Women In The Major Leagues

[KazmirFan228]

How about that Katie Brownlow from NY. She's AMAZING!!!!!!!!!!!! Do you think she, or any other woman will ever participate as a player in the major Leagues? I'd love to hear from you guys:)

[Brian McKenna]

Who is Ms. Brownlow?

[JeepingBaseball]

According to the Encyclopedia of Women and Baseball, she is the only girl in an all boy's little league in a rural town in upstate NY. She's in 8th or 9th grade now. Made a name for herself as a 6th grader in 2005 when she threw a perfect game, striking out every batter she faced. In addition to the perfect game, she batted over .700 for her team. Earlier that season, she pitched a one-hitter. She was a feature of an article in the New York Times on May 19th 2005 titled "Shy Smile, Mean Fastball".

[NotAboutEgo]

How about that Katie Brownlow from NY. She's AMAZING!!!!!!!!!!!! Do you think she, or any other woman will ever participate as a player in the major Leagues? I'd love to hear from you guys:)

No woman will ever participate in MLB or even in the MLB affiliated Minors until the bans on women playing in those leagues are eliminated. In order for this to happen, people probably would have to kick up their heels in order to have the bans removed. I can't see MLB and the Minors lifting the bans out of no where, since they are such "good ole' boys" organizations.

I'd much rather see women having their own pro leagues and having ample support for them to survive. Of course, if a woman is good enough to play in the Minors and in MLB and until we have our own pro leagues, why shouldn't they be allowed to play there?

[SABR Matt]

Girls mature physically faster than boys...female atheletes are also ahead of male atheletes in developing muscle mass to its' maximum potential. This is not the first woman to dominate in little league, nor will it be the last, but by the time they hit 18, girls lose all of their competitive advantages and fail to compete even at the college level. It may be true that MLB is a "good ole' boys" network...but it's also true that women will never make the besst baseball players on the planet. Some day in the distant future, I could see a woman (throwing as hard as she can) being a finesse pitcher in the majors...that's about it.

[JeepingBaseball]

I'm going to save the arguement and just simply disagree with you.

[NotAboutEgo]

Girls mature physically faster than boys...female atheletes are also ahead of male atheletes in developing muscle mass to its' maximum potential. This is not the first woman to dominate in little league, nor will it be the last, but by the time they hit 18, girls lose all of their competitive advantages and fail to compete even at the college level. It may be true that MLB is a "good ole' boys" network...but it's also true that women will never make the besst baseball players on the planet. Some day in the distant future, I could see a woman (throwing as hard as she can) being a finesse pitcher in the majors...that's about it.

To say no woman will never make the best baseball players is a huge stretch. No one will ever know that until women are given the exact same opportunities to develop that men are given. One shouldn't base opinions on a handful of women who've been able to compete on minor league teams. The psychological affects of being harassed while doing so have a huge impact on performance and the decision to stop playing at those levels. I highly doubt that most men who are playing on high school, collegiate teams, and in the minors trying to make it to MLB have to deal with much, if any, of the harassment that women face when they attempt to do so.

Also, strength and size aren't the only things that contribute to ability and success. If you take women and men who are at the same level (high school, collegiate, amateur, etc.) and who are similar in size and have them compete against each other, I'd bank on it that women can hold their own. I know, because I've seen it... at least at the amatuer level. Amatuer female players playing aginast amateur male players... all of whom are at the same level in terms of experience, playing time, ability, etc... can compete and beat those men. As I said, I've experienced that. I'm sure the same thing can hold true of female high school and collegiate players who have had the same opportunities as those males playing in high school and in college. Maybe the females can't throw as hard (as in pitching) as a male, but there are other ways of winning games besides throwing hard.

As far as MLB is concerned, no one will ever know if a woman can compete at that level until it is allowed and she receives the same opportunities as men who play in MLB.

Instead of saying a woman will never be good enough to compete at that level, one could say... maybe a woman can and maybe a woman can't compete in MLB, but give her the same opportunities to see if it's possible. Long ago, the door was closed on women playing pro ball in MLB and the MLB affiliated Minors. If men are secure in seeing if a woman can do it, they'd be for it instead of against it and would open that door.

[dw8man]

After giving this some thought, I would like to know peoples opinion on when should MLB open the door. Should it open it now, even though there is probably not a female ball player ready (or maybe capable due to lack of opportunities at a younger age) to play at that level OR should they wait until there is a female ball player who could play at that level.

The reason I ask is......If MLB opens play up to females who really aren't ready to play at that level and then drafts or signs a few (or bunch), wouldn't they just be exploiting them? I would guess that a number of minor league (maybe even pro) teams would love to advertise "hey, come see so and so because she is female". I know they wouldn't put it exactly like that but that is how it will end up. Also, I hate to even mention it, but what about the piggishness of promoting the better looking female player just to increase the appeal to men? I guess I am asking, if MLB opens up there league to females, are we ready for the consequences?

I am of the opinion that is should be opened up now, but do you think there could be a big out cry from the female community that it is just being done as a gimmick to make more money?

[NotAboutEgo]

You brought up a lot of good points, dw8man. IMO, MLB and its affiliated minors should open the doors now. If they wait until a woman or several women are ready, it may not happen because women would not get the same opportunities as men do if they aren't allowed to play in the pro ranks. Also, they would still face the opposition that doesn't want women playing baseball in high schools and in colleges, so it would be hard for women to get the same training and opportunities.

If MLB opens it doors first, then high schools, colleges, and the minors would become training arenas for women just as they are for men. I'm not saying that high schools and colleges can't and won't open their doors to women's baseball until MLB rescinds its ban on women, but if MLB did rescind the ban, I think more high schools and colleges would be open to women's baseball. They would be able to train the same way. Why would a woman train to be a pro baseball player in MLB and the minors when she is banned from playing there? It would cost a lot of money and would take a lot of time... just to be told she can't get to where she wants to/should be.

As far as the reaction to MLB opening its doors to women, of course there will be opposition, turmoil, etc. from some people. That's the case with most anything that goes through a change and that has been a tradition for a long time. Some people are not good with handling change, but look at how much has changed throughout time, how we look back on things that went through change and turmoil in the past, and how we sit and laugh at it now because it seems so ridiculous.

I don't think many females would feel that MLB would open its doors to women just to profit from it. Once our society learns the history of how and why it would happen, people would understand that it's not a gimmick and would happen because MLB was pushed to let it happen. Plus, female baseball players wouldn't put up with it. It's not 1950 anymore. If MLB was going to do something like promoting only or mostly the best looking women, I think it would sink in efforts to do so. I think it would be hard for MLB to ignore talented women who are able to play pro ball just because they aren't the best looking.

As far as MLB being seen as exploiting women who aren't ready/talented enough to play MLB, I don't think MLB teams would invest money in someone unless they thought the players are ready to play on their teams... much like it is with men (unless a team has an incompetent GM and owner). Once MLB opens its doors to women, it may take time for anyone to be ready for that level. As time goes on, the standards and level of play are raised. I'm thinking, no women would be signed unless they are truly ready.

[hot_corner_gurl]

hey! name's brett and i've been playing baseball (NOT softball!!!) all my life. i think that MLB should let women play, but should be careful about doing it. it would be terrible if people took it the wrong way...other than that i would be totally psyched if MLB would open up to women.

[hot_corner_gurl]

Katie is the girl who threw the perfect game, struck every batter out, at 12 yrs old. also had her game jersey put in Cooperstown...

[Williamsburg2599]

I saw this on the news a few years ago, good for her, from what I've seen, more and more girls each year are playing baseball over softball.

[JeepingBaseball]

Yes MLB should open the doors now. Much like in Basketball, they found women with unbelievable talents with no experience. I think women's MLB will be very similar. There are some very strong teams out there today. New England has a stong team(s) with lots of resources (not that I'm happy about the way they played a particular game last october) and so does the East Coast teams, and New Hampshire teams. The women in Florida are no slouches either. There's plenty of women across the country that can play strong solid baseball against one another. So yes MLB should open their doors now. There's enough players and an extreme vast of talent just waiting to be tapped. Even over in Japan and Australia, the game the women play there is incredible.

NBA has a sense of mind to open the doors to women. It's time for MLB to do so too. But I dont see it happening under Bud Selig. He doesnt have the guts to be something great.

[hot_corner_gurl]

Yeah. I don't see any way at all that Selig would ever do something such as that (open up for women players). The question now is, when?

[TRfromBR]

The question now is, when?

There was a great women softball player - named Joan Joyce - who was clocked at about 116 MPH back in the '50's or '60's.. In 1961, she famously struck out Ted Williams. Ted was mightily impressed, along with everyone else. In the late '70's, she also struck out Hammerin' Hank. Today, she's a great coach at Florida Atlantic.

No doors should be closed on anyone. If they're good enough, let 'em in and wish them all the best.

[hot_corner_gurl]

What about Jackie Mitchell? Struck out the Babe and the Iron Horse back-to-back. Hate to say it, but she's the reason that women can't play.

[TRfromBR]

What about Jackie Mitchell? Struck out the Babe and the Iron Horse back-to-back. Hate to say it, but she's the reason that women can't play.

Thanks for that great post. I'm reading up on her now - at www.jeanpatrick.cm/jackielife.htm, inter alia

[TRfromBR]

What about Jackie Mitchell? Struck out the Babe and the Iron Horse back-to-back. Hate to say it, but she's the reason that women can't play.

Wow!! And only seventeen. Don't let the Yankee-Haters get a hold of this story!

Dazzy Vance - her next door neighbor - must've loved tellin' this one back in Brooklyn.

[hot_corner_gurl]

Yeah. My cousins from NY HATE it when I talk about her...
you meant http://www.jeanpatrick.com/jackielife.htm, right?

[TRfromBR]

Yeah. My cousins from NY HATE it when I talk about her...
you meant http://www.jeanpatrick.com/jackielife.htm, right?

Right you are. Thanks.

I know some of those there Yankee types. They sure can be ornery sometimes.

Want to get 'em goin' some more: Ask them who was the greatest athlete ever named Babe? (Ruth or Didrikson) That should spin them up.

[TRfromBR]

What about Jackie Mitchell? Struck out the Babe and the Iron Horse back-to-back.

Here she is, Miss Jackie Mitchell.

[hot_corner_gurl]

Jackie=my hero.
Next time I talk to them, I'll be sure to mention that-thanx.

[NotAboutEgo]

For all those out there who say there will never be a woman good enough for MLB and who would have a problem with MLB opening its doors to women, why is it such a big deal IF women will never be good enough? If that is so, there shouldn't be any worry about opening the doors to women.

[hot_corner_gurl]

I personally don't see anything wrong, but then again, I'm a girl. I think it would be awesome and don't have any problems, but my cousins, for example, pratically hate me for it.

[NotAboutEgo]

They almost hate you for being positive and thinking that women can do it and should be given the opportunity?

If that's what you meant, then it's their problem they think that way, and they are the ones who will miss out from having closed minds.

Are you playing in the California Women's Baseball League?

[digglahhh]

NAE,

We've been through this before, but I can't say it enough. The first step is to not push young girls along the softball path. If it is their choice, fine. But if they are comfortable playing baseball they should not be deterred.

The effects of this can extend beyond baseball. A female ballplayer proving herself can teach a young boy a lot about respect and acceptance. My younger brother's friend had a younger sister who I would routinely drag out to run full court basketball games with, she could shoot from the outside far better than most of guys who were only concerned with dribbling the ball between their legs.

There was a girl in my Little League who was an All Star pitcher all the way through early Babe Ruth League. Most of the guys who were on her team at one time or another finished that season with a different opinion about female ballplayers than they began the year with.

I accidentally hit her with a pitch in an All Star game (I might have told you this before). She dusted herself off grimaced in pain a little, but then just trotted down to first base. She wanted no part of the extra attention she may have been given because she was a girl. I apologized to her and told her how relieved I was that she wasn't badly hurt. She was just as worried about how she would be perceived if she made a big show. Her reaction to it made me feel much better and earned as much respect from me as her talent did.

[hot_corner_gurl]

Yes, my cousins are very narrow-minded and really think that I'm crazy for wanting a female ballplayer.
And about that girl, I know what it's like. Being hit with a heater hurts a hellova lot. Being hit itself hurts. She's tough...
I did play in the CWBL, but I had to stop because of an injury.

[NotAboutEgo]

NAE,

We've been through this before, but I can't say it enough. The first step is to not push young girls along the softball path. If it is their choice, fine. But if they are comfortable playing baseball they should not be deterred.

The effects of this can extend beyond baseball. A female ballplayer proving herself can teach a young boy a lot about respect and acceptance. My younger brother's friend had a younger sister who I would routinely drag out to run full court basketball games with, she could shoot from the outside far better than most of guys who were only concerned with dribbling the ball between their legs.

There was a girl in my Little League who was an All Star pitcher all the way through early Babe Ruth League. Most of the guys who were on her team at one time or another finished that season with a different opinion about female ballplayers than they began the year with.

I accidentally hit her with a pitch in an All Star game (I might have told you this before). She dusted herself off grimaced in pain a little, but then just trotted down to first base. She wanted no part of the extra attention she may have been given because she was a girl. I apologized to her and told her how relieved I was that she wasn't badly hurt. She was just as worried about how she would be perceived if she made a big show. Her reaction to it made me feel much better and earned as much respect from me as her talent did.

I agree. Most boys grow up with the notion that females are weak and aren't as good at sports and many other things, because that's what they are told and what they "see" while growing up. They get their ideas from the environment they grow up in. If things were to change like females having more opportunities to play baseball, then their perceptions will change.

I've gotten hurt a couple of times while playing in games where I was the only women there. When my teammates saw that I got hurt in some way, they rushed to me to see if I was OK... like they needed to help. I appreciated their concern for me, but I was fine and could still play, and I was very irritated and put off that they rushed over to me the way they did... like I couldn't take it and needed their help. I threw the ball over my shoulder behind me and walked off the field and told them I'm fine. I can't stand it when I'm patronized, whether it's intentional or not. Would they have done the same thing if it was a male who got hurt?

I've also been hurt in all-female games, and my teammates didn't rush over to me to see if I was OK. They asked, and I was given time by the umpires to let the pain subside before continuing with the game, but it was the standard "it's part of the game" thing.

For me, when I get hurt, I need to deal with the pain on my own and be with myself to let it subside. I get very put off when people are there acting like I need so much nurturing.

[digglahhh]

I've gotten hurt a couple of times while playing in games where I was the only women there. When my teammates saw that I got hurt in some way, they rushed to me to see if I was OK... like they needed to help. I appreciated their concern for me, but I was fine and could still play, and I was very irritated and put off that they rushed over to me the way they did... like I couldn't take it and needed their help. I threw the ball over my shoulder behind me and walked off the field and told them I'm fine. I can't stand it when I'm patronized, whether it's intentional or not. Would they have done the same thing if it was a male who got hurt?

It is so hard to ascribe motive though. My girlfriend, working in sports, deals with the same thing. "Would he assume I didn't know that if I were a guy?..." There's really no way of telling. I'll tell you what I tell her. You have to be cognizant of both sides. You have to sensitive to and forthright about not being patronized or talked down to because of your sex. But, you also have to be weary of pre-judging somebody's motives when they are vague. Basically, be sensitive to the subtle forms of bias, but don't necessarily assume the worst in people. IF they would have done the same thing when if a male got hurt- then you become the one guilty of the charge you are accusing others of. It is a gut thing, and sometimes requires several instances before you are convinced one way or another.

Another time, I was playing a recreational softball game with some friends (and some beers). Pitching for the other team was a friend of a friend. She had played softball for her high-school. I hit a line drive right back up the middle that she couldn't react quick enough to get her glove on and knocked her out cold. :ughh

I guess, I just don't have good luck with these things. Maybe, in spite of my feminist bent, I'm just a subconscious misogynist...:o

[NotAboutEgo]

I agree, but it's the way they did it that bothered me. I was catching, and there was a play at the plate in which a guy was out by a mile (I got the ball and had to wait for him to get to the plate so I could tag him out). This guy decided he was going to collide with me anyway, so I stayed low and when he came barreling into me, I threw my shoulder into him and he went flying on his face. He ended up with a bloody and broken nose. Somehow, one of my fingers on my throwing hand got hit in the play, but it's something no one would have known unless I told them about it. Even though the guy on the other team was the one who went flying and landed on his face and I stayed low and held my position, the guys on my team came running out and asked me if I was OK in a cottling way. They didn't know at that moment that my finger got bruised on the play.

If it would have been a guy catching, would they have done the same thing? Why would they have asked if I was OK since I was the one who was still standing at the end? Even if it was a guy catching and they asked if he was OK, would they have done it in the same way? I held my own when the guy was trying to take me out. I didn't even notice my finger was hurt till I got to the bench and it was bruised and was hurting.

I think a lot of people have this notion that women are weaker when it comes to things like being in physical play in sports and holding their own if they collide with someone. From my experiences, the women I've seen can hold their own just as much, or more in a lot of cases, than the guys can. When I play roller hockey, there are many times when a player on the other team and I collide or bump into each other. That's the nature of the game, but most of the time I'm the one who's standing at the end while the guys go flying. It has to do with balance and knowing how to brace yourself and keep from falling. It's something I've learned to do from skating for so long.

It's kind of the same thing as when someone tells you that you've done a really good job at something, but they do it in a very patronizing way... whether the person telling you is a guy or a girl. Some people make it seem so insincere and fake and they go overboard with it, so it can give you a hint as to what angle they are coming from when they do it.

[Richmond Hill Phoenix]

I'm gonna jump in here.

I think that the problem is bigger than just sports. In society in general, it's considered wrong to hit a woman. On the same path, it is generally assumed that a woman is weaker than a man. While this is most likely true when it comes to the average man vs. the average woman, it's generally not the same when it comes to athletes.

The general societal belief that women are weaker, and more fragile than men (which is probably true in everyday life) carries over into the athletic world. The average woman would most likely admit that they are weaker than a man, and not really care. They would probably accept it, and some (the girly-girl type) might even use it to their advantage. However, a female athlete would most likely want to be treated the same as the men that she is playing against. But some men competing against that woman might not be able to see the women's perspective. The pressures and lessons of society that they have been taught all their life might force them to act differently towards the woman, even if they don't want to.

Even if the men were able to treat the women like normal, that might break down in a certain situation (like the one described by NotAboutEgo). The men have the sociological impression that women are weaker than men, and therefore they would want to see if they are okay, and offer their help moreso than if it was another guy. And if they didn't pay special attention to her they might be seen, by society, as someone who doesn't care about women.

Basically, what I'm saying is that the general trend in society (that women are weaker, and need more attention and care than men) has carried over into the "society" of sports. But the problem is that that trend doesn't apply to sports, because in sports the women want to be treated as equals, and not viewed differently.

*I'm sorry if I make any assumptions that are deemed ignorant. I think that I adequately represented women's views. If not, sorry.

