Controversy pushes girl off hockey team

[iceNsteel 0]

It was an exercise in demonstrating the stupidity of the statement to which it responded. Call me when your critical thinking class gets up to the chapter on irony.

Do you make any points that aren't text book red herring logical fallacies? Really, do I need to explain to a board of adults that men and women have notable physiological differences? We're not exactly talking about some set of obscure marine biology here. This is stuff that I really don't understand how anyone that completed high school could not know.

Looks like someone has never heard of Manon Rheaume.

Actually I am. First, she's a goalie and that would be the only position in hockey in which size and strength are largely non-issues. However, she never played in a regular season NHL game. So there was one woman who was good enough to get a look at the goal tending position. Obviously not good enough to make a team. Pardon me if I'm hardly impressed that one woman managed to qualify of the only truly specialized position in hockey that just happens to have the lowest strength requirements as compared to any other position.

[chippa13 1844]

Perhaps if they had more options and opportunities at younger levels then you would see more. Wait, that's right, you say they can't have those.

[JR Boucicaut 3797]

I was waiting for her to be mentioned. I looked her up the other night to see what she's up to these days.

She's in Metro Detroit; works for Suburban Hockey/CCHA.

[iceNsteel 0]

It's only not a double standard if one accepts the general notion of modern feminism that women should have endless choices and men just have to deal with it, regardless of whether it passes any standard of equality or not. In this case girls should have girls only teams where they can play, but boys can't have a boys only team because the girl must be allowed to choose to play with them if she has decided she wants to do so. Of course, there are only so many roster spots for any team, and thus for the handful of girls that can compete at that level there are going to be boys that just don't have an opportunity to play anywhere to accommodate the girls demands. So a boy will not get an opportunity to develop his skills on a men's team of that level so that we can provide women with yet another double standard in choice. Or, if he's in a small hockey association that boy that doesn't make the team because a girl took the roster spot simply may have no where to play. The issue isn't skill level, or anything else, but simply one of equality of opportunity. A boy shouldn't have no opportunity so that girls can have double the opportunities. Regardless of who happens to be the better player at a given moment. Some players are late bloomers, but they're not going to get that chance if they're getting bumped off of teams so that girls can have double the opportunities to play.

The other aspect is the affects this ideology has on women's hockey. It's difficult to argue that it should be developed, or even taken very seriously, when all of the higher skilled players want to jump ship if they can to play on men's teams. It creates the very atmosphere that the only reason a girl is playing on a girls team is because she isn't good enough to make a boys team. You can't really expect to develop much of anything if it operates as a defacto B league.

Perhaps if they had more options and opportunities at younger levels then you would see more. Wait, that's right, you say they can't have those.

Oh yeah, because there are no girls youth hockey teams anywhere. This argument is frankly stupid, tired, and disproved. The advantages men have in sports are physiological in nature. Female athletes have long had access to the same training methods and equipment that male athletes have. These methods have raised the performance of athletes from both genders, but as I demonstrated with the speed skating results from Vancouver there is a substantial gap between performance that simply will never be bridged. It's again, simply physiological, and the result of how the hormone testosterone impacts the development of muscle tissue. Women lack it, simple as that. You can whine and cry about it all you like, but biological evolution doesn't really care much as it were.

[chippa13 1844]

So let's just leave that glass ceiling in place. Don't let the handful that excel have the chance to face better competition against the boys.

As for the poor boys who lose their spot to the one or two girls in each town that take their spots, there is always a lower level team for the guys to drop to, there isn't always a higher level team for a girl to jump to.

As for most of your post, why don't you just come out and say 'separate but equal' and save yourself a lot of typing.

[Chadd 916]

From what I have seen refereeing games, the biggest problem girls/women have is the lack of quality coaching on the teams they do have. As bad as youth hockey coaches can be, it's usually worse for the girls-only teams. Very few have the ability to help their players improve. If for no other reason than that, nobody should have an issue with girls playing on any team their talent deserves. Personally, I don't think there should be separate teams/leagues until you get to levels that allow checking, as it makes it easier to get good coaching and physical play isn't as big a factor.

[rachael7 1]

If we would just get over the girls are fragile bullshit and let the girls start checking at the same age as the boys, the differences between the two genders' play would be a LOT smaller.

[NuggyBuggy 0]

But if it's a situation where she's going to clearly be the worst player on the boys team, maybe she needs to drop down a level or move back to the girls team. And that's what I thought was the implication of the original story.

I don't see what the issue is even if she was the worst player on the team. She made the team in the first place, so in the coaches' minds she was better than everyone in the pool of boys that didn't make the team and thus everyone in the pool that her replacement would likely come from.

I've played with a few women who had US D1 scholarships, and while they obviously know how to play hockey, I'm not that far from being able to hang with them one-on-one and I can definitely shoot harder and more accurately than they can. I should add that I am just a middling men's league player who picked up hockey as an adult. I can only speculate how big the difference would be if I had been playing my whole life.

As for George Atis, the guy at the center of the controversay, I ended up finding the guy's email address and fired off an email telling him I thought he was an a-hole. He posted his side of the story here. For the rest of this guy's career, a Google of his name will find a bunch of articles describing him as a douchebag.

[iceNsteel 0]

So let's just leave that glass ceiling in place. Don't let the handful that excel have the chance to face better competition against the boys.

As for the poor boys who lose their spot to the one or two girls in each town that take their spots, there is always a lower level team for the guys to drop to, there isn't always a higher level team for a girl to jump to.

As for most of your post, why don't you just come out and say 'separate but equal' and save yourself a lot of typing.

Sure, we can try to drag up an idiotic comparison to racial segregation. Of course, the point of that isn't rational discourse, but rather appeal to irrational emotion. It's funny with some of the absolute absurdity that comes out of the international community on these sorts of issues, even there no one questions the need to separate sports competitions into gender classes. Yet oddly enough when it comes to bath rooms and locker rooms most people are quite okay with separate but equal. So absolutely, sports should be separate but equal with regards to opportunities for males and females to play. Males should not take opportunities from females to play and the same is true in reverse. End of the day the separation serves largely to allow women to compete in the first place. If we didn't the handful of exceptional female athletes would be the only ones with any chance to compete. It's not as if there isn't going to come a point when the gender classifications are as hard and fixed as I'm suggesting anyway. Anything from the NCAA to the Olympics

And no, there isn't always a lower level for boys to drop down and play in. Lot's of small hockey associations out there that can't ice multiple teams at the same age level. If girls feel unchallenged they can always play with older players, which is safe due to the lack of checking.

But I know, f* the boys and let's toss around silly catch phrases like the non-existent "glass ceiling." Because any time a woman isn't getting exactly what she wants "sexism" must be to blame.....

[chk hrd 164]

If we would just get over the girls are fragile bullshit and let the girls start checking at the same age as the boys, the differences between the two genders' play would be a LOT smaller.

until they hit Bantams when the boys start getting alot bigger, stronger and faster than most girls. As a parent it's scary to see a 6'0/190 lb manchild go up against a girl who is 5'4/105 lb. I've never seen the girl come out ahead in this. The difference in gender will always be there regardless of what age or if girls could check due to the size and strength difference. A good friend of ours has a daughter that plays D1 and is a big girl, 5'11/170. I've watched her play against girls and she rocks. When I've seen her play against boys her age she is at the bottom of the skill level due to speed and strength.

[chippa13 1844]

Sure, we can try to drag up an idiotic comparison to racial segregation. Of course, the point of that isn't rational discourse, but rather appeal to irrational emotion. It's funny with some of the absolute absurdity that comes out of the international community on these sorts of issues, even there no one questions the need to separate sports competitions into gender classes. Yet oddly enough when it comes to bath rooms and locker rooms most people are quite okay with separate but equal. So absolutely, sports should be separate but equal with regards to opportunities for males and females to play. Males should not take opportunities from females to play and the same is true in reverse. End of the day the separation serves largely to allow women to compete in the first place. If we didn't the handful of exceptional female athletes would be the only ones with any chance to compete. It's not as if there isn't going to come a point when the gender classifications are as hard and fixed as I'm suggesting anyway. Anything from the NCAA to the Olympics

And no, there isn't always a lower level for boys to drop down and play in. Lot's of small hockey associations out there that can't ice multiple teams at the same age level. If girls feel unchallenged they can always play with older players, which is safe due to the lack of checking.

But I know, f* the boys and let's toss around silly catch phrases like the non-existent "glass ceiling." Because any time a woman isn't getting exactly what she wants "sexism" must be to blame.....

It isn't about a woman getting exactly what she wants, it is about getting the fair opportunity. You would have been a real hoot in the 1960's.

[chippa13 1844]

until they hit Bantams when the boys start getting alot bigger, stronger and faster than most girls. As a parent it's scary to see a 6'0/190 lb manchild go up against a girl who is 5'4/105 lb. I've never seen the girl come out ahead in this. The difference in gender will always be there regardless of what age or if girls could check due to the size and strength difference. A good friend of ours has a daughter that plays D1 and is a big girl, 5'11/170. I've watched her play against girls and she rocks. When I've seen her play against boys her age she is at the bottom of the skill level due to speed and strength.

