a time in history the Romans were selling the ancestors of those some Anglo-Americans as slaves..... There's nothing valid, principled, or ethical to even consider in such an inane argument. It's being dismissed because anyone that thinks that way should be dismissed out of hand.

Yes, there are indeed very uncomfortable facts, starting with your arrogant propensity for declaring that your opinions are facts and objective facts that don't suit your fabricated version of reality are mere opinions or that they are irrelevant to the subject at hand. When you talk about history, you believe you are entitled to treat your interpretation as fact. Yet when I talk about history, it is some sort of subjective interpretation that can't possibly be based in objective reality. The victors write the history, I guess, and it is called 'his story' for a reason.

But more importantly, your position on the relevance of history is highly flawed and is one espoused almost exclusively by rabid racists and misogynists. This argument would demand that since Brown v. Board of Education and the Voting Rights Act are both long since history, that there is no more racial discrimination in the US. And you need only ask a person with skin a shade or two darker than yours to know that isn't true. Or simply check some statistics about the relative percentages of drug users that are black and drug crime arrestees that are similarly colored - there most certainly is institutionalized racial discrimination left in this country and there is just as certainly gender based discrimination, including in athletics. There are facts, whether you like them are not. But you weren't around during slavery or before women's suffrage, so why should you possibly have to be inconvenienced in any way to make amends for the crimes that gave rise to the privileges you enjoy, right? In years not long past, people would have been embarrassed to spew this kind of nonsense in polite company and it is a damn shame that society has so coarsened as to allow crap like this to go largely unchallenged today.

But whatever, its not worth having this argument with you - you are lost to logic, your motives are transparent to anyone that cares to look, and its pretty obvious you are only trying to start shit anyway. So have at, you can have the last word. I'm done.

[Chadd 916]

Always sad to see one guy ruin a potentially interesting topic, but here we are. Again.