[digglahhh]

One of the worst parts about being anything other than a white male is that you have to interpret the motives of others. Overt prejudice is horrible, but it is not as psychologically torturous as having to constantly question if the reason you are being treated a certain has to do with your sex, race or whatever.

A woman, especially when engaged in a male dominated field like athletics, is going to have to ask herself the question, "did he do/say that because I'm a woman?" over and over again. Law of averages states that even a very perceptive person will be wrong sometimes.

[NotAboutEgo]

Basically, what I'm saying is that the general trend in society (that women are weaker, and need more attention and care than men) has carried over into the "society" of sports. But the problem is that that trend doesn't apply to sports, because in sports the women want to be treated as equals, and not viewed differently.

*I'm sorry if I make any assumptions that are deemed ignorant. I think that I adequately represented women's views. If not, sorry.

Really good post. I agree with you 100%. I guess, since I've been an athlete all my life, I've never been the type who needed to be cottled by anyone, even men. So, from my perspective, I can't stand it when anyone does that to me, especially when it's in the sports arena. Perhaps, from a non-athlete woman (in general), the perspective is a lot different. It's just a perspective I don't know because of always having been involved in sports and physical activity with both males and females.

I remember being on the playground in elementary school... when the boys would tease the girls and taunt them. The girls would screach and act like they couldn't do anything and wouldn't stand up for themselves. On the other hand, if a boy bothered me, I'd take care of him, and he wouldn't bother me again. I remember thinking, "Why don't those girls defend themselves and take care of the boys?" I never could understand it back then. It has everything to do with how our society "shapes" young people.

I also agree that a lot of women use the "women are weaker" to their advantage, and I can't stand that, either. One of my biggest pet peeves is when women use men to do something, saying they aren't able to do it when they are, in fact, able to do it.

[NotAboutEgo]

One of the worst parts about being anything other than a white male is that you have to interpret the motives of others. Overt prejudice is horrible, but it is not as psychologically torturous as having to constantly question if the reason you are being treated a certain has to do with your sex, race or whatever.

A woman, especially when engaged in a male dominated field like athletics, is going to have to ask herself the question, "did he do/say that because I'm a woman?" over and over again. Law of averages states that even a very perceptive person will be wrong sometimes.

You are right. I hate it when the question comes up (in the form of a thought popping up), but that's what happens when someone has been treated a certain way for so long. The idea gets implanted and is hard to let go of.

[Richmond Hill Phoenix]

Really good post. I agree with you 100%. I guess, since I've been an athlete all my life, I've never been the type who needed to be cottled by anyone, even men. So, from my perspective, I can't stand it when anyone does that to me, especially when it's in the sports arena. Perhaps, from a non-athlete woman (in general), the perspective is a lot different. It's just a perspective I don't know because of always having been involved in sports and physical activity with both males and females.

I remember being on the playground in elementary school... when the boys would tease the girls and taunt them. The girls would screach and act like they couldn't do anything and wouldn't stand up for themselves. On the other hand, if a boy bothered me, I'd take care of him, and he wouldn't bother me again. I remember thinking, "Why don't those girls defend themselves and take care of the boys?" I never could understand it back then. It has everything to do with how our society "shapes" young people.

I also agree that a lot of women use the "women are weaker" to their advantage, and I can't stand that, either. One of my biggest pet peeves is when women use men to do something, saying they aren't able to do it when they are, in fact, able to do it.I'm taking a anthro/sociology class, and we discussed gender-roles today. It's all in the way we are brought up. Typically, women in society (until recently) were generally of the stay-at-home type, and the men were the breadwinners. The men had to provide for the family, and it was the women who were sensitive, and did most of the raising/nurturing. Feminism has begun to turn that around, but evidently not enough. As can be seen with the glass ceilings in business etc... women are still not seen as equal.

For women to be seen as equal in sports (or even to be given that chance), society is going to have to change a whole lot more. Maybe it will take something like what Jackie Robinson did to prove that women can compete, but that is going to take a phenominal women, both athletically and mentally.

As for the athletic side, what are your thoughts on women and men competing together physically?

[NotAboutEgo]

True... traditional roles dictated that men were the ones who worked and women were the ones who stayed home. But, why did that happen? Was it ONLY because women wanted to stay home and because men wanted to work instead of staying home? I highly disagree that this is the case. In some instances, maybe it is, but it also has to do with how men have dominated women throughout history. Women were told their place was at home and the man's palce was working and supporting a family. When one looks at traditions and roles throughout time, they also have to look at why they have happened the way they've happened.

What if a woman were to say, in the past when it was almost unheard of for a woman to work outside the home, she wanted to get a job and did... wonder if her husband beat her for doing so, and wonder if she wasn't strong enough to overcome that?

I mean, women had to wear dresses up until the 60's (my mom was one who fought to wear pants to school). Yes, women did contribute to their homemaking role in some way, but it's the way men have dominated women that has done the most damage.

IMO, there are a lot less women today who are "willing" to put up with being told how to be. When a certain group of people has been dominated and persecuted for a certain amount of time, they will eventually step up to the plate and will fight back to knock down those who have dominated them for so long. It's very unnatural to control, so control can last only so long.

[NotAboutEgo]

physically[/I]?

I disagree that it will take a phenomenal woman to be able to compete in men's pro sports (if that's what you meant). It's not going to take a female superhero to be great. The size and strength factor (by the strength factor, I mean women who can handle getting smashed around by men who are bigger than they are, because that's what seems to be the focus in a lot of men's sports today). There are plenty of women out their who are very mentally strong and who can handle the crap they get when being in a male dominated arena. Just because women are more open to showing emotions (as researchers and psychologists and such say) doesn't mean they are mentally weak. Society likes to try to dictate how men and women handle things. Guys are told from the time they are born that they shouldn't show emotion because it makes them look weak and threatens their manhood. What a bunch of cr@p. I'll take a guy who shows emotion over a guy who doesn't show emotion any day. People who are afraid to show emotion are the ones who are most insecure and who have trouble with handling certain situations... like women competing with men in sports.

No one can tell at this time whether women can compete in pro baseball with men, because women baseball players have never been given the same opportunities and luxuries as men have to be a pro baseball player. But, IMO, there are plenty of women out there who would be able to. Everyone talks about how women can't throw in the 90's, but I see many, many MLB players striking out and not being able to hit guys who can't throw or who can barely throw in the 90's. Why weren't the Yankees able to hit Kenny Rogers in the American League playoffs last season? If some of you are saying it's because Rogers doesn't throw as hard as other guys, that's a cop out. If you're good enough to be in MLB, you should be able to adjust to different speeds.

I have absolutely no problem with men and women competing together. Why does everything have to be so segregated all the time? If someone is good enough, why can't they play, regardless of gender or color of skin or whatever? I've played sports most of my life, with both males and females. I certainly can play just as good and even better than men can... and so can so many other women who do the same thing. If I couldn't hang with them, I would probably stop trying at some point.

This goes along with how people seem to think being male means you are naturally good at any sport... better than women and able to beat them at any time. This is one of the biggest misconceptions of all time. I have seen just as many guys who completely suck at sports as women who suck at them. Some people just aren't cut out to be athletes, regardless of gender.

[FindAGap12]

Why weren't the Yankees able to hit Kenny Rogers in the American League playoffs last season? If some of you are saying it's because Rogers doesn't throw as hard as other guys, that's a cop out.

Kenny Rogers was throwing 94 MPH in that game. Several Yankees were quoted as saying that thay have never seen him throw that hard.

The best female player in the world, is, at best, a borderline low-level minor leaguer. This is not about predjudice or Society, but about the fact that NO ONE gets drafted unless they are 90 MPH any more, and that there isn't a woman alive who can throw 90. There is no female alive capable of hitting the ball 400 feet with a wood bat either. 95% of pro ball players can do either of these things.

Ila Borders played Independent Ball, as a publicity stunt. She couldn't break 80 MPH. If a male went to a pro try out throwing 77-78 like she did, they would get laughed at. Pro scouting is all about measureables, tools. The best females out there may has the tool set of an average Division III player.

[Richmond Hill Phoenix]

As for the societal issue, it seems we are in agreement. I certainly wasn't saying that it was right for women to be confined (by societal pressures) to the stay-at-home role, but it was the truth. But just like everything, eventually enough women got fed up with it and it's beginning to change.

As for the idea of a woman in MLB, I don't think that I came accross the way I wanted to. I didn't mean to say that women aren't capable of handling mental stress. However, not everyone would be able to cope with the stress of being the first woman in MLB (just as many blacks wouldn't have been able to cope with being the first African-American in MLB, which is what makes Jackie Robinson's accomplishment even greater). It was just a comment to the effect that it will take lots of change in society to bring us to the point where a woman will be able to make that jump. And even when we get to that point, that woman will have to be mentally tough, just as Jackie Robinson was.

As for the physical aspect, I can't say that I have ever seen a woman play baseball. Therefore, I can't pass any judgement. However, the fact that a woman might not be able to throw with as much velocity (whether this is true or not, I don't know) shouldn't have any importance. While a woman might not come into MLB as a power-pitcher or a power-hitter , they could easily come in as a middle-infielder, finesse pitcher etc... Heck, even a knuckleballer. I'm not saying that they should be segregated to these roles but, in all honesty, it is probably more likely. Would you agree?

Overall, and I think you'd agree, the problem is a societal one. We live in a society where men are continually viewed as superior, despite our best efforts. Subconciously, most men feel weak when beaten by a woman at something. Even if you realize that the woman is better than you, your friends (even though they might realize that the woman is better) will make mock of you for being beaten by a woman.

Lots of things need to change.

-Geoff

[NotAboutEgo]

Kenny Rogers was throwing 94 MPH in that game. Several Yankees were quoted as saying that thay have never seen him throw that hard.

The best female player in the world, is, at best, a borderline low-level minor leaguer. This is not about predjudice or Society, but about the fact that NO ONE gets drafted unless they are 90 MPH any more, and that there isn't a woman alive who can throw 90. There is no female alive capable of hitting the ball 400 feet with a wood bat either. 95% of pro ball players can do either of these things.

Ila Borders played Independent Ball, as a publicity stunt. She couldn't break 80 MPH. If a male went to a pro try out throwing 77-78 like she did, they would get laughed at. Pro scouting is all about measureables, tools. The best females out there may has the tool set of an average Division III player.

94 miles an hour is close to an average velocity in MLB... so why couldn't the Yankees hit him in that game?

Have you ever seen the best female in the world? As I've stated many times on here, no one will ever know how a woman would compete if she was given the same opportunities, luxuries, training, etc. as a male in MLB until it happens. You're talking about comparing women who haven't been able to play in college and in high school, except for a handful, much less in pro ball. Get off the Ila Borders kick. You're comparing ONE female to hundreds/thousands of MLB players. Doesn't seem like a very fair comparison to me.

Women can hit better and farther than you think. There are women who throw in the 80's. You just haven't seen them play. I don't know if there are women who can hit 400 foot homeruns with wood bats, and I don't know if there are women who can throw in the 90's, but I do know one thing... I'm not saying there aren't any out there and there will never be. Just because you haven't seen them doesn't mean they don't exist.

Have you ever seen a female play baseball?

[NotAboutEgo]

As for the societal issue, it seems we are in agreement. I certainly wasn't saying that it was right for women to be confined (by societal pressures) to the stay-at-home role, but it was the truth. But just like everything, eventually enough women got fed up with it and it's beginning to change.

As for the idea of a woman in MLB, I don't think that I came accross the way I wanted to. I didn't mean to say that women aren't capable of handling mental stress. However, not everyone would be able to cope with the stress of being the first woman in MLB (just as many blacks wouldn't have been able to cope with being the first African-American in MLB, which is what makes Jackie Robinson's accomplishment even greater). It was just a comment to the effect that it will take lots of change in society to bring us to the point where a woman will be able to make that jump. And even when we get to that point, that woman will have to be mentally tough, just as Jackie Robinson was.

I agree. When big changes come about, a lot of people can't handle it (not the players, but people who just watch the game who can't handle change), so there will be some kind of mental pressure and all that from it. Many women who play baseball in high school and college today put up with a lot... not just from the other teams but also from their own teams. That's the reason Ila Borders left the pro game.

As for the physical aspect, I can't say that I have ever seen a woman play baseball. Therefore, I can't pass any judgement. However, the fact that a woman might not be able to throw with as much velocity (whether this is true or not, I don't know) shouldn't have any importance. While a woman might not come into MLB as a power-pitcher or a power-hitter , they could easily come in as a middle-infielder, finesse pitcher etc... Heck, even a knuckleballer. I'm not saying that they should be segregated to these roles but, in all honesty, it is probably more likely. Would you agree?

Perhaps women wouldn't be able to throw as hard as the guys, but it's not all about velocity and power, as you stated. A woman who can get hitters out however she can do it would be able to pitch in MLB. Somehow, most people tend to think that power is the only thing that matters. While it's awesome to see a pitcher mow hitters down at the plate, I like to see pitchers with less velocity be just as successful by using location and different pitches. Power won't give you everything. Take Matt Anderson, for example. Besides not having a lot of control, he had no off speed pitches, and therefore, hitters soon learned how to hit him.

I wouldn't bank on saying women can't be power hitters in the pros. They may not be as big as most guys, but I've seen some women who can flat out hit. I've also seen women who can flat out throw. I've faced some of those women. I played with a catcher who could throw on a line... not a blob... but on a flat line... down to 2nd without taking a step. She's amazing. I'm sure she's not the only woman out there who can do that. Women play on the same size fields as men do.

It's hard to tell how women would do if they did play in MLB, but I won't ever say a woman, or anyone for that matter, isn't capable of something. That is so limiting and is a far stretch. Others on here like to be fast to jump to the limiting conclusion that women will never be as good and therefore, aren't good enough for pro ball with men. I like to think that people can aspire to higher levels if they really want to and know how to.

Overall, and I think you'd agree, the problem is a societal one. We live in a society where men are continually viewed as superior, despite our best efforts. Subconciously, most men feel weak when beaten by a woman at something. Even if you realize that the woman is better than you, your friends (even though they might realize that the woman is better) will make mock of you for being beaten by a woman.

Lots of things need to change.

-Geoff

I agree with you 100%... a million times over... with that. It's funny how the guys who act like they are the toughest are actually the ones who are the weakest... the ones who can't handle being beaten by women. What an oxymoron.

[Nolie]

I'm going to save the arguement and just simply disagree with you.

Agreed, it'll never happen!

[FindAGap12]

Have you ever seen the best female in the world? As I've stated many times on here, no one will ever know how a woman would compete if she was given the same opportunities, luxuries, training, etc. as a male in MLB until it happens. You're talking about comparing women who haven't been able to play in college and in high school, except for a handful, much less in pro ball. Get off the Ila Borders kick. You're comparing ONE female to hundreds/thousands of MLB players. Doesn't seem like a very fair comparison to me.

Women can hit better and farther than you think. There are women who throw in the 80's. You just haven't seen them play. I don't know if there are women who can hit 400 foot homeruns with wood bats, and I don't know if there are women who can throw in the 90's, but I do know one thing... I'm not saying there aren't any out there and there will never be. Just because you haven't seen them doesn't mean they don't exist.

Have you ever seen a female play baseball?

Yes, I have. The Silver Bullets. they won 20% of their games against middle of the road Amateur teams. They played at, maybe, an average Varsity HS level. No one threw 80. They didn't hit a HR until their 3rd season. They (the best females) had the skill sets of an average HS player. Average HS players do not get a shot at Pro ball.

I think that you are grossly underestimating the physical skills necessary to play professional baseball.

[JeepingBaseball]

Agreed, it'll never happen!

My quote was a reference to the poster before that quote. To take it now and apply it to this extended convo would be taken out of content. I do think women should have their own league in MLB. Never say never. I'll come back to bite you in the ass one day when you're not looking.

[NotAboutEgo]

Yes, I have. The Silver Bullets. they won 20% of their games against middle of the road Amateur teams. They played at, maybe, an average Varsity HS level. No one threw 80. They didn't hit a HR until their 3rd season. They (the best females) had the skill sets of an average HS player. Average HS players do not get a shot at Pro ball.

I think that you are grossly underestimating the physical skills necessary to play professional baseball.

I don't consider the Silver Bullets the best female baseball players. I have played with and against many of them, and my sister and I attended what was called a Silver Bullets tryout... which was nothing but a publicity stunt. As far as the ones I've seen play, they aren't standout/superstar caliber players. They are at the same level as many of us who play baseball today. Also, I'm sure many of those women who played for the Silver Bullets didn't play baseball growing up... in high school or college or even recreational ball. So, it's hard to compare them to guys who grew up playing real baseball.

Like I said in another post, I don't know how good a woman would do in MLB, but I don't have limiting views of it, so if a woman is good enough, let her play. I certainly don't think it's impossible. To say that women will never do this or that is jumping to huge conclusions.

[digglahhh]

Why do so many men presume that it is a given that the only way women can graduate to "pro ball" is the integrate MLB?

I don't think NAE is arguing that that females en masse will be able to compete the best male athletes in the sport. She's not sitting here saying, that if given the change the league would be 50% women in the next twenty years.

What she is saying is that because of societal prejudice women are denied and discouraged from playing high level, and eventually professional, ball. They are siphoned off on to the softball track from an early age.

What NAE is saying is that the top level women ballplayers are a largely undefined quantity. Many are discouraged from the path to begin with, most who march face very limited competitive options and scarce resources allocated for their pursuit.

The point is that what women ballplayers are is largely undefined because we haven't seen what would really happen if society encouraged women and supported women who wanted to play baseball professionally.

Perhaps what would result is a WNBA type thing. Perhaps a handful might be good enough and want to play in the majors. But that is not the only option. NAE's point is that there are so many obstacles to creation- remove them, create more talented women ballplayers through support and resources and then find out how to organize them competitively. The fact that women would still have a very difficult time making inroads into MLB on the basis of strength and skill is not withstanding.

[pitcher23]

Why do so many men presume that it is a given that the only way women can graduate to "pro ball" is the integrate MLB?

I don't think NAE is arguing that that females en masse will be able to compete the best male athletes in the sport. She's not sitting here saying, that if given the change the league would be 50% women in the next twenty years.

What she is saying is that because of societal prejudice women are denied and discouraged from playing high level, and eventually professional, ball. They are siphoned off on to the softball track from an early age.

What NAE is saying is that the top level women ballplayers are a largely undefined quantity. Many are discouraged from the path to begin with, most who march face very limited competitive options and scarce resources allocated for their pursuit.

The point is that what women ballplayers are is largely undefined because we haven't seen what would really happen if society encouraged women and supported women who wanted to play baseball professionally.

Perhaps what would result is a WNBA type thing. Perhaps a handful might be good enough and want to play in the majors. But that is not the only option. NAE's point is that there are so many obstacles to creation- remove them, create more talented women ballplayers through support and resources and then find out how to organize them competitively. The fact that women would still have a very difficult time making inroads into MLB on the basis of strength and skill is not withstanding.

There have been a lot of discussions here about whether women can compete with men in baseball. Many of the arguments against that possibility use MLB as the sole comparison. Arguments stating women cannot compete are unfair based on the fact there is no reasonable way to support them. Not until women have all of the benefits that men have will that argument be able to be supported. That includes having all of the practice and playing possibilities, basically since birth, as males do now. Yes, some girls do play now while young, but they do not have the support as they grow older. It will take at least a generation before a reasonable argument can be supported or shot down, that is if things were to all of a sudden become equal today. Males did not all of a sudden become as proficient as some are now just in one generation. Many things have gone into the practices/playing opportunities that have improved their overall abilities. Until women have these same opportunities, we will not be able to accurately declare whether women can or cannot compete with men. To make that declaration now is based on individual attitudes and unfair comparisons, like comparing apples to oranges. I maintain there are many women now who can compete with many men - forget about the professional ranks, most men cannot compete with professionals. Until women get the same opportunities from early childhood that men have, all arguments are based on individual biases and an all encompassing statement that women can never compete with men cannot be definitively supported. Let's just work together to get women these same opportunities and then debate the issue when it is truly equal.

[NotAboutEgo]

Why do so many men presume that it is a given that the only way women can graduate to "pro ball" is the integrate MLB?

Because that is where their limited thought patterns lie... and not beyond that. It's funny how anytime women's pro ball is brought up, a popular opinion among men is that women will never be good enough to play in MLB... yet, they fail to mention how many men are NOT good enough to play in MLB. Given the number of men who play baseball in college and the minors, MOST of them don't have a chance of playing in MLB. Their chances of getting hit by lightning probably are greater :D . Women have NEVER been given anywhere near the same opportunities as men have been given, so comparing women baseball players to MLB players is so far off kilter it isn't funny.

Since those men (and women) who think MLB is the only way women can play pro ball have limited thinking, MLB is the only thing that exists to them, so they'll compare everything to it.

I don't think NAE is arguing that that females en masse will be able to compete the best male athletes in the sport. She's not sitting here saying, that if given the change the league would be 50% women in the next twenty years.

What she is saying is that because of societal prejudice women are denied and discouraged from playing high level, and eventually professional, ball. They are siphoned off on to the softball track from an early age.

What NAE is saying is that the top level women ballplayers are a largely undefined quantity. Many are discouraged from the path to begin with, most who march face very limited competitive options and scarce resources allocated for their pursuit.

The point is that what women ballplayers are is largely undefined because we haven't seen what would really happen if society encouraged women and supported women who wanted to play baseball professionally.

Perhaps what would result is a WNBA type thing. Perhaps a handful might be good enough and want to play in the majors. But that is not the only option. NAE's point is that there are so many obstacles to creation- remove them, create more talented women ballplayers through support and resources and then find out how to organize them competitively. The fact that women would still have a very difficult time making inroads into MLB on the basis of strength and skill is not withstanding.

Exactly!!!

[NotAboutEgo]

There have been a lot of discussions here about whether women can compete with men in baseball. Many of the arguments against that possibility use MLB as the sole comparison. Arguments stating women cannot compete are unfair based on the fact there is no reasonable way to support them. Not until women have all of the benefits that men have will that argument be able to be supported. That includes having all of the practice and playing possibilities, basically since birth, as males do now. Yes, some girls do play now while young, but they do not have the support as they grow older. It will take at least a generation before a reasonable argument can be supported or shot down, that is if things were to all of a sudden become equal today. Males did not all of a sudden become as proficient as some are now just in one generation. Many things have gone into the practices/playing opportunities that have improved their overall abilities. Until women have these same opportunities, we will not be able to accurately declare whether women can or cannot compete with men. To make that declaration now is based on individual attitudes and unfair comparisons, like comparing apples to oranges. I maintain there are many women now who can compete with many men - forget about the professional ranks, most men cannot compete with professionals. Until women get the same opportunities from early childhood that men have, all arguments are based on individual biases and an all encompassing statement that women can never compete with men cannot be definitively supported. Let's just work together to get women these same opportunities and then debate the issue when it is truly equal.

Yep, yep... excalty. We all know (the ones without the limited thoughts and who have actually seen women play men) women can compete with men in baseball. It happens all the time all over the place. Using one person as an example (like Ila Borders) or one team (like the Silver Bullets) doesn't even qualify as a valid comparison, because it's looking at ONLY ONE case. I'm sure the guys on here who constantly slam women and say they will never be good enough have never seen a game beyond a Silver Bullets game, if they've even seen that. A LOT has happened in women's baseball since then, and there are hundreds, thousands, of women around the world who certainly can compete with men.

I attended a Silver Bullets tryout, and belive me, if that's how they picked all of their players, I can see why the team didn't fair well most of the time. The girls they picked (supposedly) from that tryout couldn't even make contact with the ball while hitting (BP speed). That was about 5 women out of 100+.

[winningtheweapon]

How about that Katie Brownlow from NY. She's AMAZING!!!!!!!!!!!! Do you think she, or any other woman will ever participate as a player in the major Leagues? I'd love to hear from you guys:)


Never in the history of mankind. End of discussion.

[pitcher23]

Never in the history of mankind. End of discussion.

Thank you for the well thought out insightful response...

[NotAboutEgo]

Never in the history of mankind. End of discussion.

"End of discussion"... maybe in your mind...

[winningtheweapon]

"End of discussion"... maybe in your mind...

No, it's just a fact of life. Men and Women will always have seperate professional leagues. Why? Not that Women can't compete, but they can't compete at the levels of men. It's a biological thing, not a sexist statement.

[Richmond Hill Phoenix]

No, it's just a fact of life. Men and Women will always have seperate professional leagues. Why? Not that Women can't compete, but they can't compete at the levels of men. It's a biological thing, not a sexist statement.Did you read the thread? I'd like to hear some of your opinions on the matters which have been discussed. Specifically this one:There have been a lot of discussions here about whether women can compete with men in baseball. Many of the arguments against that possibility use MLB as the sole comparison. Arguments stating women cannot compete are unfair based on the fact there is no reasonable way to support them. Not until women have all of the benefits that men have will that argument be able to be supported. That includes having all of the practice and playing possibilities, basically since birth, as males do now. Yes, some girls do play now while young, but they do not have the support as they grow older. It will take at least a generation before a reasonable argument can be supported or shot down, that is if things were to all of a sudden become equal today. Males did not all of a sudden become as proficient as some are now just in one generation. Many things have gone into the practices/playing opportunities that have improved their overall abilities. Until women have these same opportunities, we will not be able to accurately declare whether women can or cannot compete with men. To make that declaration now is based on individual attitudes and unfair comparisons, like comparing apples to oranges. I maintain there are many women now who can compete with many men - forget about the professional ranks, most men cannot compete with professionals. Until women get the same opportunities from early childhood that men have, all arguments are based on individual biases and an all encompassing statement that women can never compete with men cannot be definitively supported. Let's just work together to get women these same opportunities and then debate the issue when it is truly equal.

[winningtheweapon]

Did you read the thread? I'd like to hear some of your opinions on the matters which have been discussed. Specifically this one:

And I state the same thing. I'll have to dig it up for you, but I think SABR Matt echoed the same information. That fully grown females cannot compete at the same professional level as fully grown men. This is not an individual assessment, this is not my own personal beliefs, but it's a biological fact.

[Richmond Hill Phoenix]

Of course, I understand that men and women are physically different. Top male athletes are physically stronger than top female athletes (example: weight lifting). However, strength isn't everything in baseball. As I stated earlier, wouldn't it be possible for a woman to play a position like 2B where strength isn't the main skill required? I've never gone to a womens ballgame, but I imagine that there's a woman somewhere who could hit .260 and play solid mid-infield defence. I'm not saying that's the only role a woman could fill, but it seems like it would be the easiest role for a woman slide into at first.

Biological fact? I don't think so.

[winningtheweapon]

Of course, I understand that men and women are physically different. Top male athletes are physically stronger than top female athletes (example: weight lifting). However, strength isn't everything in baseball. As I stated earlier, wouldn't it be possible for a woman to play a position like 2B where strength isn't the main skill required? I've never gone to a womens ballgame, but I imagine that there's a woman somewhere who could hit .260 and play solid mid-infield defence. I'm not saying that's the only role a woman could fill, but it seems like it would be the easiest role for a woman slide into at first.

Biological fact? I don't think so.

But what's the point of this? Why is having seperate professional leagues considered an insult as long as women are getting the same opportunity? It's like my point with race. By focusing on who becomes the first African American player or first Japanese player is only permeating race back into our minds and rekindling our stereotypes. Who cares? Shouldn't becoming a good baseball player be the primary focus? I guess you can make that argument if a woman player is able to play in the MLB and be a good everyday player, but there is a difference between fast pitch softball and baseball. I'm rather ignorant to fast-pitch softball from a pitchers aspect, but correct me If I'm wrong, do women players in softball have to deal with knowing how to hit an 81 mph curveball, or a hard slider? For fielders, does a hard hit softball fly off the bat as fast as a hard hit baseball? As nice as it would be to see a woman succeed at all of these various aspects, biologically I don't think they could sustain any success as much as men do.

So my question to you and everyone else posting in this forum advocating an integration is this: is the point of this just to permeate gender, like with race, back into our minds or to make a point that women can compete at a high level with men and have sustained success?

[Jack Bauer]

But what's the point of this? Why is having seperate professional leagues considered an insult as long as women are getting the same opportunity? It's like my point with race. By focusing on who becomes the first African American player or first Japanese player is only permeating race back into our minds and rekindling our stereotypes. Who cares? Shouldn't becoming a good baseball player be the primary focus? I guess you can make that argument if a woman player is able to play in the MLB and be a good everyday player, but there is a difference between fast pitch softball and baseball. I'm rather ignorant to fast-pitch softball from a pitchers aspect, but correct me If I'm wrong, do women players in softball have to deal with knowing how to hit an 81 mph curveball, or a hard slider? For fielders, does a hard hit softball fly off the bat as fast as a hard hit baseball? As nice as it would be to see a woman succeed at all of these various aspects, biologically I don't think they could sustain any success as much as men do.

So my question to you and everyone else posting in this forum advocating an integration is this: is the point of this just to permeate gender, like with race, back into our minds or to make a point that women can compete at a high level with men and have sustained success?

My dear ''winningtheweapon'', let people like ''NotAboutEgo'' saying ridiculous things. Me, you and 99,99 % persons in the world know that women cannot compete with men in sport at the highest level. But it seems there are few people ignoring that fact. You know, there are people even today who believe that Earth is not a sphere, others believe that the US never made it to the Moon, etc.:D And today, there are people who believe that women can compete with men in sport at the highest level.:crazy My point is to let people like ''NotAboutEgo'' dreaming, my dear ''winningtheweapon''. You know, dreaming is a great way to ignore reality for some people.

[Richmond Hill Phoenix]

My dear ''winningtheweapon'', let people like ''NotAboutEgo'' saying ridiculous things. Me, you and 99,99 % persons in the world know that women cannot compete with men in sport at the highest level. But it seems there are few people ignoring that fact. You know, there are people even today who believe that Earth is not a sphere, others believe that the US never made it to the Moon, etc.:D And today, there are people who believe that women can compete with men in sport at the highest level.:crazy My point is to let people like ''NotAboutEgo'' dreaming, my dear ''winningtheweapon''. You know, dreaming is a great way to ignore reality for some people.Please, tell me more. I understand that when it comes to sports like weight-lifting or boxing that women are simply not as strong (in general terms). But I'd say that "...women cannot compete with men in sport at the highest level..." is a little all-encompasing, don't-ya-think? Look at Haley Wickenheiser (from Wikipedia): "She played 23 games for Salamat in the 2003-04 season, scoring two goals and ten assists and had the best face-off percentage in the league that season." I'd say that that was a woman who competed with men at the highest level.

I'm not here arguing that there are tonnes of women who deserve to play in the MLB. I'm simply saying that, because of societal trends and views that are generally accepted in society, women are not being given a fair chance to prove what they can do.

I ask that you read the thread, and provide some insight into the subject from your point of view, instead of dismissing it as something that doesn't deserve to be talked about like so many others have done. I'd like to know why you think that women aren't capable of competing with men. If your answer is "because they can't", then it's obvious that the societal influence is still working strong.

[Jack Bauer]

Please, tell me more. I understand that when it comes to sports like weight-lifting or boxing that women are simply not as strong (in general terms). But I'd say that "...women cannot compete with men in sport at the highest level..." is a little all-encompasing, don't-ya-think? Look at Haley Wickenheiser (from Wikipedia): "She played 23 games for Salamat in the 2003-04 season, scoring two goals and ten assists and had the best face-off percentage in the league that season." I'd say that that was a woman who competed with men at the highest level.

The highest level in ice hockey is the NHL and not the Finland Hockey League. And she only played one year. So it does not count. And you forget to put that :

(...)While Wickenheiser helped Salamat advance to the more prestigious Mestis league in the subsequent season, her coach felt that she was not physical enough to play at the higher level and she received little ice time.(...)

Link : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haley_Wickenheiser


I'm not here arguing that there are tonnes of women who deserve to play in the MLB. I'm simply saying that, because of societal trends and views that are generally accepted in society, women are not being given a fair chance to prove what they can do.

I agree with you on that one. MLB should lift the ban about women in minor leagues. So it will officially confirm that women cannot compete with men at the highest level.


I ask that you read the thread, and provide some insight into the subject from your point of view, instead of dismissing it as something that doesn't deserve to be talked about like so many others have done. I'd like to know why you think that women aren't capable of competing with men. If your answer is "because they can't", then it's obvious that the societal influence is still working strong.

First, I want to make clear that I said women cannot compete with men in sport at the HIGHEST level. I will give one example : Annika Sorenstam. She is the BEST woman golfer in the world. But at many times, Annika Sorenstam tried to compete with men in the PGA. She struggled EVEVERY times. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think she never succeed to qualify to the PGA Tour. She was invited instead of qualifying (what a injustice for the men who work hard to qualify by the way :p). And she is the she is the BEST woman golfer in the world. And I can give examples like that all day long, you know.

[winningtheweapon]

First, I want to make clear that I said women cannot compete with men in sport at HIGHEST level. I will give one example : Annika Sorenstam. She is the BEST woman golfer in the world. But at many times, Annika Sorenstam tried to compete with men in the PGA. She struggled EVEVERY times. Correct me if I wrong, but I think she never never succeed to qualify to the PGA Tour. She was invited instead of qualifying. And she is the she is the BEST woman golfer in the world. And I can give example like that all day long, you know.

Giving examples like this in precision sports such as golf are sufficient enough evidence to prove the biological fact that women can't compete with men at a professional level. And since baseball is a precision sport as well, who is to say things would turn out different in baseball?

[Jack Bauer]

Giving examples like this in precision sports such as golf are sufficient enough evidence to prove the biological fact that women can't compete with men at a professional level. And since baseball is a precision sport as well, who is to say things would turn out different in baseball?

Exactly. And as you said earlier, it's not a sexist statement but a reality. People like ''NotAboutEgo'' should not blame men but the nature. God made men differently from women.

[NotAboutEgo]

My dear ''winningtheweapon'', let people like ''NotAboutEgo'' saying ridiculous things. Me, you and 99,99 % persons in the world know that women cannot compete with men in sport at the highest level. But it seems there are few people ignoring that fact. You know, there are people even today who believe that Earth is not a sphere, others believe that the US never made it to the Moon, etc.:D And today, there are people who believe that women can compete with men in sport at the highest level.:crazy My point is to let people like ''NotAboutEgo'' dreaming, my dear ''winningtheweapon''. You know, dreaming is a great way to ignore reality for some people.

Who's ignoring reality here? As many of us have said on here, how do you know it can't happen unless the other side is given a chance? And as some of us have said before, women would rather play in a league of women rather than in MLB, but until that happens and if there are women who are good enough, let it happen.

You and others with one-sided thinking can only come up with "it's never going to happen... it's impossible." Until the doors are open, no one will know. You're the one who ignores reality with your one-sided, close-minded thinking.

[Jack Bauer]

Who's ignoring reality here? As many of us have said on here, how do you know it can't happen unless the other side is given a chance? And as some of us have said before, women would rather play in a league of women rather than in MLB, but until that happens and if there are women who are good enough, let it happen..

I wrote that earlier :

I agree with you on that one. MLB should lift the ban about women in minor leagues. So it will officially confirm that women cannot compete with men at the highest level.


You and others with one-sided thinking can only come up with "it's never going to happen... it's impossible." Until the doors are open, no one will know. You're the one who ignores reality with your one-sided, close-minded thinking.

Excuse me but in term of close-minded thinking, I have no lessons to receive from you.:dance

[winningtheweapon]

Who's ignoring reality here? As many of us have said on here, how do you know it can't happen unless the other side is given a chance? And as some of us have said before, women would rather play in a league of women rather than in MLB, but until that happens and if there are women who are good enough, let it happen.

You and others with one-sided thinking can only come up with "it's never going to happen... it's impossible." Until the doors are open, no one will know. You're the one who ignores reality with your one-sided, close-minded thinking.

Could you reply to my previous posts, and tell me your thoughts on that?

[NotAboutEgo]

Could you reply to my previous posts, and tell me your thoughts on that?

If you're talking about your post on golf, I won't comment on that, because I don't watch golf and don't know much about it, and therefore, I can't pass judgment on it.

But, I do play hardball with women from all over the country and with men, so I know what's out there, and I do know that women can compete with men on the baseball field. And, when other women and I compete with men on the diamond, most of the women have far less baseball training and playing experience than the men do. As I've stated a million times before, no one will know how women would fair with men in MLB unless it's allowed to happen and women have ALL the SAME opportunities that men have to make it there.

I do know that my mind is open enough to see that anything is possible and that people can aspire to doing things that many people say are impossible. That's why I don't say it will never happen.

[NotAboutEgo]

If you're talking precision, women can compete with men ANY DAY in terms of precision. Strength is a completely separate component than precision.

[Richmond Hill Phoenix]

The highest level in ice hockey is the NHL and not the Finland Hockey League. And she only played one year. So it does not count. And you forget to put that :

While Wickenheiser helped Salamat advance to the more prestigious Mestis league in the subsequent season, her coach felt that she was not physical enough to play at the higher level and she received little ice time.

....

First, I want to make clear that I said women cannot compete with men in sport at the HIGHEST level. I will give one example : Annika Sorenstam. She is the BEST woman golfer in the world. But at many times, Annika Sorenstam tried to compete with men in the PGA. She struggled EVEVERY times. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think she never succeed to qualify to the PGA Tour. She was invited instead of qualifying (what a injustice for the men who work hard to qualify by the way :p). And she is the she is the BEST woman golfer in the world. And I can give examples like that all day long, you know.So the fact that Haley Wickenheiser only played one year in the finnish league nullifies the accomplishment? I agree that it's not a high-level league, however I think that it further emphasizes my point, in a way.

Both hockey and golf are sports where power is in demand. To play hockey, you need to be able to hit people. It appears that Wickenheiser wasn't able to do that, and that's why she left the team. Golf: in addition to the presicion skills necessary (which Annika Sorenstam has to the same degree as most male pro golfers), you need the power to hit the ball to compete with the longer players. And I agree with you that women are biologically not built to be as powerful as men.

But baseball is a different game, and comparing it to other sports is apples to oranges. Power is not a necessity in baseball. Look at a player like Chris Woodward, Royce Clayton or John Mcdonald. Three, two and three HR's each last season respectively, and they all played around 100 games. They don't play a power game. They are decent defensive players, that fill a role on a team.

I see no "biological" reason that a woman could not hit about the same as the aforementioned gentlemen, and field just as well (if not better).

But what's the point of this? Why is having seperate professional leagues considered an insult as long as women are getting the same opportunity? It's like my point with race. By focusing on who becomes the first African American player or first Japanese player is only permeating race back into our minds and rekindling our stereotypes. Who cares? Shouldn't becoming a good baseball player be the primary focus? The fact is, that women aren't getting the same opportunity. They don't even have their own pro league!!! But let's say they did...

The goal in sports is to be the best you can be. How can you tell if you're the best if you're not playing against the best players? The competitive nature of sports is such that every player wants to play at the highest level of their game, and don't want to be held back by anything. That is why people hate being segregated by race or gender. Not only is it degrading to them, but it doesn't allow them the chance to play against the best.

I have more thoughts on race etc... but those should be kept for PM's/another thread.

I guess you can make that argument if a woman player is able to play in the MLB and be a good everyday player, but there is a difference between fast pitch softball and baseball. I'm rather ignorant to fast-pitch softball from a pitchers aspect, but correct me If I'm wrong, do women players in softball have to deal with knowing how to hit an 81 mph curveball, or a hard slider? For fielders, does a hard hit softball fly off the bat as fast as a hard hit baseball? As nice as it would be to see a woman succeed at all of these various aspects, biologically I don't think they could sustain any success as much as men do.We're not talking about a woman transferring from softball to hardball. We're talking about women who have played hardball their whole lives.

To answer your questions though, there are various pitches in softball. Curveball, dropball and rise ball, to name some. The speed is less than MLB, but the pitching distance is only 43 ft. As well, I only assume that the ball comes off the bat slower than it does in MLB. But counter-acting that is the fact that the bases are 60 ft. apart. So there are your answers.

They don't mean much however, because we're talking about a girl who has had the chance to play baseball all her life, and hasn't been constrained to playing softball.

So my question to you and everyone else posting in this forum advocating an integration is this: is the point of this just to permeate gender, like with race, back into our minds or to make a point that women can compete at a high level with men and have sustained success?Let me tell you, that the point of this discussion isn't exclusively either of the things you have listed.

I'm not saying that women can come in right away and be superstars. As I've said in many other posts, gender roles in society and bias's that are ingrained in us from birth make us think of women as athletically inferior. Read posts 32 and 36, and you'll see what I mean.

So yes, I am trying to make people think of gender because there is obviously an inequality that needs to be addressed, but I am raising it in a baseball-related way. Ignoring it won't make it go away, as we have seen in history.

[Jack Bauer]

If you're talking about your post on golf, I won't comment on that, because I don't watch golf and don't know much about it, and therefore, I can't pass judgment on it.

But, I do play hardball with women from all over the country and with men, so I know what's out there, and I do know that women can compete with men on the baseball field. And, when other women and I compete with men on the diamond, most of the women have far less baseball training and playing experience than the men do. As I've stated a million times before, no one will know how women would fair with men in MLB unless it's allowed to happen and women have ALL the SAME opportunities that men have to make it there.

I do know that my mind is open enough to see that anything is possible and that people can aspire to doing things that many people say are impossible. That's why I don't say it will never happen.

We are talking about the HIGHEST level (MLB), remember.:lookitup

[Captain Cold Nose]

We are talking about the HIGHEST level (MLB), remember.:lookitup
I don't think anyone is saying mass integration is needed or expected. But it is not beyond impossible than a female is good enough to play at that level. The people making the assertions are certainly more in tune with the possibility than those who are simply dismissing the notion without the slightest hint of research behind that dismissal.

[winningtheweapon]

If you're talking precision, women can compete with men ANY DAY in terms of precision. Strength is a completely separate component than precision.

If this is the case, and I know you said you're not an expert on the Golf situation, then how come lady golfers can't win a Men's PGA Tournament? Sure, there's some power behind driving the golf ball, but most of it is precision. And from what I heard from my grandfather who watches a lot of golf on TV, Michelle Wie to name one is terrible at keeping the ball on the fairway after every one of her drives.

[NotAboutEgo]

If this is the case, and I know you said you're not an expert on the Golf situation, then how come lady golfers can't win a Men's PGA Tournament? Sure, there's some power behind driving the golf ball, but most of it is precision. And from what I heard from my grandfather who watches a lot of golf on TV, Michelle Wie to name one is terrible at keeping the ball on the fairway after every one of her drives.

Perhaps Michelle Wie isn't the greatest at that skill, but does that mean EVERY woman in the world has trouble with keeping the ball on the fairway? How is she successful if she can't keep the ball on the fairway? Perhaps she has other strengths that carry her through. Not EVERY female golfer golfs the same way.

You and others are assuming, based on how ONE person performs in a particular sport, that every woman performs the same way. Does every guy in MLB hit like Derek Jeter, does every guy in MLB throw like Pudge, does every guy in MLB run like Curtis Granderson? Does EVERY guy in MLB play the same way? Everyone has their strengths and weaknesses and thier own style.

To assume that every women in baseball or golf or whatever has ALL the same weaknesses and strengths and skills as another is grossly inaccurate. To compare every female baseball player to Ila Borders is hugely wrong (some on here have done that). Ila Borders may have become the first woman pitcher to start a men's professional baseball game, as well as becoming the first woman to pitch in a men's college baseball game (according to many sources), but that doesn't mean she was the best female baseball player to play the game and will always be. To assume that and to compare every other female baseball player in the world to her is a mute point.

Precision has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with gender. You are grossly wrong with that. The ideas about that have to do with societal standards (what people think based on what the people "in control" spread around... which boils down to propoganda and gossip and inaccuracies). Saying that women are inferior to men in sports because of precision is one of the BIGGEST misconceptions of all. I will challenge ANYONE on that. I don't care if I get beat by the best. Bring it on. I know I have better skills than a lot of people out there (amongst BOTH men and women), and I know there are a lot out there who have better skills than I do (women and men). It has NOTHING to do with gender, as I've already stated.

I play baseball and sports with both women and men, and some of them have terrific skills and some of them don't. Most things know no gender at all, and precision is one of them. I have guys coming up to me at baseball workouts telling me that they watch my throwing and hitting mechanics to learn from them and that it helps them. If precision is akin to gender, why are things like that happening? Why can some of the women I've played baseball with out throw guys who are much above average when it comes to playing baseball? I can come up with so many examples of this.

From experience (not from heresay from other people), I see people (not being gender specific because I play baseball and other sports with people), some have horrible mechanics and skills and, therefore, they don't have a lot of precision. I also see people who have excellent mechanics and skills and a lot of precision. There are women on my team and on other teams who are flat out better than guys (better than at least half of them, if not more) that I've played with... and I play with guys who played college ball, some who play rec ball, and some who play competitive rec ball. We can prove it to anyone who doubts it.

Perhaps some of you should get out and actually watch women play baseball.

[NotAboutEgo]

I guess you can make that argument if a woman player is able to play in the MLB and be a good everyday player, but there is a difference between fast pitch softball and baseball. I'm rather ignorant to fast-pitch softball from a pitchers aspect, but correct me If I'm wrong, do women players in softball have to deal with knowing how to hit an 81 mph curveball, or a hard slider? For fielders, does a hard hit softball fly off the bat as fast as a hard hit baseball? As nice as it would be to see a woman succeed at all of these various aspects, biologically I don't think they could sustain any success as much as men do.

"I guess you can make that argument if a woman player is able to play in the MLB and be a good everyday player, but there is a difference between fast pitch softball and baseball."

Did you know that most of the adult women who are playing baseball today grew up playing fast pitch softball, and some of them have only played slow pitch softball? Did you know that we have absolutley no trouble with converting from playing softball to playing baseball? Of course you didn't, because you are assuming things based on your opinions rather than finding out the facts.

Women play on the same size diamonds as guys do, and they have no trouble doing so. There's a learning curve to pitching in baseball, but ONLY when women haven't grown up doing so like male pitchers have. There are some women out there who have had the opportunity to grow up playing organized baseball, at least until they were told to and forced into playing softball, and they have a smaller learning curve than women who have never pitched before. Learning to pitch has nothing to do with gender. Learning to do anything has nothing to do with gender.

Your statement makes it sound like you have hard time believing and accepting that women are capable of playing baseball by saying fast pitch softball is a lot different than baseball. Yes, fast pitch softball is a lot different than baseball... but what does that have to do with women playing baseball? Once women start playing baseball and adjust to the dimensions/distances (which happens very quickly) and get some experience pitching and all that, they can aspire to higher levels... and to the highest level.

Would it be any different in your mind if it was the other way around... if guys grew up playing fast pitch softball (whether by choice or by lack of opportunity and being forced into it or for whatever reason) instead of baseball? Would you change your mind about what aspects you think are determined by gender... or would you say it has to do with personal (not gender specific) skills, talents, abilities, experience, understanding of the game, motivation, mental skills, mental toughness, being mentally/intellectually in touch with the game, etc.?

[NotAboutEgo]

Oh, and the point of this discussion and allowing women to play in the minors and in MLB isn't JUST to integrate the game with gender. It's not about that at all. It's about women having equal opportunities to be able to do what they want to do and what they are good enough to do WITHOUT having someone tell them they can't do it and WITHOUT them being shunned from it. We are working on building our own leagues... from grass roots youth girls' leagues to adult women's leagues to collegiate leagues, etc. on up to women's pro leagues. Until all that happens, if a woman is good enough to play in the minors and in MLB, why should she not have that opportunity JUST because the people in control can't handle that and are too insecure to let it happen?

All people should have equal opportunities to do anything and everything... PERIOD.

Is there any OTHER reason (a legitimate, non-emotional reason) for not allowing women to play in the minors and in MLB? I've asked that question on this forum before, and I have yet to get an answer.

Issues like these have everything to do with our separatist view of the universe, of existence, of everything... and that is bread by our society. Until humans start seeing humans as people rather than as men and women, black and white, this and that, things won't change. Until humans start seeing themselves as a small part of a big whole, things won't change.

Wholistic rather than separatist/combative/competitive views will help issues like women being accepted into the baseball world.

[Captain Cold Nose]

Folks, we all need to stay on topic here. Generic and blanket statements by no means add to the discussion and only seem ignorant. State a legitimate case, or don't bother.

[winningtheweapon]

NotAboutEgo: I'm not basing my golf argument on Michelle Wie alone. There have been several other women golfers who've played with the men and could never even come close to winning a PGA tournament. And I think golf is a very relative example to baseball because they are both precision sports. So with this in mind, who is to say a woman can not only make contact with a 95 mph fastball, a 12-6 curve, or a tight slider, or a low sinker, but also hit it for a base hit into the outfield? That's the hardest thing in sports to do. That not only requires some strength, but it also requires a lot of precision also.

Not just accomplishing that feat either, but also sustaining success at the plate for a few good years.

[NotAboutEgo]

NotAboutEgo: I'm not basing my golf argument on Michelle Wie alone. There have been several other women golfers who've played with the men and could never even come close to winning a PGA tournament. And I think golf is a very relative example to baseball because they are both precision sports. So with this in mind, who is to say a woman can not only make contact with a 95 mph fastball, a 12-6 curve, or a tight slider, or a low sinker, but also hit it for a base hit into the outfield? That's the hardest thing in sports to do. That not only requires some strength, but it also requires a lot of precision also.

Not just accomplishing that feat either, but also sustaining success at the plate for a few good years.

Why didn't the other women not come close to winning a PGA tournament. Was it because none of them could keep the ball on the fairway? Was it because of something else? Unless it had to do with power, the reasons are not gender-related and have to do with each specific person.

So, you're saying that no woman on the planet is capable of hitting a 95 MPH pitch? Are most guys in high school and college capable of hitting a 95 MPH pitch, or do they go up through the ranks of the minors to learn to do so?

It's funny... I have seen women learn how to hit 80+ MPH pitches (some of my teammates, my cousin, my sister, and I are only a few of those... and my cousin and sister have never played hardball before), and there's no doubt in my mind that they can learn to hit 95 MPH pitches. That, again, has to do with ability, skills, mental and physical quickness, hand-eye coordination, eyesight, etc. It has NOTHING to do with gender... as you are suggesting.

How can you judge something that has NEVER been allowed to happen? How can you state that women are incapable of hitting a 95 MPH pitch and the other pitches you mentioned when they aren't allowed to play at the higher/highest levels? Anyone can adjust to speed. Many can adjust to breaking ball pitches. Many can't... including MEN.

You know, it wasn't too long ago that women were told they couldn't vote... "because they had no right to since they aren't as intelligent as men are and, therefore, they can't make sound decisions."

[NotAboutEgo]

Folks, we all need to stay on topic here. Generic and blanket statements by no means add to the discussion and only seem ignorant. State a legitimate case, or don't bother.

What are you referring to?

[winningtheweapon]

Why didn't the other women not come close to winning a PGA tournament. Was it because none of them could keep the ball on the fairway? Was it because of something else? Unless it had to do with power, the reasons are not gender-related and have to do with each specific person.

So, you're saying that no woman on the planet is capable of hitting a 95 MPH pitch? Are most guys in high school and college capable of hitting a 95 MPH pitch, or do they go up through the ranks of the minors to learn to do so?

It's funny... I have seen women learn how to hit 80+ MPH pitches (some of my teammates, my cousin, my sister, and I are only a few of those... and my cousin and sister have never played hardball before), and there's no doubt in my mind that they can learn to hit 95 MPH pitches. That, again, has to do with ability, skills, mental and physical quickness, hand-eye coordination, eyesight, etc. It has NOTHING to do with gender... as you are suggesting.

How can you judge something that has NEVER been allowed to happen? How can you state that women are incapable of hitting a 95 MPH pitch and the other pitches you mentioned when they aren't allowed to play at the higher/highest levels? Anyone can adjust to speed. Many can adjust to breaking ball pitches. Many can't... including MEN.

You know, it wasn't too long ago that women were told they couldn't vote... "because they had no right to since they aren't as intelligent as men are and, therefore, they can't make sound decisions."

You're underestimating the difficulty of mastering that at a professional level. And even if women were allowed the opportunity, the ratio of sustained success between men and women would be SUBSTANTIALLY in favor of the men. Guaranteed, and if future data proves me wrong then I'll eat my words. As far as your last statement is concerned, it is irrelevant since nobody is questioning a female's mental acuity. We're questioning whether women can muster enough precision as well as strength to play baseball at a high, professional level.

[Captain Cold Nose]

What are you referring to?
Nothing in particular. Just making sure all sides of the issue go no further than to agree to disagree and not go beyond that.

[pitcher23]

You're underestimating the difficulty of mastering that at a professional level. And even if women were allowed the opportunity, the ratio of sustained success between men and women would be SUBSTANTIALLY in favor of the men. Guaranteed, and if future data proves me wrong then I'll eat my words. As far as your last statement is concerned, it is irrelevant since nobody is questioning a female's mental acuity. We're questioning whether women can muster enough precision as well as strength to play baseball at a high, professional level.

The first question I have is, are you or have you been a professional baseball player? If not, how can you possibly determine that NAE is underestimating the difficulty of mastering that at a professional level? Second question - How can you make a statement that the ratio of sustained success would favor men when women have never been given the same opportunity as men? There is no way to back up that statement. No one can possibly know how the ratio of sustained success will turn out. Any future data will not be available for at least a whole generation, that is if everything suddenly became equal today. Most women today that do play baseball have not had the same opportunities as men while growing up. Many more who started playing baseball as kids have been pushed to softball, because they are told baseball is for boys and softball is for girls. I know this attitude is out there because I tried to work with a major city in the Detroit area to get more girls into baseball. I was told by the parks and rec director that baseball was for boys and softball was for girls. This was about 10 years ago.

As far as your 'concern' over the last statement, it was meant, in my reading of it, to show that women have had to fight for many of the basic rights simply because they are of a different gender. The attitude I am getting out of your posts make me think its time for you to get your wife some shoes and let her out of the kitchen.

[NotAboutEgo]

You're underestimating the difficulty of mastering that at a professional level. And even if women were allowed the opportunity, the ratio of sustained success between men and women would be SUBSTANTIALLY in favor of the men. Guaranteed, and if future data proves me wrong then I'll eat my words. As far as your last statement is concerned, it is irrelevant since nobody is questioning a female's mental acuity. We're questioning whether women can muster enough precision as well as strength to play baseball at a high, professional level.

Mental acuity has every bit to do with being able to play baseball at a high level. It's not just a physical game. In fact, it's mostly mental. If you're not mentally prepared to hit a fastball at 95 MPH, you most likely aren't going to be able to do it. However, if you are mentally prepared to hit it plus you have the necessary physical skills to do so and the connection between mind and body, then you will probably be successful at it. Hitting is mostly about seeing the ball in time and then reacting to it (same as fielding and catching a ball). Where does the reaction to hit a ball come from? Reaction comes from the mind focusing on something and gathering info through the eyes, then reacting to it by telling your physical body to do something and then your body reacting to it and then attemtping to do it physically. That, added with the right skills and mechanics will lead to hitting the ball. As one of our former coaches constantly states, "You hit with your eyes."

You're stating that women are incapable of adjusting to higher velocities just because they are, on average, smaller and not as physically strong as men are. The two don't relate at all.

Unless women have inferior eyesight, mental process, and reaction and the inability to hone mechanics and skills, your position is invalid.

[NotAboutEgo]

You're underestimating the difficulty of mastering that at a professional level. And even if women were allowed the opportunity, the ratio of sustained success between men and women would be SUBSTANTIALLY in favor of the men. Guaranteed, and if future data proves me wrong then I'll eat my words. As far as your last statement is concerned, it is irrelevant since nobody is questioning a female's mental acuity. We're questioning whether women can muster enough precision as well as strength to play baseball at a high, professional level.

I'm not underestimating the difficulty of mastering skills and success at the professional level. I understand completely that it takes a lot of work, talent, ability, motivation, preparation, etc. What I am saying is that the ability to do so is not inherent ONLY to men, and men as a whole being larger and stronger physically than women has nothing to do with those abilities. If the question comes down to shear size andstrength, and those are the determining factors of who will be better and nothing else matters, then men do have the physical advantage. But, baseball is not only about shear size and strength. It's mostly mental and has to do with a lot of abilities, skills, and talent that have nothing to do with size and strength.

How do you explain a guy in MLB who is small who can pop more homeruns than a guy who is much larger and stronger?

[winningtheweapon]

The first question I have is, are you or have you been a professional baseball player?

No

If not, how can you possibly determine that NAE is underestimating the difficulty of mastering that at a professional level?

Because he made it sound like these prerequisites were of very little difficulty to master, which would be a baseless claim. I judge everything on wording, or if in person on tone.

Second question - How can you make a statement that the ratio of sustained success would favor men when women have never been given the same opportunity as men?

That was my hypothesis.

Most women today that do play baseball have not had the same opportunities as men while growing up. Many more who started playing baseball as kids have been pushed to softball, because they are told baseball is for boys and softball is for girls. I know this attitude is out there because I tried to work with a major city in the Detroit area to get more girls into baseball. I was told by the parks and rec director that baseball was for boys and softball was for girls. This was about 10 years ago.

As far as your 'concern' over the last statement, it was meant, in my reading of it, to show that women have had to fight for many of the basic rights simply because they are of a different gender. The attitude I am getting out of your posts make me think its time for you to get your wife some shoes and let her out of the kitchen.

Thanks for assuming I'm a sexist which is what I'm not. I'm all for equal opportunity, but at some point you have to weigh in sustained success and determine if theres any point to this movement OTHER THAN permeating gender, like with race, back into our minds.

[winningtheweapon]

Mental acuity has every bit to do with being able to play baseball at a high level. It's not just a physical game. In fact, it's mostly mental. If you're not mentally prepared to hit a fastball at 95 MPH, you most likely aren't going to be able to do it. However, if you are mentally prepared to hit it plus you have the necessary physical skills to do so and the connection between mind and body, then you will probably be successful at it. Hitting is mostly about seeing the ball in time and then reacting to it (same as fielding and catching a ball). Where does the reaction to hit a ball come from? Reaction comes from the mind focusing on something and gathering info through the eyes, then reacting to it by telling your physical body to do something and then your body reacting to it and then attemtping to do it physically. That, added with the right skills and mechanics will lead to hitting the ball. As one of our former coaches constantly states, "You hit with your eyes."

You're stating that women are incapable of adjusting to higher velocities just because they are, on average, smaller and not as physically strong as men are. The two don't relate at all.

Unless women have inferior eyesight, mental process, and reaction and the inability to hone mechanics and skills, your position is invalid.

I never said mental processes weren't part of the game. And obviously mental processes do play a part in precision. However, I'm basing my argument on success in another precision sport, golf. When the women have come up to play with the men, they don't even come close to winning a tournament. You seem to dismiss this, but it shouldn't be dismissed because it's a relevant example.

[winningtheweapon]

How do you explain a guy in MLB who is small who can pop more homeruns than a guy who is much larger and stronger?

BINGO! Ding ding ding! This doesn't support your argument for women.

[NotAboutEgo]

No

Because hemade it sound like these prerequisites were of very little difficulty to master, which would be a baseless claim. I judge everything on wording, or if in person on tone..

First of all, I'm not a guy. Why did you assume this?

Second of all, I NEVER stated that the prerequisites of being a pro baseball player are of very little difficulty to master. Where on Earth did you get that from? By me saying that women have the capabilities and capacity to be pro baseball players is NOT the same thing as saying that being a pro baseball player is easy to master.

Assuming that women don't have the abilities makes you look like a sexist, because it's not based on fact and is only based on opinion using gender as the determining factor and nothing else.


That was my hypothesis.

Thanks for assuming I'm a sexist which is what I'm not. I'm all for equal opportunity, but at some point you have to weigh in sustained success and determine if theres any point to this movement OTHER THAN permeating gender, like with race, back into our minds.

What "success" are you speaking of? As many of us have stated on here, if something has never been tried/allowed to happen, how can you pass judgment on it? Hypothesizing about the outcome is nothing more than that and is based on opinion and not on fact/experience.

You are so far off the boat with your statement about why women and open-minded, supportive men are trying to change the traditions of baseball by allowing women to aspire to play in MLB and in other areas of baseball that a lifesaver wouldn't save you.

You assuming I'm a guy tells me every bit as to where your thought processes are.

[NotAboutEgo]

I never said mental processes weren't part of the game. And obviously mental processes do play a part in precision. However, I'm basing my argument on success in another precision sport, golf. When the women have come up to play with the men, they don't even come close to winning a tournament. You seem to dismiss this, but it shouldn't be dismissed because it's a relevant example.

I don't care about golf, and I'm not talking about golf. I'm talking about abilities in general. You haven't answered any of the questions I've asked.

[NotAboutEgo]

BINGO! Ding ding ding! This doesn't support your argument for women.

It supports my argument that the biggest and strongest don't always win and aren't always the best; so yes, it does relate to women. Are you that blind?

[winningtheweapon]

I don't care about golf, and I'm not talking about golf. I'm talking about abilities in general. You haven't answered any of the questions I've asked.

But golf is a relative example to baseball because both are sports that rely heavily on precision. You're just omitting it because it goes against your argument.

[NotAboutEgo]

BINGO! Ding ding ding! This doesn't support your argument for women.

Have you ever played baseball before, and if so, to what level?

[NotAboutEgo]

But golf is a relative example to baseball because both are sports that rely heavily on precision. You're just omitting it because it goes against your argument.

I'm not omitting anything. I don't watch golf, so I can't say anything about what goes on with it. I play baseball, so I can speak from experience on that.

[winningtheweapon]

First of all, I'm not a guy. Why did you assume this?

Sorry, my mistake. Although, judging by the subsequent paragraphs you don't seem to be too forgiving with fallibility.

Second of all, I NEVER stated that the prerequisites of being a pro baseball player are of very little difficulty to master. Where on Earth did you get that from? By me saying that women have the capabilities and capacity to be pro baseball players is NOT the same thing as saying that being a pro baseball player is easy to master.

I support women playing baseball and especially having their own professional league. However, being integrated into Major League Baseball seems rather pointless and more of a societal motivation rather than skill.

Assuming that women don't have the abilities makes you look like a sexist, because it's not based on fact and is only based on opinion using gender as the determining factor and nothing else.

I don't think women are slaves, I think women are self-sufficient intelligent beings. You don't know me or know how I go about my personal life so essentially your assumption of me being a sexist is based on OPINION, NOT on fact.




What "success" are you speaking of? As many of us have stated on here, if something has never been tried/allowed to happen, how can you pass judgment on it? Hypothesizing about the outcome is nothing more than that and is based on opinion and not on fact/experience.

Assuming this does happen, that would be my hypothesis before the experiment took place. A hypothesis is not an absolute, it's a guess.

You are so far off the boat with your statement about why women and open-minded, supportive men are trying to change the traditions of baseball by allowing women to aspire to play in MLB and in other areas of baseball that a lifesaver wouldn't save you.

You assuming I'm a guy tells me every bit as to where your thought processes are.

You don't seem to be very open-minded with your condescending retorts.

[winningtheweapon]

Have you ever played baseball before, and if so, to what level?


I just answered that in my previous post, and I said no. Well, with the exception of playing little league baseball when I was younger, but that's about it as far as my baseball career is concerned. What are you going to degrade my point of view now because I haven't played baseball at a high level? How many members here actually have? Probably not too many. That doesn't make my claims on this situation baseless or erroneous.

[winningtheweapon]

I'm not omitting anything. I don't watch golf, so I can't say anything about what goes on with it. I play baseball, so I can speak from experience on that.

You've omitted a relevant example though because both sports rely heavily on precision. If women struggle with hitting a stationary ball off the tee and keeping it on the fairway, then what makes you think that women can sustain success at not only making contact with a pitch, but putting it into the outfield for a hit instead of just pulling it and fouling it off?

[NotAboutEgo]

Sorry, my mistake. Although, judging by the subsequent paragraphs you don't seem to be too forgiving with fallibility.

What are you saying here, and why did you assume I'm a guy? You've avoided answering my question about that.

I support women playing baseball and especially having their own professional league. However, being integrated into Major League Baseball seems rather pointless and more of a societal motivation rather than skill.

Like I said, you are completely wrong about that. If you were involved with women's baseball today and met and knew some of the women who are playing and met some of the guys who are helping establish opportunities for women, you would understand where it's coming from. Your statement is baseless and is inaccurate. Unless one is around women's baseball on a regular basis and/or is involved with it, one doesn't have a clue as to what's happening with it.

I don't think women are slaves, I think women are self-sufficient intelligent beings. You don't know me or know how I go about my personal life so essentially your assumption of me being a sexist is based on OPINION, NOT on fact.

I said your comments make you seem sexist. I didn't say you are sexist. You keep bringing the gender issue in, saying women are incapable of aspiring to higher levels of baseball and polishing and honing their skills in the sport to be at those levels simply because they are women.

Assuming this does happen, that would be my hypothesis before the experiment took place. A hypothesis is not an absolute, it's a guess.

A hypothesis is an educated guess based on more than opinion.

You don't seem to be very open-minded with your condescending retorts

You perceive them as being condescending. I was making a statement based on how you assumed I'm a guy. Did you assume that because I'm talking about baseball?

[winningtheweapon]

What are you saying here, and why did you assume I'm a guy? You've avoided answering my question about that.

Because you can't preceive gender on an online forum unless it's blantantly obvious. Did you immediately assume I was a guy when I first exposed my dissent to the subject at hand?



Like I said, you are completely wrong about that. If you were involved with women's baseball today and met and knew some of the women who are playing and met some of the guys who are helping establish opportunities for women, you would understand where it's coming from. Your statement is baseless and is inaccurate. Unless one is around women's baseball on a regular basis and/or is involved with it, one doesn't have a clue as to what's happening with it.

You haven't proved that it isn't about societal motivation rather than skill though. You just write it off by telling me since I'm not dealing with it on a daily basis that I don't have a clue.



I said your comments make you seem sexist. I didn't say you are sexist. You keep bringing the gender issue in, saying women are incapable of aspiring to higher levels of baseball and polishing and honing their skills in the sport to be at those levels simply because they are women.

The burden of proof is on you.



A hypothesis is an educated guess based on more than opinion.

Did I not say it was a guess? Oh wait a minute, I forgot the educated part. And there has been no substantial evidence in any of the precision sports to suggest I should alter my hypothesis either.



You perceive them as being condescending. I was making a statement based on how you assumed I'm a guy. Did you assume that because I'm talking about baseball?

See first reply.

[Jack Bauer]

And what about a petition to lift the ban about women in the mirror leagues ?:lookitup

P.S. : I hope that the moderator will not erase my mesage like the last time.:lookitup

[Captain Cold Nose]

And what about a petition to lift the ban about women in the mirror leagues ?:lookitup

P.S. : I hope that the moderator will not erase my mesage like the last time.:lookitup
All's good, Jack, as long as you respectfully stay on topic.

[NotAboutEgo]

I just answered that in my previous post, and I said no. Well, with the exception of playing little league baseball when I was younger, but that's about it as far as my baseball career is concerned. What are you going to degrade my point of view now because I haven't played baseball at a high level? How many members here actually have? Probably not too many. That doesn't make my claims on this situation baseless or erroneous.

You were asked if you are or have ever been a professional baseball player before. I asked if you have ever played baseball before, and if so, to what level. Those are two different questions.

You are assuming again. The reason I asked if you've ever played baseball before is because there are differences between watching it and playing it, as is the case with just about anything. The experiences of watching baseball and playing it are completely different. Watching it, you are an observer. Playing it, you are a participant. Each experience brings to you completely different angles of the game.

As I've stated, I play baseball on a regular basis, with people of all levels and of both genders. I play with some of the best women in the country. I have learned a lot by being coached and taught by former pro's... both men AND women. I have many friends who've played in MLB. I have also taught professional hitting lessons under the guidance of a former MLB player. I'm not saying all of this makes me the best, because I know I'm not the best. It does support my statements about how I see things from experience and not from opinion and that some of us here do play baseball at levels higher than a local rec league.

What I have been trying to say all along is, unless one has the experience of seeing how things are and experiencing them, one can't fairly pass judgment on them. No one knows how women would fair in MLB, but saying it is completely out of the realm of possibility is completely inaccurate, especially when one isn't involved in the development of women baseball players.

[NotAboutEgo]

You've omitted a relevant example though because both sports rely heavily on precision. If women struggle with hitting a stationary ball off the tee and keeping it on the fairway, then what makes you think that women can sustain success at not only making contact with a pitch, but putting it into the outfield for a hit instead of just pulling it and fouling it off?

Women do it all the time playing baseball amongst women and men. Perhaps you should go and watch women play baseball. To assume that all women can do is hit foul balls and not even be able to make contact with the ball is so grossly inaccurate, it's making me laugh so much that I need to keep myself from falling off my chair!

[NotAboutEgo]

Because you can't preceive gender on an online forum unless it's blantantly obvious. Did you immediately assume I was a guy when I first exposed my dissent to the subject at hand?

So why did I you call me "he"? I take offense to that. I didn't assume you're a guy. A person can be sexist towards their same gender. I've seen women who say that women are here to serve men, and believe me, they are just as sexist as any guy who would say the same thing.


You haven't proved that it isn't about societal motivation rather than skill though. You just write it off by telling me since I'm not dealing with it on a daily basis that I don't have a clue.

The burden of proof is on you.

I don't need to prove anything to you, especially trying to disprove your opinion. I live it and experience it with hundreds of other women, so I don't need to prove it to anyone. You have the opinion you have based on your perceptions. I make statements based on my experiences and the experiences of other women I know who play baseball. I can support my baseball experiences through photos, books that have been written about women's baseball, newspaper articles, articles in magazines, etc. The reason I stated about why women AND men think MLB should open its doors to women comes from (I'm speaking for myself here) who I am and from my soul and is sincere, whether you buy into it or not.

I have no burden to prove anything to anyone.



Did I not say it was a guess? Oh wait a minute, I forgot the educated part. And there has been no substantial evidence in any of the precision sports to suggest I should alter my hypothesis either.


See first reply.

There is no evidence where there are no experiences because of blocks placed in the way of those who choose to aspire to higher levels.

[NotAboutEgo]

And what about a petition to lift the ban about women in the mirror leagues ?:lookitup

P.S. : I hope that the moderator will not erase my mesage like the last time.:lookitup

If you meant to write "minor" leagues, many of us have been mentioning that the minors and MLB should lift their bans on women.

[Richmond Hill Phoenix]

But golf is a relative example to baseball because both are sports that rely heavily on precision. You're just omitting it because it goes against your argument.Would you like to know why I omit golf as a comparable sport? Here's why:

Player Rounds Driving Avg.
Tiger Woods 55 306.4
Annika Sorenstam 67 261.3

By all admissions, the best male and female golfers in the game today. And look at the discrepancy between them. While it is true that golf is a game of precision first and foremost, this major advantage in driving distance puts Tiger at a huge advantage. Power is a necessity in golf.

And as for your argument that women don't put it in the fairway as often as men:

Player Rounds Fairways hit %
Woods 55 60.71%
Sorenstam 67 74%

She is more precise than Tiger. She can't compete with men because she can't drive the ball as far. Less power. That is a fact (the strongest man will be stronger than the strongest woman). However, I have presented you with a scenario that avoids the necessity for power in post #70, which you have yet to reply to.

[winningtheweapon]

Women do it all the time playing baseball amongst women and men. Perhaps you should go and watch women play baseball. To assume that all women can do is hit foul balls and not even be able to make contact with the ball is so grossly inaccurate, it's making me laugh so much that I need to keep myself from falling off my chair!

That doesn't answer my question. Please reread it and answer it.

[winningtheweapon]

Would you like to know why I omit golf as a comparable sport? Here's why:

Player Rounds Driving Avg.
Tiger Woods 55 306.4
Annika Sorenstam 67 261.3

I'm not talking about driving average. I'm talking about precision. Look up the average scores, and average finishes for each tournament Annika and Michelle have played in.

[winningtheweapon]

So why did I you call me "he"? I take offense to that. I didn't assume you're a guy. A person can be sexist towards their same gender. I've seen women who say that women are here to serve men, and believe me, they are just as sexist as any guy who would say the same thing.

Because I didn't know you were a woman until you said otherwise.




I don't need to prove anything to you, especially trying to disprove your opinion. I live it and experience it with hundreds of other women, so I don't need to prove it to anyone. You have the opinion you have based on your perceptions. I make statements based on my experiences and the experiences of other women I know who play baseball. I can support my baseball experiences through photos, books that have been written about women's baseball, newspaper articles, articles in magazines, etc. The reason I stated about why women AND men think MLB should open its doors to women comes from (I'm speaking for myself here) who I am and from my soul and is sincere, whether you buy into it or not.

I have no burden to prove anything to anyone.

Of course you do. If I told my parents and friends that I could climb Mount Everest, they're not just going to take my word for it. I have to prove it to them. Remember what Missouri's motto is? "Show Me". Show me, and then I'll buy it.

[NotAboutEgo]

That doesn't answer my question. Please reread it and answer it.

What makes me think women can hit FAIR balls and make contact with pitches is because I see it all the time at the levels that women are allowed to play at currently. If women can do it now while playing with men, what makes you think they wouldn't be able to do it in MLB? Again, you based your opinion only on gender.

[NotAboutEgo]

I'm not talking about driving average. I'm talking about precision. Look up the average scores, and average finishes for each tournament Annika and Michelle have played in.

Isn't fairway % a precision thing?

[winningtheweapon]

Would you like to know why I omit golf as a comparable sport? Here's why:

Player Rounds Driving Avg.
Tiger Woods 55 306.4
Annika Sorenstam 67 261.3

By all admissions, the best male and female golfers in the game today. And look at the discrepancy between them. While it is true that golf is a game of precision first and foremost, this major advantage in driving distance puts Tiger at a huge advantage. Power is a necessity in golf.

And as for your argument that women don't put it in the fairway as often as men:

Player Rounds Fairways hit %
Woods 55 60.71%
Sorenstam 67 74%

She is more precise than Tiger. She can't compete with men because she can't drive the ball as far. Less power. That is a fact (the strongest man will be stronger than the strongest woman). However, I have presented you with a scenario that avoids the necessity for power in post #70, which you have yet to reply to.

Small sample size. Give me a much bigger one. Also give me Sorenstams average scores and finishes. Woods may hit less shots on the fairway, but it depends on what each did in their 2nd and 3rd shots also. Driving a ball 250+ yards isn't chump change either, so if you find any shot by shot data which I assume is hard to find then please share it because then we can determine who is more consistent with precision.

[winningtheweapon]

Isn't fairway % a precision thing?

Yes, but it's only based on one shot. It's a start, but you really need shot by shot data to see who's more consistent with precision. Also a comparison of two players isn't going to tell us much. You need a larger sample size.

[NotAboutEgo]

Because I didn't know you were a woman until you said otherwise.


Of course you do. If I told my parents and friends that I could climb Mount Everest, they're not just going to take my word for it. I have to prove it to them. Remember what Missouri's motto is? "Show Me". Show me, and then I'll buy it.

Well, I think differently than that. If you were to tell me you are going to climb Mount Everest, I would say, "That's really cool and ambitious. When are you going to do it, and have you climbed other mountains before (asking only out of curiosity)? When you have finished, let me know how it went. I would like to hear the details of the experience. Good luck."

I would give you the benefit of the doubt and would not look on the pessimistic side of things, because that's not how I think. I would applaud you and encourage you to do it. Many others have done it, so why wouldn't you be able to, even if it means you've never done anything like it before and you are going to be training for it for a while. It still can be achieved.

I would hope that your parents would be more supportive of something you aspire to achieve. I'm not sure if they aren't supportive of your endeavors or if you were making a hypothetical statement, but I sure hope any person's parents would be more encouraging than to tell them that they need to prove it to them to believe that person.

[Richmond Hill Phoenix]

Yes, but it's only based on one shot. It's a start, but you really need shot by shot data to see who's more consistent with precision. Also a comparison of two players isn't going to tell us much. You need a larger sample size.

2006 PGA Driving Distance Stats: (http://www.pgatour.com/r/stats/2006/101.html)

Rank Player Rounds Avg.
1. Bubba Watson 83 319.6
98. Aaron Baddely 78 288.3
196. Corey Pavin 74 265.9

2006 LPGA Driving Distance Stats: (http://lpga.com/player_stats.aspx?mid=4&pid=5)

Rank Player Rounds Avg.
1. Karin Sjodin 59 284.5
83. Michelle Estill 40 251.5
167. Vicki Goetze-Ackerman 61 227.9

Here, I took the leader, the median player, and the last-place player. This shows that men out-drive women. You will note that the average ball-driver of the PGA will outdrive even the best LPGA player. Even the shortest hitter on the PGA tour will still out-drive half of the women of the LPGA (and Pavin is 47 years old).

2006 PGA Driving Accuracy Stats: (http://www.pgatour.com/r/stats/2006/102.html)

Rank Player Rounds Accuracy%
1. Joe Durant 101 78.43
98. Arjun Atwal 97 63.24
196. Jimmy Walker 60 49.75

2006 LPGA Driving Accuracy Stats: (http://lpga.com/player_stats.aspx?mid=4&pid=5)

Rank Player Rounds Accuracy%
1. Tina Barrett 65 83.3
83. Young Kim 82 70.3
167. Michelle McGann 30 43.1

Here, we see that women have the advantage in driving accuracy. But their disadvantage in distance (read power) more than eliminates their advantage in precision. Here is why.

Say that a woman is playing against a man. Let's say that Annika Sorenstam (the best female golfer in the game) is playing Davis Love III (an above-average player). They're playing a 420 yard hole, par 4. Love III hits it an average of 301.9 yards. Annika hits it an average of 261.3 yards. Love III has a driving accuracy percentage of 63%. Annika's is 74%.

Let's evaluate: On average, Love III will be left with 120 yards for his second shot. Sorenstam will be left with 160. About 6 out of 10 times, Love will keep it in the fairway. Sorenstam will do the same 7 out of 10 times.

Not sure how much you know about golf, but the fact is that the closer you are to the green, the easier it is to hit it close to the hole.

So, Love will be 40 yards closer, and will only be in the fairway one less time out of ten than Annika. Even if he is in the rough and she's in the fairway, he has the distance advantage.

Do you see what I'm getting at? The men's superior power allows them to be more precise by leaving them with less distance to the green on every shot. And even if they are less accurate, they are still closer to the green anyway.

What this proves is that men are better at golf than women because of the power advantage.

How does this relate to baseball? Well: Saying that both baseball and golf are precision sports is simply not true. It is not possible to win on the PGA tour by playing a pure precision game. In baseball however, there are many players who do not have power, and still play well. Look at the people I described in post #70 for an example.

[winningtheweapon]

Well, I think differently than that. If you were to tell me you are going to climb Mount Everest, I would say, "That's really cool and ambitious. When are you going to do it, and have you climbed other mountains before (asking only out of curiosity)? When you have finished, let me know how it went. I would like to hear the details of the experience. Good luck."

What if I had never climbed a mountain in the past and Mount Everest is going to be my first ever mountain that I've climbed, but I say I could do it right away. Would you be skeptical? To put it in a better frame of light, if I told you I could master a Mozart composition on the piano without ever knowing how to read music, or learning basic playing skills, would you buy it? Only an artless person would.

I would give you the benefit of the doubt and would not look on the pessimistic side of things, because that's not how I think. I would applaud you and encourage you to do it. Many others have done it, so why wouldn't you be able to, even if it means you've never done anything like it before and you are going to be training for it for a while. It still can be achieved.

I would hope that your parents would be more supportive of something you aspire to achieve. I'm not sure if they aren't supportive of your endeavors or if you were making a hypothetical statement, but I sure hope any person's parents would be more encouraging than to tell them that they need to prove it to them to believe that person.

To open up a bit, my parents haven't always been the most supportive parents in the world. They open up a bit, but if I get too ambitious or futuristic it is awfully tough to win their support unless I have proven otherwise based on history.

[NotAboutEgo]

What if I had never climbed a mountain in the past and Mount Everest is going to be my first ever mountain that I've climbed, but I say I could do it right away. Would you be skeptical? To put it in a better frame of light, if I told you I could master a Mozart composition on the piano without ever knowing how to read music, or learning basic playing skills, would you buy it? Only an artless person would.

I may wonder how far up you could make it, based on inexperience of climbing such mountains, but I wouldn't doubt that you would attempt it and that you wouldn't be able to climb it at all. I certainly wouldn't tell you it's impossible. That would be based on experience or lack of it and ability, not on gender, so it's not the same as saying a woman can't ever play in MLB. I wouldn't ever tell anyone they can't do something, even if they've never done it before, regardless of what it is.

About your Mozart comment, I still wouldn't tell you that you couldn't do that. Maybe you have the innate ability and talent to do something like that without ever learning any of it. How do you explain autistic savants' and idot (not being mean here) savants' abilities to do something like that?

To open up a bit, my parents haven't always been the most supportive parents in the world. They open up a bit, but if I get too ambitious or futuristic it is awfully tough to win their support unless I have proven otherwise based on history.

It's too bad they aren't that supportive of you and your endeavors. Perhaps you could use it as motivation to accomplish something, but to accomplish something for your own satisfaction rather than trying to prove it to them to win their support. Perhaps then they will see how they should be more open and supportive of you instead of being so critical. My advice is to let go of them being that way and work for your own satisfaction and happiness. I know it's hard to do that sometimes, but that is when you will stop feeling the burden of proving things to them to get their acceptance.

You are only beating yourself up when you live to try and get them to accept your dreams and desires and goals without proving them first.

[Jack Bauer]

If you meant to write "minor" leagues, many of us have been mentioning that the minors and MLB should lift their bans on women.

Yep, I know that. But I'm really surprised that you did not start yet a petition to lift the ban about women in the minor leagues. You keep saying that women can make it to MLB. Well, you must fight to see that happen.

[NotAboutEgo]

Yep, I know that. But I'm really surprised that you did not start yet a petition to lift the ban about women in the minor leagues. You keep saying that women can make it to MLB. Well, you must fight to see that happen.

Perhaps others and myself will start one soon. I have been thinking about it a lot lately.

[winningtheweapon]

I may wonder how far up you could make it, based on inexperience of climbing such mountains, but I wouldn't doubt that you would attempt it and that you wouldn't be able to climb it at all. I certainly wouldn't tell you it's impossible. That would be based on experience or lack of it and ability, not on gender, so it's not the same as saying a woman can't ever play in MLB. I wouldn't ever tell anyone they can't do something, even if they've never done it before, regardless of what it is.

About your Mozart comment, I still wouldn't tell you that you couldn't do that. Maybe you have the innate ability and talent to do something like that without ever learning any of it. How do you explain autistic savants' and idot (not being mean here) savants' abilities to do something like that?

You just answered that last question for yourself. They have an innate ability or an aptitude for it. For others, they may have innate shortcomings that prevent them from ever progressing. For everyone else though in the standard curve, we fall in the middle, and whichever slope we fall on (the slope of the side with the naturally talented people or the slope of the side with the innate shortcomings.) pends on hard work and dedication. That I agree with.



It's too bad they aren't that supportive of you and your endeavors. Perhaps you could use it as motivation to accomplish something, but to accomplish something for your own satisfaction rather than trying to prove it to them to win their support. Perhaps then they will see how they should be more open and supportive of you instead of being so critical. My advice is to let go of them being that way and work for your own satisfaction and happiness. I know it's hard to do that sometimes, but that is when you will stop feeling the burden of proving things to them to get their acceptance.

You are only beating yourself up when you live to try and get them to accept your dreams and desires and goals without proving them first.

I think my Dad gives a more "limitless" perspective than my Mom. But either way, with both of them if I get too ambitious or futuristic, they get all pessimistic or skeptical on me. Or they give me the "find alternatives" approach.

[pitcher23]

What if I had never climbed a mountain in the past and Mount Everest is going to be my first ever mountain that I've climbed, but I say I could do it right away. Would you be skeptical? To put it in a better frame of light, if I told you I could master a Mozart composition on the piano without ever knowing how to read music, or learning basic playing skills, would you buy it? Only an artless person would.

First of all, there likely could be some skepticism if you were saying you were going to climb Mt Everest as your first attempt. Also with the piano scenario. BUT, who's to say you would not take the time and effort to practice and not just go into it recklessly. On the other hand, are you suggesting that women who want to play baseball are going into it the same way, recklessly? I do not accept the comparison of mastering Mozart with out being able to play the piano and women playing baseball at the highest level. Any person going in to play baseball without having practiced and trained would not likely be very successful in the beginning. It certainly takes practice and dedication to be the best at whatever you choose to do. And, hopefully, you will be able to be successful without constantly being told you are not allowed to do what you are dedicated to do, as women are when it comes to playing baseball.

I've said this before, but instead of all of this debate about whether women can or cannot play at a professional level, why not let's all work together to make the opportunity available to them so they have the opportunities to prove whether they can or cannot play?

By the way, I know a number of people who are very good piano players that cannot read music...

[winningtheweapon]

I am compiling as we speak. I'll post in an hour. In the mean-time, please reply to post #70.

What part do you want me to reply on?

[Richmond Hill Phoenix]

About whether or not a woman could play a role that I described, and my explanation to you about the differences in softball. I am almost done the other thing that you asked for too.

PS: Post #115 as well.

[NotAboutEgo]

First of all, there likely could be some skepticism if you were saying you were going to climb Mt Everest as your first attempt. Also with the piano scenario. BUT, who's to say you would not take the time and effort to practice and not just go into it recklessly. On the other hand, are you suggesting that women who want to play baseball are going into it the same way, recklessly? I do not accept the comparison of mastering Mozart with out being able to play the piano and women playing baseball at the highest level. Any person going in to play baseball without having practiced and trained would not likely be very successful in the beginning. It certainly takes practice and dedication to be the best at whatever you choose to do. And, hopefully, you will be able to be successful without constantly being told you are not allowed to do what you are dedicated to do, as women are when it comes to playing baseball.

I've said this before, but instead of all of this debate about whether women can or cannot play at a professional level, why not let's all work together to make the opportunity available to them so they have the opportunities to prove whether they can or cannot play?

By the way, I know a number of people who are very good piano players that cannot read music...

I also know of many people who can play the piano but who can't read or write music, but they can compose good music in their minds. There are also people who can read music very easily but who aren't very creative with composing good music. My sister gets a melody in her mind and then comes up with words and writes the words down. It's not till later that she writes the music to go along with it. I can read music and have a very easy time of learning to play the guitar on my own while reading music, but I don't have the ability to just start playing and figuring out the notes without reading them, and I'm not talented at writing music.

The point of all of that is... as an analogy, we all have different talents and abilities... even when it comes to baseball. So, one shouldn't lump everyone into the same category and make assumptions, especially by saying that women wouldn't be able to compete successfully in MLB based on the performances of Ila Borders and Annika.

[winningtheweapon]

2006 PGA Driving Distance Stats: (http://www.pgatour.com/r/stats/2006/101.html)

Rank Player Rounds Avg.
1. Bubba Watson 83 319.6
98. Aaron Baddely 78 288.3
196. Corey Pavin 74 265.9

2006 LPGA Driving Distance Stats: (http://lpga.com/player_stats.aspx?mid=4&pid=5)

Rank Player Rounds Avg.
1. Karin Sjodin 59 284.5
83. Michelle Estill 40 251.5
167. Vicki Goetze-Ackerman 61 227.9

Here, I took the leader, the median player, and the last-place player. This shows that men out-drive women. You will note that the average ball-driver of the PGA will outdrive even the best LPGA player. Even the shortest hitter on the PGA tour will still out-drive half of the women of the LPGA (and Pavin is 47 years old).

2006 PGA Driving Accuracy Stats: (http://www.pgatour.com/r/stats/2006/102.html)

Rank Player Rounds Accuracy%
1. Joe Durant 101 78.43
98. Arjun Atwal 97 63.24
196. Jimmy Walker 60 49.75

2006 LPGA Driving Accuracy Stats: (http://lpga.com/player_stats.aspx?mid=4&pid=5)

Rank Player Rounds Accuracy%
1. Tina Barrett 65 83.3
83. Young Kim 82 70.3
167. Michelle McGann 30 43.1

Here, we see that women have the advantage in driving accuracy. But their disadvantage in distance (read power) more than eliminates their advantage in precision. Here is why.

Say that a woman is playing against a man. Let's say that Annika Sorenstam (the best female golfer in the game) is playing Davis Love III (an above-average player). They're playing a 420 yard hole, par 4. Love III hits it an average of 301.9 yards. Annika hits it an average of 261.3 yards. Love III has a driving accuracy percentage of 63%. Annika's is 74%.

Let's evaluate: On average, Love III will be left with 120 yards for his second shot. Sorenstam will be left with 160. About 6 out of 10 times, Love will keep it in the fairway. Sorenstam will do the same 7 out of 10 times.

Not sure how much you know about golf, but the fact is that the closer you are to the green, the easier it is to hit it close to the hole.

So, Love will be 40 yards closer, and will only be in the fairway one less time out of ten than Annika. Even if he is in the rough and she's in the fairway, he has the distance advantage.

Do you see what I'm getting at? The men's superior power allows them to be more precise by leaving them with less distance to the green on every shot. And even if they are less accurate, they are still closer to the green anyway.

What this proves is that men are better at golf than women because of the power advantage.

How does this relate to baseball? Well: Saying that both baseball and golf are precision sports is simply not true. It is not possible to win on the PGA tour by playing a pure precision game. In baseball however, there are many players who do not have power, and still play well. Look at the people I described in post #70 for an example.

Thanks for the work you put into that. I appreciate it. If women have that much precision in golf then I can see that translating to baseball. The only problem is sexual harassment.

And I disagree with you on how you can't win a PGA tour by playing a pure precision game. You may not drive it as far, but if you keep it on the fairway and green, it is possible to get the same score on that hole as the guy who can drive it 300+ yards with less precision.

[Knick9]

Reading this thread makes me sit down and think. This debate is havily heated. This is what I believe. Men are always going to be stronger than women in sports/athletics. That is a fact. I don't think that Richmond or NAE are debating that. I won't debate that, either. That should be dropped. If none of them are trying to debate that then stop mentioning it altogether. I believe women players can be a useful part of the game of baseball. Will they be able to hit 450 to 500 feet homeruns? No, absolutely not. That will never happen. But power isn't everything...it should not be the main influence or focus as to what players try to do when trying to win a game. Sadly, we have people who think otherwise getting some steroids, but that is another topic. Do I believe that women can hit bloop singles? Of course I do. Anybody can bunt. I don't care if you're a man or a woman. Even your Aunt Julia can learn how to bunt easily. I'm not joking. Some of you make it sound like baseball is like a 007 James Bond mission for women to do. Be serious. :rolleyes: Absolutely ridiculous.

Speed is another thing that I believe women ballpayers can thrive in. Think about it. I believe that there are some women out there that can run faster than some men. Not all men are fast. Some men are (let's face it) fat oafs who can hardly hustle to first base. Catchers, some DH's and the like. Don't tell me that in-shape women can't out-hustle overweight men. You see women track and field particpants all the time at the olympic events. Women can run well if they train hard at improving their speed. How hard is it to track a white ball in the sky and catch it? It takes eye contact and accuracy with your glove. You don't need brute strength to do that. It only takes concentration and focus. You just gotta know where you are and track the ball down. As for being an infielder, second base or first base would be prefered for women.

Temporarily, I believe the ban of women from the game should be lifted. Long term, though, when enough interest is gathered for a "WNBA" equivalent of MLB to be started up, then put the ban on again.

[winningtheweapon]

I apologize to NotAboutEgo, and others for my posts earlier. I'm sorry for assuming you were a supportive male, and I'm sorry for doubting female's precision ability. I'm still trying to be a better person in my personal life and when I interact with other people, and it's a hard process to go through, but I'm trying to be better towards people everyday. Today was a setback for me, and I feel miserable about the whole thing so I wanted to apologize.

[Richmond Hill Phoenix]

Thanks for the work you put into that. I appreciate it. If women have that much precision in golf then I can see that translating to baseball. The only problem is sexual harassment.

And I disagree with you on how you can't win a PGA tour by playing a pure precision game. You may not drive it as far, but if you keep it on the fairway and green, it is possible to get the same score on that hole as the guy who can drive it 300+ yards with less precision.You're welcome. I always love to research, so it's no big deal. Enlightened me too...

I think that the second point is debatable. It is possible, but not frequent.

Either way, it's not baseball. So let's drop it.

[NotAboutEgo]

I apologize to NotAboutEgo, and others for my posts earlier. I'm sorry for assuming you were a supportive male, and I'm sorry for doubting female's precision ability. I'm still trying to be a better person in my personal life and when I interact with other people, and it's a hard process to go through, but I'm trying to be better towards people everyday. Today was a setback for me, and I feel miserable about the whole thing so I wanted to apologize.

Apology accepted, even though I don't feel one is needed. Everyone is a product of their environment AND of who they are at the core. The important thing is, you are striving to better yourself. Anyone who recognizes that and strives towards it is cool in my book. I also strive to better myself everyday and it's a big struggle sometimes, so I know where you're coming from and how difficult it can be with influences from everything everyday. Don't beat yourself up over it, and try not to let the discussion of today get you down. Just move forward.