I remember when I hit Bantams here in the states in 8th grade I don't think I was even 5'4". Believe me, I got rocked often. One of the other parents from my team once told my dad, "I've never seen anyone take the hits he does and get up." Sounds a lot like what would have happened to a girl my size at the time. Nobody was fearing for my safety or worrying that I would get hurt if I continued playing with these guys.

[rachael7 1]

I remember when I hit Bantams here in the states in 8th grade I don't think I was even 5'4". Believe me, I got rocked often. One of the other parents from my team once told my dad, "I've never seen anyone take the hits he does and get up." Sounds a lot like what would have happened to a girl my size at the time. Nobody was fearing for my safety or worrying that I would get hurt if I continued playing with these guys.

Exactly. Couldn't have said it better. Like I said a page ago, if we were actually segregating players based on size and strength, rather than jock contents, then Marty St. Louis would never be allowed on the same ice with Zdano Chara or any of the other giants in the league - he could get killed out there, after all. But we don't think that way about boys - they're "tough". Yeah right. Whatever. I've seen way more crying boys with a booboo get helped off the ice by their mommies and way more girls that are full of grit and fight for every opportunity they've gotten.

I'm one of those big girls, at 5'10" 165lbs, and I've done more than my share of leveling guys considerably bigger than me. I've also had women 5'2" who skated better than me get low, drop a hip on me, and send me ass over teakettle too. The size argument just doesn't hold. And the strength argument holds only as a generalization - there are plenty of exceptions to that "rule".

[JR Boucicaut 3797]

I have a somewhat personal story -

I went to HS in Miami with a girl who was a pretty good golfer. She's one year younger than me, so she was a junior when I was a senior.

She played golf; and she had to play on the boys' team and compete against boys. Why? She was just that good - the girls in the state just were not in her league. She had a rivalry with Ray Floyd's son for best golfer in the state, regardless of sex.

She never saw it as trying to make a story out of it; she merely went to where the better competition was at the time.

And as of this week, she is #2 on the LPGA World rankings; but you never hear of her trying to play a PGA event like others have.

You'll probably say that it's not a physical sport, but I'm saying, by some of the posters' here's thoughts, she should've just stayed down with the girls.

Sidenote - Cristie was about 200+ lb, frumpy-looking and had a huge perm and coke-bottle glasses in high school. I remember when I saw her win her first LPGA event...I was floored!

[Race4LastPlace 31]

Did she play from the same tee's as the boys back in high school? :)

[JR Boucicaut 3797]

Nah, she started from the edge of the green.

LOL

[NuggyBuggy 0]

I remember when I hit Bantams here in the states in 8th grade I don't think I was even 5'4". Believe me, I got rocked often. One of the other parents from my team once told my dad, "I've never seen anyone take the hits he does and get up." Sounds a lot like what would have happened to a girl my size at the time. Nobody was fearing for my safety or worrying that I would get hurt if I continued playing with these guys.

Actually, people probably *were* worrying for your safety. Ask your parents how they felt when you were getting killed every weekend.

I've played in a number of co-ed leagues and tournaments, and I believe this: there are almost always a completely different set of rules in place for the women. If a guy hits a guy, it's usually no big deal. If a girl takes the same hit from a guy, the guys and girls on her team are outraged and fists are far more likely to fly. I remember when Hayley Wickenheiser went ballistic because she got rubbed out by a 15-year old, but that play happens all the time in men's no-contact leagues without the tantrum.

Exactly. Couldn't have said it better. Like I said a page ago, if we were actually segregating players based on size and strength, rather than jock contents,

But rachael7 - we do the latter all the time. That's why girls' teams exist, after all, to segregate based on "jock contents". Men routinely fail to qualify for the Olympics when they could easily make the corresponding women's team, if ability were the primary determinant, all based on "jock contents". We deny men who could dominate the LPGA the opportunity to make millions of dollars - all based solely on "jock contents", and relegate them to a life trying to qualify for the PGA tour and playing for change. Is that fair ?

FWIW, I have no problem with a girl playing with the boys if she makes the team on her own merits, which in this case, it appeared she did.

[chippa13 1844]

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.....

Dear “Chippa13”

Based on your latest reply, you are not only a quick-to-judge idiot but, also a coward too.

I stood up for what was right – with my name out there in the public – to challenge anyone and debate anyone about my beliefs and actions.

You, on the other hand, continue to hide behind the anonymity of an “msn” e-mail address based on the lame excuse that I will “sell” your contact details to e-mail marketers.

You don’t have to address my assumptions about you; you have already confirmed them by your continued hiding and commenting from the shadows.

