Girl's Softball

I LOVE baseball. For me no other sport measures up. But how am I supposed to answer your question without sounding sexist?

IMO little in life is discrete. Most things are a continuum. So, baseball is a sport. Softball is a slower game with slightly different rules, but in my mind I don't make much distinction between the two. Little league baseball has different rules than major league baseball. On any given day the rules in a sandlot game can be different. Then there's stick ball and cricket, and ... the list goes on.

In some cases (such as little league or T-ball), the rules are changed to accomodate the abilities of the players. I believe softball was originally intended to accomodate the "lesser" abilities of girls, but now it's more a tradition than anything. I play softball even though I'm a guy.

But, making the transition to a spectator sport involves other issues. Little league is not a spectator sport - except for the parents. Spectator sports involve team identity, the excitement of competition, heros and goats - all things that fit the male psyche better (here comes the attempt to walk a fine line). That's what guys want when guys watch sports. Watching women is a different activity that guys want to keep separate.

OK, fire back.

okay yeah we have a softball league for adults in our town, i'm part of this league. I've played on the same co-ed team for 3 years and this women's season is my attempt to have my own team before i leave. But here lately fastball has came out as the new "girls" sport. I wasn't trying to sound like i hated men (it's part of my personallity). I know some guys watch the game because it's a good show when we play right. My co-ed team comes out all the time just to watch me.

Okay and for your last comment....since we are the new team on the field, we are competitive. We started off our season losing the first 3 games. Then we won two and lost the past one. We are becoming more and more competitive because we want to show that we can stand up to teams that have been teams longer than us.

At times when it's a good game I'd rather watch females. It's uplifting to women, or young girls to see good female players. I just dont see why they can have college fastball but not pro.

Who is "they"? It all comes down to economics. Many years ago there was a professional women's baseball league (think movie with Madonna and Rosie). But, women's sports have not traditionally made money. The WNBA has been a moderate success.

I agree with your comment about setting an example, but always find such statements interesting. All I'll say is that I'm SO glad to have left the unisex 1970's behind.



Sure. Sometimes women are competitive. I didn't mean to imply otherwise. But, men and women are different. When you take a measurement with the competitiveness meter, men, on average, score higher.

The problem comes when one tries to applt the average to a specific individual. That's stereotyping.

I'm sorry Philospherqueen and Resha Caner, perhaps you didn't get the male-mo (male memo). It is clearly stated in the man code, a code passed down from one generation of man to the next in an intricately executed and ornately decorated ceremony (with glitter and streamers, only we will not admit it), that women must try twice as hard to be considered half as good as men in the exact same thing.

Personally, I think women's baseball, and soccer for that matter, have more energy than the males playing the exact same game and are a lot more fun to watch, no because of ogling, but women just seem to enjoy the sport in itself more than men.

Is it competition? Sure. Is it inherent or socially infused competition? Under section 9 of the man code, I claim plausible deniability.

Myths last a long time, don't they VideCorSpoon? Considering that my alma mater had to eliminate their baseball program because of the shift in funding caused by Title IX (and my school is not the only where this happened), I don't think what you're saying is accurate.

All forms of prejudice always have existed, and they always will exist. That is sad. But don't muddy the water. Let's not insist something be equal when it's not. Yes, provide equal opportunity. But don't expect equal results.

Pick your sport: baseball, tennis, soccer, basketball. If I played the best female player in the world, they would humiliate me. It wouldn't even be a contest.

But if you stack the best male athletes against the best female athletes, the males win most contests. Compare records set in men's events vs those set in women's events.

So it's ALL due to a secret code of oppression? Uh huh. And the Jews control all the worlds banks and Area 51 still has live aliens and ...

First and foremost, what I previously said was in jest. Don't take it as my own particular view.

That, "All forms of prejudice always have existed, and they will always exist." (Resha Caner) is all too true and all too sad. In modern society the notion of prejudice can never really be extinguished decisively because it is a corner stone of social excellence. How do we succeed but by proving how special we are. In proving how special we are, in a way we create the normative frameworks which set one person even just a sliver beyond the next. Speciality is in itself a divisive force that most if not all of us adhere to. The water so to speak isn't being muddied? it was already a veritable pit of quicksand when we got there, for both the male and female genus.

So in that sense, I do not imply that things are equal when they are most definitely not. The comment that a, "?women must try twice as hard to be considered half as good as men in the exact same thing" (videcorspoon) is a slogan I picked up from a self proclaimed feminist professor. I agree with it, though she said it in jest at the time?, and so do I.

That I expect equal results from equal opportunity? actually I do. It is an incendiary comment, but here is my reason why. The question primarily is, how do you equate the sexes (in the this case, in sports)? In your list of sports, if you played any of those, you say a male doing the same thing would humiliate you, correct? I would be thoroughly decimated in gymnastics, a predominately female sport, because I did not possess the agility most women are inherently apt in. So at this point, I agree with your comment and your recognition.

But I acknowledge superiority of the other sex no further. I expect the other sex to perform the same way as a man would and vice versa. This is a driving force. Deeds not words, if I'm not mistaken. If a woman is to truly be equated with a man, no law or rule can properly solve that issue. If you see a man begrudgingly adhering to any rule or law stating that a woman MUST be treated as an equal, a woman is no more an equal than that which is merely tolerated. I personally do not give women much room for special treatment. I mutually respect the sex too much to consider women an exotic species rara avis as many minorities would want that supra-privilege only to fall into an even deeper chasm ... the bane of speciality you see. But then all this sounds exoticist, doesn't it?

Also the secret code of oppression was in fact co-authored by a woman. Her name was Phyllis if I'm not mistaken.

I assumed it was a jest, but I couldn't tell who you were jousting at. So, my reply was an attempt to draw you out. Mission accomplished. I'll sheath my sword now.



I'm a guy, so I actually meant the opposite. The best female soccer player would kill me, even though I'm male. I meant to explain that, though true, that is only an anecdotal case. I despise those who try to make a general argument pivot on an anecdote.



That's a great statement. I agree.

Caner

"I assumed it was a jest, but I couldn't tell who you were jousting at. So, my reply was an attempt to draw you out. Mission accomplished. I'll sheath my sword now." (Resha Caner)

Touche!