:)

[NotAboutEgo]

Reading this thread makes me sit down and think. This debate is havily heated. This is what I believe. Men are always going to be stronger than women in sports/athletics. That is a fact. I don't think that Richmond or NAE are debating that. I won't debate that, either. That should be dropped. If none of them are trying to debate that then stop mentioning it altogether. I believe women players can be a useful part of the game of baseball. Will they be able to hit 450 to 500 feet homeruns? No, absolutely not. That will never happen. But power isn't everything...it should not be the main influence or focus as to what players try to do when trying to win a game. Sadly, we have people who think otherwise getting some steroids, but that is another topic. Do I believe that women can hit bloop singles? Of course I do. Anybody can bunt. I don't care if you're a man or a woman. Even your Aunt Julia can learn how to bunt easily. I'm not joking. Some of you make it sound like baseball is like a 007 James Bond mission for women to do. Be serious. :rolleyes: Absolutely ridiculous.

Speed is another thing that I believe women ballpayers can thrive in. Think about it. I believe that there are some women out there that can run faster than some men. Not all men are fast. Some men are (let's face it) fat oafs who can hardly hustle to first base. Catchers, some DH's and the like. Don't tell me that in-shape women can't out-hustle overweight men. You see women track and field particpants all the time at the olymipic events. Women can run well if they train hard at improving their speed. How hard is it to track a white ball in the sky and catch it? It takes eye contact and accuracy with your glove. You don't need brute strength to do that. It only takes concentration and focus. You just gotta know where you are and track the ball down. As for being an infielder, second base or first base would be prefered for women.

Temporarily, I believe the ban of women from the game should be lifted. Long term, though, when enough interest is gathered for a "WNBA" equivalent of MLB to be started up, then put the ban on again.

My opinion, based on my personal playing experiences and my experiences of seeing other women play, I feel women would do a lot more than hit bloop singles. I'm not stating this to debate it but am simply stating what I feel is possible for women given the room to develop to the highest level.

[winningtheweapon]

Apology accepted, even though I don't feel one is needed. Everyone is a product of their environment AND of who they are at the core. The important thing is, you are striving to better yourself. Anyone who recognizes that and strives towards it is cool in my book. I also strive to better myself everyday and it's a big struggle sometimes, so I know where you're coming from and how difficult it can be with influences from everything everyday. Don't beat yourself up over it, and try not to let the discussion of today get you down. Just move forward.

:)

Thanks. :)

[NotAboutEgo]

Thanks. :)

You're welcome.

[Richmond Hill Phoenix]

Reading this thread makes me sit down and think. This debate is havily heated. This is what I believe. Men are always going to be stronger than women in sports/athletics. That is a fact. I don't think that Richmond or NAE are debating that. I won't debate that, either. That should be dropped. If none of them are trying to debate that then stop mentioning it altogether. I believe women players can be a useful part of the game of baseball. Will they be able to hit 450 to 500 feet homeruns? No, absolutely not. That will never happen. But power isn't everything...it should not be the main influence or focus as to what players try to do when trying to win a game. Sadly, we have people who think otherwise getting some steroids, but that is another topic. Do I believe that women can hit bloop singles? Of course I do. Anybody can bunt. I don't care if you're a man or a woman. Even your Aunt Julia can learn how to bunt easily. I'm not joking. Some of you make it sound like baseball is like a 007 James Bond mission for women to do. Be serious. :rolleyes: Absolutely ridiculous.

Speed is another thing that I believe women ballpayers can thrive in. Think about it. I believe that there are some women out there that can run faster than some men. Not all men are fast. Some men are (let's face it) fat oafs who can hardly hustle to first base. Catchers, some DH's and the like. Don't tell me that in-shape women can't out-hustle overweight men. You see women track and field particpants all the time at the olymipic events. Women can run well if they train hard at improving their speed. How hard is it to track a white ball in the sky and catch it? It takes eye contact and accuracy with your glove. You don't need brute strength to do that. It only takes concentration and focus. You just gotta know where you are and track the ball down. As for being an infielder, second base or first base would be prefered for women.

Temporarily, I believe the ban of women from the game should be lifted. Long term, though, when enough interest is gathered for a "WNBA" equivalent of MLB to be started up, then put the ban on again.Good post. Kind of sums up the discussion, and brings it back to baseball.

I've been saying the same thing you have, that a speedy woman who can field and hit for contact could make an MLB team, without question. I'm not saying that it's the only role a woman could fill, but it's certainly the most likely.

Since we're generally in agreement about that, I guess the main issue is the societal pressures and trends that we have been discussing. And we (NAE and myself) also agree that it will take a long time for ideas about gender roles to change.

[NotAboutEgo]

Good post. Kind of sums up the discussion, and brings it back to baseball.

I've been saying the same thing you have, that a speedy woman who can field and hit for contact could make an MLB team, without question. I'm not saying that it's the only role a woman could fill, but it's certainly the most likely.

Since we're generally in agreement about that, I guess the main issue is the societal pressures and trends that we have been discussing. And we (NAE and myself) also agree that it will take a long time for ideas about gender roles to change.

Yep, and that will have an influence on whether the minors and MLB will lift their bans on women when the petition is presented to them.

MLB has been approached in the past by women's baseball organizations to create and support a league like the WNBA, but it closed its doors to it. I'm not sure if MLB has been approached since then (this was 5 years ago or more).

At least women have had the support of the IBAF for some time and finally have the support of USA Baseball, and USA Baseball's support will grow over time. With USA Baseball's recent agreement with MLB, perhaps MLB will be more open to supporting women's baseball soon.

[Knick9]

Good post. Kind of sums up the discussion, and brings it back to baseball.

I've been saying the same thing you have, that a speedy woman who can field and hit for contact could make an MLB team, without question. I'm not saying that it's the only role a woman could fill, but it's certainly the most likely.

Since we're generally in agreement about that, I guess the main issue is the societal pressures and trends that we have been discussing. And we (NAE and myself) also agree that it will take a long time for ideas about gender roles to change.

Well, I believe gender roles should stay the same, but I believe people need to stop treating female ballplayers like crap. If women have a passion about playing the game, then please, just let them play and give them the oppurtunity to learn how to play. They have a right to play with wooden bats, real baseballs and with a regular sized field. Softball shouldn't be the be-all end-all. As for female pitchers, again, you don't need power to succeed. Hello? Tim Wakefield? Phil Niekro? Also, women pitchers who have awesome movement in their pitches (curveball, changeup, slider, etc.) can be effective. Not all pitchers rely on a fastball to get batters out. That is a fact.

Oh, and NAE, yes, I think women can hit for contact, just putting the ball in play.

[JeepingBaseball]

For the most part I have remained silent in this discussion and I have followed it closely. There's only a few comments I would like to make, and I'm not trying to prove or disprove anyone or start an arguement...

1) Women probably wont be found in the starting lineup of any MLB team anytime soon. However, there are a few great women out there that could be excellent ultility players if ever given the opportunity. But I do not see it happening under the current baseball adminstration.

2) I believe that 99.9% of women players in the baseball community would NOT want to play in MLB. They would rather have their own league as a partnership with MLB. It's a reality check we all know is what would work best for women in baseball.

3) As a player myself, I know firsthand that women can do more than an occasional foul ball. I have personally hit the ball to the centerfield wall of a MLB spring training facility. I wish I was a few feet higher so it could go over the wall... but I'll just have to hope I'll have better luck next time. I have watched women hit line drives right down the 3rd base line, run like hell and have a close call at 2nd. I have watch women do deep diving catches in the outfield. I have watched women pitch with such control and speed, and it makes for a difficult ball to hit. I have watched women do relay throws done in percesion to home plate for that game saving out. I have watched women get banged up and bruised and get the wind knocked out of them... and they get right back up, shake it off and go for more. There is no doubt in my mind where many of these women belong. They deserve the same wonderful dream achieving opportunity to showcase their talent in their own forum as much as the men do in their own forum, and theirs is called MLB.

4) Women in baseball is on the rise in their own communities and across the country. Many teams today have been traveling to Las Vegas, California, Baltimore, Florida, ect... to play baseball tournaments on their own hard earn dimes with family and jobs to juggle while they are at it. I'm not talking about little league either. My commitment, and theirs, about the growth of women in baseball is more than just a passion for the sake of the game to us. It's a deep desire from within. Nothing happens over night but we are trying. It does not help us when people scoff at the ideas before even hearing it.

All that being said, I would like to conclude with this:

To all the women players/organizers/coaches: I wish you the best of luck in 2007 and I hope to cross paths with you again at one of the tournaments.

To all the men who play/organize/coach: The very best of luck to you as well in the 2007 season.

Thank you for your time, I hope you have a nice day :D

[NotAboutEgo]

For the most part I have remained silent in this discussion and I have followed it closely. There's only a few comments I would like to make, and I'm not trying to prove or disprove anyone or start an arguement...

1) Women probably wont be found in the starting lineup of any MLB team anytime soon. However, there are a few great women out there that could be excellent ultility players if ever given the opportunity. But I do not see it happening under the current baseball adminstration.

2) I believe that 99.9% of women players in the baseball community would NOT want to play in MLB. They would rather have their own league as a partnership with MLB. It's a reality check we all know is what would work best for women in baseball.

3) As a player myself, I know firsthand that women can do more than an occasional foul ball. I have personally hit the ball to the centerfield wall of a MLB spring training facility. I wish I was a few feet higher so it could go over the wall... but I'll just have to hope I'll have better luck next time. I have watched women hit line drives right down the 3rd base line, run like hell and have a close call at 2nd. I have watch women do deep diving catches in the outfield. I have watched women pitch with such control and speed, and it makes for a difficult ball to hit. I have watched women do relay throws done in percesion to home plate for that game saving out. I have watched women get banged up and bruised and get the wind knocked out of them... and they get right back up, shake it off and go for more. There is no doubt in my mind where many of these women belong. They deserve the same wonderful dream achieving opportunity to showcase their talent in their own forum as much as the men do in their own forum, and theirs is called MLB.

4) Women in baseball is on the rise in their own communities and across the country. Many teams today have been traveling to Las Vegas, California, Baltimore, Florida, ect... to play baseball tournaments on their own hard earn dimes with family and jobs to juggle while they are at it. I'm not talking about little league either. My commitment, and theirs, about the growth of women in baseball is more than just a passion for the sake of the game to us. It's a deep desire from within. Nothing happens over night but we are trying. It does not help us when people scoff at the ideas before even hearing it.

All that being said, I would like to conclude with this:

To all the women players/organizers/coaches: I wish you the best of luck in 2007 and I hope to cross paths with you again at one of the tournaments.

To all the men who play/organize/coach: The very best of luck to you as well in the 2007 season.

Thank you for your time, I hope you have a nice day :D

Thank you, Kim. I ditto everything you said. Also, remember... the faster a ball is thrown, the farther it will go when it's hit, for the most part. It's not impossible in the least for a woman to hit a MLB homerun. My team played in historic Tiger Stadium in 2001, and a woman from the South Bend team, Melissa Miller (who is one of the top female players in the country hands-down) hit tha ball on a fly to the warning track in left field. One of my teammates, Chrisy Riopelle, fouled the ball out of the stadium... over the roof. All that happened while females were pitching at lower velocities than MLB pitchers do.

I see women crushing the ball all day long at national tournaments and in regular games... again, while women are pitching at lower velocities than MLB pitchers do. I've been involved with women's baseball since 1998, and I've been playing on women's teams regularly since 1999. I started attending national tournaments and tryouts in 2000 and have continued since then. Since 1999, I have seen the level of play of women improve tremendously, especially at the annual Roy Hobbs tournament in Ft. Myers, Florida. I have seen girls as young as 13 playing in women's competitions and being some of the best players on the field... amongst a ton of talent. I've seen other high school age women compete, and they are phenomenal. A few of those young women have been on the Team USA Women's National team. I've seen them with my own eyes... in person. A few of them are complete naturals at the game and don't have to work as hard at it as some do. With the right opportunities, they could become a Ty Cobb or a Babe Ruth or an Ichiro. There's no doubt in my mind.

I especially agree with JB on 1 and 2. If MLB were to open its doors to women today, there wouldn't be many women who would be in the starting lineup, and that would be due to lack of experience at high levels. But, in time it would happen... after women are allowed to play in any high school in the country that has a baseball program and in any college in the country that has a baseball program and up through the minors to MLB, just like guys do.

But, like JB said, 99.99% of women baseball players would choose to play in our own pro league, not in MLB. We just would like to have the opportunity to play in MLB if any of us are good enough to until we have our own pro league.

[pitcher23]

I apologize to NotAboutEgo, and others for my posts earlier. I'm sorry for assuming you were a supportive male, and I'm sorry for doubting female's precision ability. I'm still trying to be a better person in my personal life and when I interact with other people, and it's a hard process to go through, but I'm trying to be better towards people everyday. Today was a setback for me, and I feel miserable about the whole thing so I wanted to apologize.

No apology is needed as far as I'm concerned. When in a debate, all kinds of points of view are given and debating is one of the things that help people understand a topic or concern and help provide ways of moving forward. Each day is a learning experience. As I suggest to my son, if you learn from your experiences, they aren't wasted. If you don't learn from them, the experiences really did not accomplish anything. Hang in there!

[NotAboutEgo]

Well, I believe gender roles should stay the same, but I believe people need to stop treating female ballplayers like crap.

Just curious... what gender roles are you referring to?

;)

[Knick9]

Just curious... what gender roles are you referring to?

;)

Well, when he said it, it came out pretty odd to me. I'd like to know what exactly he meant by that.

[Jack Bauer]

Perhaps others and myself will start one soon. I have been thinking about it a lot lately.

Excellent.:clapping Keep us inform.:lookitup

[digglahhh]

But golf is a relative example to baseball because both are sports that rely heavily on precision. You're just omitting it because it goes against your argument.

Right, because, after all, most professional baseball players go on to join the PGA tour upon retirement...

[digglahhh]

What has to be understood is that at the crux of this issue is not gender; it is resources and support.

The students in the poorest school districts throughout the country normally do not achieve and sustain academic success. There are counties in the country that use history books printed before we landed on the moon. Meanwhile lush districts and elite private schools boast tutoring services, computer to student rations that approach one to one, junior high school teachers with doctorate degrees, etc.

To ascribe the success of the students in the wealthy areas and the lack thereof of the poor students to a function of intelligence would be to ignore the entire context of the respective experiences.

The amount of support and resources available to male ballplayers dwarfs that which is available to female players. On the whole, female ballplayers, like the poor students, are being denied sufficient resources to foster the actualization of their potential.

Arguments about what women are capable of doing are moot until they are given sufficient opportunities to develop to their full potential.

I do not think that women will ever integrate the majors on a wide scale- nor do they even want to.

Most of the men make this about men ballplayers versus women ballplayers. The women often get pulled into that argument, but they are just lobbying not be discouraged from playing, period. If some female players are good enough to play in the majors, fine. If they are not, that's fine too. What this is really about is women being given the opportunity to encourage baseball and establish professional leagues.

[Richmond Hill Phoenix]

Well, when he said it, it came out pretty odd to me. I'd like to know what eaxctly he meant by that.Sorry, that's not really what I meant to say. I should have said something more like "societal pressures". Just the fact that girls are forced into softball, and that most of them aren't given a chance to develop on baseball.

Gender-roles play a part in it, because women are generally seen as weaker than men. Therefore, women are seen as not being able to compete with men. Thus, they are not allowed to play baseball, which is considered "a mens game". They play softball, which is considered "the women's game".

[NotAboutEgo]

I attended a girls empowerment conference this weekend with one of the coaches from my women's team. We weren't there as observers of the conference, but rather, we were there as participants. We rented a table for two days to spread the word that girls' and women's baseball exists and that females do have growing opportunities to play baseball and choose to play it with or intstead of softball.

The conference was great, as there were a lot of terrific speakers and presenters there. It wasn't focused on sports but was focused on ways that young girls and women can empower themselves.

We had a lot of young girls signing up to play baseball, and we even had many women wanting to play. A lot of the women wanting to play are of all ages... in their early twenties, thirties and older. There were several mature women there saying they'd love to play. Some of them have ball playing experience, and some of them don't.

Having been a part of this conference and seeing the interest that exists for girls and women to play real baseball, there's no doubt in my mind that things will continue developing and growing for females in the sport.

Sure, the idea of playing baseball was a bit new for some of them (because of the way society has told females for so many years that they can't play baseball), but they smiled and were grateful for the opportunity to give it a try. Afterall, this conference was about females having the same opportunities in life as males, so it was easy for them to grasp onto the concept.

[NotAboutEgo]

What has to be understood is that at the crux of this issue is not gender; it is resources and support.

The students in the poorest school districts throughout the country normally do not achieve and sustain academic success. There are counties in the country that use history books printed before we landed on the moon. Meanwhile lush districts and elite private schools boast tutoring services, computer to student rations that approach one to one, junior high school teachers with doctorate degrees, etc.

To ascribe the success of the students in the wealthy areas and the lack thereof of the poor students to a function of intelligence would be to ignore the entire context of the respective experiences.

The amount of support and resources available to male ballplayers dwarfs that which is available to female players. On the whole, female ballplayers, like the poor students, are being denied sufficient resources to foster the actualization of their potential.

Arguments about what women are capable of doing are moot until they are given sufficient opportunities to develop to their full potential.

I do not think that women will ever integrate the majors on a wide scale- nor do they even want to.

Most of the men make this about men ballplayers versus women ballplayers. The women often get pulled into that argument, but they are just lobbying not be discouraged from playing, period. If some female players are good enough to play in the majors, fine. If they are not, that's fine too. What this is really about is women being given the opportunity to encourage baseball and establish professional leagues.

Excellent analogy. Many of us have been saying the same thing here, but a lot don't quite get it.

[digglahhh]

I attended a girls empowerment conference this weekend with one of the coaches from my women's team. We weren't there as observers of the conference, but rather, we were there as participants. We rented a table for two days to spread the word that girls' and women's baseball exists and that females do have growing opportunities to play baseball and choose to play it with or intstead of softball.

The conference was great, as there were a lot of terrific speakers and presenters there. It wasn't focused on sports but was focused on ways that young girls and women can empower themselves.

We had a lot of young girls signing up to play baseball, and we even had many women wanting to play. A lot of the women wanting to play are of all ages... in their early twenties, thirties and older. There were several mature women there saying they'd love to play. Some of them have ball playing experience, and some of them don't.

Having been a part of this conference and seeing the interest that exists for girls and women to play real baseball, there's no doubt in my mind that things will continue developing and growing for females in the sport.

Sure, the idea of playing baseball was a bit new for some of them (because of the way society has told females for so many years that they can't play baseball), but they smiled and were grateful for the opportunity to give it a try. Afterall, this conference was about females having the same opportunities in life as males, so it was easy for them to grasp onto the concept.

Congratulations. I'm glad that the results of that experience were encouraging and I wish you the utmost success in your efforts in this sphere as well as any others.

[BigStellyPADRES4LIFE]

Wow reading this thread made me laugh soo hard!!!:laugh :laugh :laugh :laugh :laugh :laugh :laugh :laugh :laugh :laugh my god do some people actually in all serriousness think that women can someday play in the major leagues??? OK assuming no serrious changes in the way a woman's body devlops that just wont happen, perhaps if MLB really got desperate or something. But with things as they are no way no how.

