Soccer Mom fights to have sone play on girls team.

[URnotmeRU]

I read an article in the local paper about a boy who's mother is fighting for his right to play on a girls soccer team. It appears the boys league was dismantled for lack of interest and particpation. The coach and the school said, "we know it seems sexist to discount him for his gender, but boys play much more aggressively and that is a concern for us".

I couldn't believe the answer this dimwhit gave, when girls are allowed to join a boys league, do boys still play aggressively or do they tone it down for the little lady? That was a rhetorical remark, I already know the answer, I just can't for the life of me understand WTF these dopes are doing!

I read an article this morning I read on the net by someone named Britta? I found it trying to locate a link to the soccer story this morning and of course it isn't to be found. Anyhow, this story goes on to describe the roll women are playing in society and in the home. She mentions the "Girly Feminist" and how they are wearing both hats of the "Empowered Woman" and the "Girly Girl", gee, we didn't know this was coming down the pike, right? :roll:

Toward the end of the article, it mentioned that girls are praised and encouraged by all to wear pink, act like a little lady and still play on boys teams and particapate all boys activities. Here is a little snippet of it..

"I think what it comes down to is that the biggest thing feminism has given girls and women today is choices, and the freedom to be themselves. Girls can be girly and strong at the same time. Being allowed to participate in both "male" and "female" things is like getting the best of both worlds. Little girls grow up with the message "Girls can do anything!", and indeed, it's not atypical to find a girl who loves dolls and baseball.
What you don't see too often are boys who love dolls and baseball. It's interesting that the latest trend is giving baby girls boys' names (I have heard Austin, Taylor, Dylan, Chandler, Dustin), but you won't often find a baby boy with a girls' name. Girls can wear basically anything they want; pants are no longer just for boys, but boys' clothing options are still limited. Boys can't wear girls' clothes without everyone getting themselves all worked up to a tizzy. A girl can be called a tomboy and it's a good thing, but a boy who's a sissy is a playground reject.
What all this shows is that "male" things are still valued more highly than "female" things, unfortunately. If girls can be assertive, wear anything, play sports, excell in math and science, I think it's equally important for boys to be able to play with dolls, cook, cry when they feel like it, and wear pink. There are positive characteristics of both the the traditional male and female gender roles, and we need both."

http://members.aol.com/believeinchildrn/boysngirls.html

I don't know as if we need both excercised by each gender, there is a fine line here and I think it's fucking bullshit to forever cross the two. It is wrong for girls to rough it up on the field with the boys and visa versa, and the topic of not letting boys on a girls team for that reason in light of feminisms push to create all girls equal to boys and them some is proof positive that we are fucking up a natural order of things. My sons will not wear pink and my daughters will act like ladies.

[Bilbo]

"I think what it comes down to is that the biggest thing feminism has given girls and women today is choices, and the freedom to be themselves. Girls can be girly and strong at the same time. Being allowed to participate in both "male" and "female" things is like getting the best of both worlds. Little girls grow up with the message "Girls can do anything!", and indeed, it's not atypical to find a girl who loves dolls and baseball.
What you don't see too often are boys who love dolls and baseball. It's interesting that the latest trend is giving baby girls boys' names (I have heard Austin, Taylor, Dylan, Chandler, Dustin), but you won't often find a baby boy with a girls' name. Girls can wear basically anything they want; pants are no longer just for boys, but boys' clothing options are still limited. Boys can't wear girls' clothes without everyone getting themselves all worked up to a tizzy. A girl can be called a tomboy and it's a good thing, but a boy who's a sissy is a playground reject.
What all this shows is that "male" things are still valued more highly than "female" things, unfortunately. If girls can be assertive, wear anything, play sports, excell in math and science, I think it's equally important for boys to be able to play with dolls, cook, cry when they feel like it, and wear pink. There are positive characteristics of both the the traditional male and female gender roles, and we need both."

What is it with people trying to push girls to act like boys these days?  And who do they think they're fooling?  I was reading a story the other day about Annika Sorenstam teeing up at the Colonial.  She hits her first drive and Jim Nance turns to a sportwriter and says "There's your sportsman of the year."  What!  She drives a f*cking golf ball and she's "sportsman of the year"?  wtf?  I guess it just gets a little old to witness the irrational exuberance everytime a woman competes with guys.  

As for the issue of boys being limited in their choices, I think that's where they draw their strength.  They understand boundaries and do not take it personally when they are not permiteed to do something- or they freak out and take a gun to school and shoot up the place.

[URnotmeRU]

I think you hit a key point, Bilbo. They look at it as "Male roles are more important so the poor little darlings have to compete", which is nonsense. Men know what they are, it isn't our fault women need to meet both criteria. Certainly your statement about the "Sportsman of the year" is spot on, I remember when you had to call it "Sports PERSON". :roll: