@fbaezer,
The argument is made that all schoolchildren, even those who have no interest in sports, should be forced to take mandatory P.E. I actually advocate physical fitness; but I also recognize (from my own boyhood experience, not to mention what other nonathletic guys have told me about their own experiences over the years) that the traditional “sports only” approach to mandatory P.E. often victimizes those who need exercise programs the most. I’m a very strong supporter of humane (and considerable more effective, I might add) programs such as PE4Life.
Before I continue, let me say that I don’t denigrate anyone’s love of sports. I include several former athletes among my close friends. What I do object to, though, is the intolerance against nonathletes that I believe does exist among
some sports fans.
There is no justification for forcing nonathletic boys to participate in competitive team sports as mandated in the tired, old “sports only” approach. “But kids must be forced to play sports so they will be physically active and become fit.” The truth is that a sport is a physical contest, not an exercise program. The most efficient way to get into shape is by getting on an exercise program, not by learning to play a sport. There is not a single sport that exercises all the muscles of the body. For example, a professional football player who starts taking ballet lessons will end up having sore muscles. (And, no, I’m not an opera fan. Have no interest in it.) A guy can attain top levels of physical fitness
without ever participating in a single sport. I know of two Navy SEALs who never participated in sports in high school. Can’t get any tougher than a Navy SEAL.
“Kids should be forced to play sports so they will learn about them. We should know about the rules and fundamentals of sports since sports are such a great part of our culture.” Oh, really? Following that flawed sort of reasoning, I could say, “All teenage school boys should be forced to take ballet lessons and participate in chess tournaments until they graduate from high school.” “But not all boys like ballet and chess.” “Really? But that’s no excuse. My preference should be forced upon them.”
Fbaezer, the premise of your former classmate being labeled a “Sissy” simply because he was not good at sports is totally wrong and false (not to mention cruel and unjust). Even today some people will say that any boy who has no interest in sports should be suspected of having homosexual tendencies, which is a particularly vile negative stereotype. Oh, really? The truth is that homosexual men have always participated in sports (including football), just as they have been active in just about every other realm of human activity. Ever hear of the former NFL player Esera Tuaolo, who once played in a Super Bowl game? He came out of the closet when he retired and said that he had been gay for most of his life. Does he qualify as a sissy in your estimation? There are countless examples of extremely courageous men who never had an interest in sports and even actively disliked them. Are they sissies, too?
Bullying nonathletic boys in mandatory “sports only” P.E. classes does not encourage them to become physically active and get on any exercise regimen. I’ve read many threads about the impact of traditional mandatory P.E. upon nonathletic students and have noticed a trend; and that is, nonathletic boys who were bullied in such P.E. classes shy away from any physical activity years later when they are adults. As far as “physical education” is concerned, all these boys learn is to fear (and resent) coaches and athlete classmates. This is the way to promote physical fitness?
A formerly active member of this forum is an online friend of mine who is an Englishman. As a boy he was required to take “sports only” P.E. in a school district in London. No physical fitness programs for nonathletic students were provided in these classes. His P.E. class once was divided into two teams so they could play a game of cricket. (Please note that my friend, a scrawny boy who wasn’t even interested in cricket, had no choice but to play in this game.) His team lost. When the game was over, one of his “teammates” walked over to him and smashed his face with a cricket bat, breaking his nose. Was the young thug sent to the British equivalent of juvenile detention? Of course not. He was merely suspended from school for a couple of days, which he probably viewed as a holiday instead of a punishment. When the punk returned to school, he shoved my friend into a locker.
Did anyone really care what happened to my friend? Of course not. He was just a scrawny nonathletic boy (a “sisssy,” if you please). The perpetrator had athletic talent and, if I remember correctly, may have eventually become a professional athlete. If someone walked up to you on a street, say, and smashed your face with a baseball bat, you would see him in court. But because this happened to a child in a P.E. class, this act of
physical assault was not treated as the crime that it most certainly was.
Incidentally, at another thread in the sports board entitled “Welcome sports haters” (the only topic in this forum where he ever posted), another member of this forum (whom I could identify by username but have chosen to not identify) called him a “pathetic f---ing loser” simply because he had no great love for athletes. Wow. What understanding, what compassion.
Fbaezer, your tacit endorsement of the bullying of nonathletic boys in mandatory “sports only” P.E. classes is unconscionable.