I will debate you anytime, anyplace and expose you for the idiot that you are but, I bet that you are too much of a coward to take my challenge.

In any event, as an IT lawyer, I have ways of tracking down people through their e-mail addresses and I have the wherewithal to do so. I can assure you that I will use those means to track you down and then expose you on my BLOG as another example of a cowardly comment on this situation.

And, your kids (if you have any) are learning to be little cowards like you. As time passes, I will use this situation – including your cowardly comment – to illustrate to my kids the importance of standing up for your beliefs even if those beliefs are unpopular.

You have obviously made a judgment based on the media’s side of the story – and that is your right as the idiot that you are – but, instead of respectfully disagreeing with my actions, you chose to name call and judge me. (Is that the example that you are setting for your kids?)

Again, when you are ready for a debate, then, call me from your real number and with your real name.

Otherwise, don’t bother replying further because I now have enough to track you down and have enough material for my BLOG.

GJA

From: Chris [mailto:chippa13@msn.com]

Sent: Thursday, December 30, 2010 2:49 PM

To: george.j.atis@outsourcing-canada.ca

Subject: George J. Atis Contact Form Comments

George,

The email address provided is real, hence how I am able to read and respond to you. I do not provide my residential phone number because more often than not the websites that take such information then turn around and sell it to telemarketers. I am merely protecting myself from numerous unwanted phone calls. I do not provide my full name for similar reasons. I will not bother to address your assumptions about my life as we all know what happens when you assume. However, based on your actions I feel it safe to make some observations about you. The fact that you find it acceptable to single out a child on a recreational sports team to be blamed and ostracized for the ills of that team speaks volumes. It takes a certain level of arrogance and delusion to take those actions and defend them with such a self righteous attitude. When I said that I felt sorry for your son, I truly meant it. Having to live with the stigma that you have created for him, as well as living with you as an example, the kid does not stand a chance of developing into a normal, contributing, successful member of society. Instead he is learning the lessons of a small, spiteful, and disgraceful man.

Good day.

> From: george.j.atis@outsourcing-canada.ca

> To: chippa13@msn.com

> Subject: RE: George J. Atis Contact Form Comments

> Date: Thu, 30 Dec 2010 12:24:06 -0500

>

> Dear "Chippa"

>

> When you get a real e-mail address and provide me with your name,

> residential telephone number and license number, then, I will respond.

> Until then, I have assigned the appropriate weight to your opinion. You

> sound like a small man with an appropriately small-mind, as reflected in

> your comment. I can just imagine what a pathetic life you lead as your

> comments are dripping with the typical envy of an underachiever. You and

> your family will always have to live with that.

>

> -----Original Message-----

> From: Contact Form Comments [mailto:contact.form.comments@georgeatis.com]

> Sent: Thursday, December 30, 2010 12:15 PM

> To: George J. Atis

> Subject: George J. Atis Contact Form Comments

>

> Chris has contacted you via the georgeatis.com "contact me"! page. His/her

> questions/comments are as follows:

>

> I'm not sure what is more pathetic, your original actions or your sad

> attempt to rationalize said actions. Crying victim about the response to

> your actions is equally sad. The person I feel sorry for is your son who

> will now have to live with the stigma of having you as his father. How do

> you think he'll enjoy the next 10 years of "Say, are you George Atis' kid?".

> He'll just love that.

[Axxion89 32]

^^^^

DAMN!! I'd love to meet that guy in person, sounds like the kind of guy who hides behind a computer and prides himself in being a big fish in a small pond. I'd love to see this guy come to where I'm from and try the shit he's pulled, half the parents around here would break his neck and throw his battered corpse into a dumpster. Feel bad for his kid though, hope he doesn't turn out like his "tough guy" father.

In any event, as an IT lawyer, I have ways of tracking down people through their e-mail addresses and I have the wherewithal to do so. I can assure you that I will use those means to track you down and then expose you on my BLOG as another example of a cowardly comment on this situation.

My favorite part of his email, what a joke

[number21 3]

I like how blog is capitalized.

[BenderHockey 127]

I like how blog is capitalized.

Well, he obviously has to make sure to give it proper emphasis. Everyone knows how important a blog is, especially one written by someone like this guy.

[zebra_steve 11]

Last night I skated a High School Varsity game - the teams were in 1st place in their respective divisions. One team had a girl that split time on wing and center of the 2nd line and pulled a regular shift. She skated, stick handled, and gave\received the hits with the best of the boys and didn't complain one bit. In fact she made several good plays and had several good shots.

I've had the pleasure to skate the U19 Womens' State and District championships as well as the U16AA, U18AA States and Districts, and many U16AAA and U18AAA games..... At the District level, IMHO the U19 Women are nearly as fast as the U16AA boys but are all about skating and play making rather than trying to put an opponent through the glass.... The Womens game IS a different game since it IS non-checking (but a significant amount of contact is permitted). I have seen MANY girls make, contribute, and excel at the HS Varsity level over the years. The majority of these girls migrate to the U16 or U19 womens teams rather than try to make it at the U16\U18 AA or AAA level. When asked, most would rather not deal with the excessive violence of what passes for legal body checks at those levels.

My daughter is currently playing Mite level (2 goals, 5 assists in 11 games) and there simply is not enough girls available to for a U12 team right now.... but the outlook could be good in a couple years for a U14 or U16 girls team. I plan to have her skate with the boys as long as she can hang. And Just to aggravate iceNsteel a bit more..... The girls are specifically permitted to skate on both a boys and a girls "tournament bound" amateur team concurrently as well as HS. The boys cannot skate on two amateur teams, they can skate one amateur and one HS team.

[iceNsteel 0]

It isn't about a woman getting exactly what she wants, it is about getting the fair opportunity. You would have been a real hoot in the 1960's.

There is a fair opportunity, they're called girls teams. As for the rest: it's a straw-man argument, and a really stupid one at that.

I have a somewhat personal story -

I went to HS in Miami with a girl who was a pretty good golfer. She's one year younger than me, so she was a junior when I was a senior.

She played golf; and she had to play on the boys' team and compete against boys. Why? She was just that good - the girls in the state just were not in her league. She had a rivalry with Ray Floyd's son for best golfer in the state, regardless of sex.

She never saw it as trying to make a story out of it; she merely went to where the better competition was at the time.

And as of this week, she is #2 on the LPGA World rankings; but you never hear of her trying to play a PGA event like others have.

You'll probably say that it's not a physical sport, but I'm saying, by some of the posters' here's thoughts, she should've just stayed down with the girls.

Sidenote - Cristie was about 200+ lb, frumpy-looking and had a huge perm and coke-bottle glasses in high school. I remember when I saw her win her first LPGA event...I was floored!

I think we all remember Annika Sorenstam's stint in the PGA, she didn't do so hot. Golf isn't a physical sport, but the differences do show up in the long game just the same. While I would imagine in put-put golf there would be zero advantage to either gender, when you're always needing an extra stroke or two to reach the green you're gonna end up exactly where Annika Sorenstam did.

[iceNsteel 0]

Last night I skated a High School Varsity game - the teams were in 1st place in their respective divisions. One team had a girl that split time on wing and center of the 2nd line and pulled a regular shift. She skated, stick handled, and gave\received the hits with the best of the boys and didn't complain one bit. In fact she made several good plays and had several good shots.

I've had the pleasure to skate the U19 Womens' State and District championships as well as the U16AA, U18AA States and Districts, and many U16AAA and U18AAA games..... At the District level, IMHO the U19 Women are nearly as fast as the U16AA boys but are all about skating and play making rather than trying to put an opponent through the glass.... The Womens game IS a different game since it IS non-checking (but a significant amount of contact is permitted). I have seen MANY girls make, contribute, and excel at the HS Varsity level over the years. The majority of these girls migrate to the U16 or U19 womens teams rather than try to make it at the U16\U18 AA or AAA level. When asked, most would rather not deal with the excessive violence of what passes for legal body checks at those levels.

My daughter is currently playing Mite level (2 goals, 5 assists in 11 games) and there simply is not enough girls available to for a U12 team right now.... but the outlook could be good in a couple years for a U14 or U16 girls team. I plan to have her skate with the boys as long as she can hang. And Just to aggravate iceNsteel a bit more..... The girls are specifically permitted to skate on both a boys and a girls "tournament bound" amateur team concurrently as well as HS. The boys cannot skate on two amateur teams, they can skate one amateur and one HS team.

Sorry guy, but this is a load of BS and we both know it. As Chadd mentioned, adult women's elite Olympic teams are regularly taken apart in tourny and exhibition play by middle of the pack midget teams. But hey, it's great that you think girls that are only 3 year older are nearly as fast as the guys. How you'd go about measuring that outside of actual head to head play is beyond me, but whatever suits ya I suppose. As for the "excessive violence" read: "afraid to get hit by men."

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.

Doesn't really mean much to me, just yet another example of special privileges for women. It's rather indicative of the way men have quickly become second class citizens in most western countries. 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

[rachael7 1]

Doesn't really mean much to me, just yet another example of special privileges for women. It's rather indicative of the way men have quickly become second class citizens in most western countries. 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

Somebody call the WAMBULANCE!