[Westlake]

Wow reading this thread made me laugh soo hard!!!:laugh :laugh :laugh :laugh :laugh :laugh :laugh :laugh :laugh :laugh my god do some people actually in all serriousness think that women can someday play in the major leagues??? OK assuming no serrious changes in the way a woman's body devlops that just wont happen, perhaps if MLB really got desperate or something. But with things as they are no way no how.

Thanks for the insight.

[Knick9]

BigStelly, I don't think that post was very mature given the situation.

[digglahhh]

Wow reading this thread made me laugh soo hard!!!:laugh :laugh :laugh :laugh :laugh :laugh :laugh :laugh :laugh :laugh my god do some people actually in all serriousness think that women can someday play in the major leagues??? OK assuming no serrious changes in the way a woman's body devlops that just wont happen, perhaps if MLB really got desperate or something. But with things as they are no way no how.

With that type of attitude, I'd like to wish you luck in your presumably thus far unsuccessful pursuit of actually seeing what a developed female body looks like, up close and in person.

And, no, Mr. Bunker, nobody is calling for women to integrate the Major Leagues on a large scale, or any scale at all for that matter. Don't know how you didn't understand that after reading the thread in its ENTIRETY. The idea is that women should not necessarily be railroaded onto the softball path, women who want to play baseball as opposed to softball should be encouraged, not discouraged from doing so. Where that would lead is quite undefined, but it is about the means, not the theoretical (though somewhat improbable) end that most (men) assume to be the goal.

[FindAGap12]

) As a player myself, I know firsthand that women can do more than an occasional foul ball. I have personally hit the ball to the centerfield wall of a MLB spring training facility. I wish I was a few feet higher so it could go over the wall... but I'll just have to hope I'll have better luck next time. I have watched women hit line drives right down the 3rd base line, run like hell and have a close call at 2nd. I have watch women do deep diving catches in the outfield. I have watched women pitch with such control and speed, and it makes for a difficult ball to hit. I have watched women do relay throws done in percesion to home plate for that game saving out. I have watched women get banged up and bruised and get the wind knocked out of them... and they get right back up, shake it off and go for more. There is no doubt in my mind where many of these women belong. They deserve the same wonderful dream achieving opportunity to showcase their talent in their own forum as much as the men do in their own forum, and theirs is called MLB.
:D

As someone who played professional Baseball, and someone who watches about one hundred amateur games a year, let me tell you what will get you drafted, in SPECIFIC terms, rather than such vague terms like " women pitch with such control and speed, and it makes for a difficult ball to hit"...

Pitching: I currently know a Pitcher, 6'4'', 225, throws 88-91 with excellent control. Scouts aren't interested. Not much movement, so his velocity is short, at 88-91, to play MINOR LEAGUE ball. The best woman is probably low 80's, like the tens of thousands of high school and Division IIIPitchers who will not be drafted this year.

In order to draftable, players are rated on a 20-80 scale, and comared to the MLB average. A 50 is average, so a 50 score would be a 7.0 60-yard dash, a 90 MPH fastball, an arm capable of throwing about 85 for a position player, a 1.9-2.0 pop-time for a catcher, the ability to consistenly hit home runs in BP (not one ball to the wall), and to consitently make hard contact on a 90 MPH fastball. Players will get pro looks if they project as above-average is certain categories, or average in many.

It is not sexist to say that no woman has the skill to fall in these categories, rather it is insulting to the thousands of Division I players who will not be drafted, even though they throw 88 MPH, or run a 6.6 60-yard dash, or hit 400-foot bombs on a consistent basis. The best women are probably at an average Division III level, not even a D-! level, certainly not a minor league level, and MLB is out of the question. Even the "utility players" at that level have skills beyond the comprehension of those who have not seen it up close.

[digglahhh]

Well, thanks for the technical info.

But, I think almost all who are involved in this discussion have seen high level players "up close." Many of us "know what it takes to make it" in the pros.

Try to expand the scope of this discussion for a second and not focus on what you think the likelihood is of a woman playing in MLB.

I don't think it matters tremendously to Sheryl Swoopes if she could compete with Rick Brunson on a basketball court. What matters is that there emerged significant resources and support for her to follow her dreams and make a living off of her talent and passion. For the millionth time, this is not about women playing in the Major Leagues, that is a remote possibility but a largely irrelevant sidebar to the important issue of allowing young girls to play baseball free of persecution and without being pressured to switch to softball.

If you had a daughter and she wanted to play baseball, but all the institutions you dealt with pressured you and her towards playing softball, wouldn't that frustrate you? Would the fact that you don't consider playing in the Majors as a viable career option for your daughter change how that pressure would make you or your daughter feel? This is about encouraging young girls do to what they want to do without prescribing preferences for them. What comes of it is in the future; water will seek its own level.

[BigStellyPADRES4LIFE]

With that type of attitude, I'd like to wish you luck in your presumably thus far unsuccessful pursuit of actually seeing what a developed female body looks like, up close and in person.

And, no, Mr. Bunker, nobody is calling for women to integrate the Major Leagues on a large scale, or any scale at all for that matter. Don't know how you didn't understand that after reading the thread in its ENTIRETY. The idea is that women should not necessarily be railroaded onto the softball path, women who want to play baseball as opposed to softball should be encouraged, not discouraged from doing so. Where that would lead is quite undefined, but it is about the means, not the theoretical (though somewhat improbable) end that most (men) assume to be the goal.

Wow you nit pick at the way i write the questions arent you special....:gt Look i totally agree with the idea that they should be encouraged to play baseball and even have their own league. Just the idea that one could get into the majors without dropping the skill requirements (kindly pointed out to us by FindAGap12) is pretty much obsurd(unless there is some amazonian sheera out there that i dont know of who is more of a freak than a woman, then perhaps itd be possible).

[JeepingBaseball]

This is a topic that will just never die...

everyone keeps arguing over the point and no one is listening. It's getting rather annoying now.

in small itty bitty words:

women.... do.... not.... want.... to... play.... in.... MLB.... with.... the.... men.

Let me know where I lost you there. In addition, and again in small itty bitty words:

women... would... like... their... own... MLB-like-opportunity... to... play... against... other... women.

It's not that difficult to comprehend. Argue all you want about how wonderful and powerful and skillful a man is in the game of baseball. NO ONE is debating that. But yet, you feel compelled to stand there with your hands on your hips and repeatly say it'll never happen. News flash: No one is trying to make it happen. So lay off. The whole arguement is women having their own version of MLB. Call it WMLB for all I care. That's the arguement, so please... i beg you... discuss why there has not been a WMLB in this day and age. Why and why not? Women are not allowed in the NBA either, so they have a WNBA and have 13 teams around the country. And a hell of a fan base. So why not a WMLB?

[CuriousBoston]

Yes, it's name calling. BF does encourage accuracy! The FAQ states several things required of posters. I'm trying to be very restrained here, lack of knowledge of the website, lack of respect towards others, towards others opinions, makes communication with trolls difficult.

[CuriousBoston]

This is a topic that will just never die...

everyone keeps arguing over the point and no one is listening. It's getting rather annoying now.

in small itty bitty words:

women.... do.... not.... want.... to... play.... in.... MLB.... with.... the.... men.

Let me know where I lost you there. In addition, and again in small itty bitty words:

women... would... like... their... own... MLB-like-opportunity... to... play... against... other... women.

It's not that difficult to comprehend. Argue all you want about how wonderful and powerful and skillful a man is in the game of baseball. NO ONE is debating that. But yet, you feel compelled to stand there with your hands on your hips and repeatly say it'll never happen. News flash: No one is trying to make it happen. So lay off. The whole arguement is women having their own version of MLB. Call it WMLB for all I care. That's the arguement, so please... i beg you... discuss why there has not been a WMLB in this day and age. Why and why not? Women are not allowed in the NBA either, so they have a WNBA and have 13 teams around the country. And a hell of a fan base. So why not a WMLB?

It's not possible to make the words small enough. Some people are reading what you write, then translating through their filters. Some are simply not literate enough to completely understand what you are saying. A very few are illiterate. A very few wish to be living in the past. A very, very few, have more than one of these qualities.

Most have respect for others views, critical thinking, the experience of growing up male. It's very hard to rewire brains into new patterns of thinking.

[MSUlaxer27]

Most women's sport leagues that are not subsidized heavily by another established pro league (ie. WNBA) have failed miserably. (I know the ATP & LPGA have succeeded but I'm not sure the LPGA isn't subsidzed by the PGA and neither of these entities are really marketed towards Joe sixpack as options to the NFL/MLB). I think that women's pro leagues have failed because quite honestly there isn't enough general interest in watching women's sports.

If I am to be totally honest...I wouldn't watch women's sports if you gave me a ticket let alone if you ask me to pay for it. I'm not saying women's sports aren't worth while or valuable. I just have no interest.

I think it's unrealistic to suggest there should be a "major league" level outlet for women to realize their "professional" aspirations in baseball. If women want to play baseball, do what every other person who wants to do, has to do. Pay your $100 bucks and join a league. If there are no leagues, create a league, but to expect people to pay to watch a product that at best will be worse than short season single A ball is completely unrealistic.

[digglahhh]

MSU,

I think that is a fair post. I don't know why so many others were incapable of expressing doubts about the viability of a women's baseball league in a mature manner.

A major male professional league probably would have to subsidize the league. That is a decision that would come well down the road. I don't even think we have even built the onramp to that road yet.

So, yes, a professional women's league might need creative funding and it will almost certainly be a niche market, commercially. In a perverted sense though, getting to a point where women's professional baseball fails on that level would actually be a huge success, the benefits of which would be reaped in the process and be evident in the lives and minds of the next generation of girls.

[NotAboutEgo]

As someone who played professional Baseball, and someone who watches about one hundred amateur games a year, let me tell you what will get you drafted, in SPECIFIC terms, rather than such vague terms like " women pitch with such control and speed, and it makes for a difficult ball to hit"...

Pitching: I currently know a Pitcher, 6'4'', 225, throws 88-91 with excellent control. Scouts aren't interested. Not much movement, so his velocity is short, at 88-91, to play MINOR LEAGUE ball. The best woman is probably low 80's, like the tens of thousands of high school and Division IIIPitchers who will not be drafted this year.

In order to draftable, players are rated on a 20-80 scale, and comared to the MLB average. A 50 is average, so a 50 score would be a 7.0 60-yard dash, a 90 MPH fastball, an arm capable of throwing about 85 for a position player, a 1.9-2.0 pop-time for a catcher, the ability to consistenly hit home runs in BP (not one ball to the wall), and to consitently make hard contact on a 90 MPH fastball. Players will get pro looks if they project as above-average is certain categories, or average in many.

It is not sexist to say that no woman has the skill to fall in these categories, rather it is insulting to the thousands of Division I players who will not be drafted, even though they throw 88 MPH, or run a 6.6 60-yard dash, or hit 400-foot bombs on a consistent basis. The best women are probably at an average Division III level, not even a D-! level, certainly not a minor league level, and MLB is out of the question. Even the "utility players" at that level have skills beyond the comprehension of those who have not seen it up close.

I'm not arguing for or against women being able to play in MLB, because, as a female baseball player myself, I can say we don't want to play in MLB. My point in responding to this post is... I grew up catching in fast pitch softball and then dumped the sport to play real baseball when I found out that women's baseball exists. I continued to catch in baseball until I started pitching. I was timed at a tryout, for women's baseball, and my pop-time was 2.9 and all my throws were on the bag. I was the 2nd fastest in the country amongst the female catchers that were seen at that time (2001).

I wasn't the best catcher out there by any means. I was a solid catcher, but I have seen much better around the country. I have seen plenty of women who have far stronger arms and who are quicker than I am. Don't you think women can aspire to higher levels given the same opportunities and training and all that as men have? I don't think 2.9 is very far off of the MLB catcher mark of 1.9-2.0... considering, MLB players do get paid millions to play the game, they are the cream of the crop, and they don't have to worry about making a living by other means... so they can play baseball and train all they want to.

Again, I'm not arguing for or against women playing in MLB. This has more to do with the doubters out there who think women's baseball is junk and isn't worth watching. Perhaps those people should actually watch a competitive women's game to decide how it is instead of simply reducing the women's game to crud. This is about giving everyone an opportunity to follow their dreams, desires, goals, etc. and for honing their skills and talents to become the best they can be at whatever is available to them... whatever that level may be.

I doubt any female catcher could ever compete on the same level as Pudge... but then again... I've never seen another man who can.

[BigStellyPADRES4LIFE]

I'm not arguing for or against women being able to play in MLB, because, as a female baseball player myself, I can say we don't want to play in MLB. My point in responding to this post is... I grew up catching in fast pitch softball and then dumped the sport to play real baseball when I found out that women's baseball exists. I continued to catch in baseball until I started pitching. I was timed at a tryout, for women's baseball, and my pop-time was 2.9 and all my throws were on the bag. I was the 2nd fastest in the country amongst the female catchers that were seen at that time (2001).

I wasn't the best catcher out there by any means. I was a solid catcher, but I have seen much better around the country. I have seen plenty of women who have far stronger arms and who are quicker than I am. Don't you think women can aspire to higher levels given the same opportunities and training and all that as men have? I don't think 2.9 is very far off of the MLB catcher mark of 1.9-2.0... considering, MLB players do get paid millions to play the game, they are the cream of the crop, and they don't have to worry about making a living by other means... so they can play baseball and train all they want to.

Again, I'm not arguing for or against women playing in MLB. This has more to do with the doubters out there who think women's baseball is junk and isn't worth watching. Perhaps those people should actually watch a competitive women's game to decide how it is instead of simply reducing the women's game to crud. This is about giving everyone an opportunity to follow their dreams, desires, goals, etc. and for honing their skills and talents to become the best they can be at whatever is available to them... whatever that level may be.

I doubt any female catcher could ever compete on the same level as Pudge... but then again... I've never seen another man who can.

2.9 is quite aways away from 2.0 in fact roughly 45-50% longer time wise. A time of 2.0 combined with a 1.2-1.3 pitch to plate for the pitcher, is about 3.2-3.3 seconds. Thats enough time to be there about the same time as the faster baserunners in the league or maybe a bit quicker. With the 2.9 pop time, even with a 1.1 pitch that is still 4 seconds, there is not a man in baseball alive today probably as low as high school who cannot get from their lead on first to second STANDING UP!!!! Im sure there is not a noticable difference between a man's squat to stand time and a womans, so your arm is throwing roughly 2/3 the speed of MLB catchers, even if you could improve up to around 2.3-2.4 thats like putting an extra 15MPH on someone's fastball, and thats still signifigantly slower(greater than 10%) than most major league catchers.

You could have a young girl with max talent learning to throw before she walks and doing almost nothing but that, and they still would not be that close to major league quality. There are just physical limitations that are too tough to overcome, im not saying women shouldnt play baseball... just i dont think they could legitimately make it to the major leagues.

[NotAboutEgo]

2.9 is quite aways away from 2.0 in fact roughly 45-50% longer time wise. A time of 2.0 combined with a 1.2-1.3 pitch to plate for the pitcher, is about 3.2-3.3 seconds. Thats enough time to be there about the same time as the faster baserunners in the league or maybe a bit quicker. With the 2.9 pop time, even with a 1.1 pitch that is still 4 seconds, there is not a man in baseball alive today probably as low as high school who cannot get from their lead on first to second STANDING UP!!!! Im sure there is not a noticable difference between a man's squat to stand time and a womans, so your arm is throwing roughly 2/3 the speed of MLB catchers, even if you could improve up to around 2.3-2.4 thats like putting an extra 15MPH on someone's fastball, and thats still signifigantly slower(greater than 10%) than most major league catchers.

You could have a young girl with max talent learning to throw before she walks and doing almost nothing but that, and they still would not be that close to major league quality. There are just physical limitations that are too tough to overcome, im not saying women shouldnt play baseball... just i dont think they could legitimately make it to the major leagues.

Again, my post was not saying women at this point could play in MLB. What I was saying is, for players (women players) who have not had the same training, opportunities, help with development, playing time, luxuries, etc., I don't think it's that bad... considering guys on average are bigger and stronger than women and have tons more opportunities than we do. I wasn't making the comparison, as I stated, to say that women at their current playing level could compete in MLB. What I was saying is, since we are at the amateur level and don't have anything close to what guys have in terms of support, I'm sure our levels of performance would improve greatly given the EXACT same opportunities as men have. Women baseball players probably play 12-16 games a season on average, due to many factors. None of the playing experiences of women can be compared to that of MLB players at all. It's like comparing bananas to kiwi. Therefore, any comparisons are moot points.

There are women out there who are very quick and who can throw on a line to 2nd better than most people can. I'd like to see what they could do given the same opportunities.

[BigStellyPADRES4LIFE]

Again, my post was not saying women at this point could play in MLB. What I was saying is, for players (women players) who have not had the same training, opportunities, help with development, playing time, luxuries, etc., I don't think it's that bad... considering guys on average are bigger and stronger than women and have tons more opportunities than we do. I wasn't making the comparison, as I stated, to say that women at their current playing level could compete in MLB. What I was saying is, since we are at the amateur level and don't have anything close to what guys have in terms of support, I'm sure our levels of performance would improve greatly given the EXACT same opportunities as men have. Women baseball players probably play 12-16 games a season on average, due to many factors. None of the playing experiences of women can be compared to that of MLB players at all. It's like comparing bananas to kiwi. Therefore, any comparisons are moot points.

There are women out there who are very quick and who can throw on a line to 2nd better than most people can. I'd like to see what they could do given the same opportunities.

Its not about oppurtunities its about physical ability... since MLB is at the top of the top, even with the exact same training no woman could ever compete in the MLB.

[Westlake]

women.... do.... not.... want.... to... play.... in.... MLB.... with.... the.... men.


I'm not arguing for or against women being able to play in MLB, because, as a female baseball player myself, I can say we don't want to play in MLB.

Again, I'm not arguing for or against women playing in MLB.

Again, my post was not saying women at this point could play in MLB.

And after all of that, this is your response...

Its not about oppurtunities its about physical ability... since MLB is at the top of the top, even with the exact same training no woman could ever compete in the MLB.

Dude, stop. Are you even reading what these people are taking the time to try to explain to you, or do you just skim it quickly and say "Man these girls are so dumb, they think they can play in MLB." As you can see from time after time the above posters have said it, THAT'S NOT WHAT THEY ARE SAYING.

[digglahhh]

Yeah, Stelly, are you just coming here to pick a fight?

You are obviously not showing anybody here any respect. If you are going to post, especially in response to what somebody else has written, it is common courtesy to read the thread.

Okay, men are stronger than women. You can bench press large piles of metal. Do you feel better now?

Women can't throw out Carl Crawford or hit off Roy Oswalt, neither can 99.9999% percent of men. And that tiny fraction of a percent in the show, don't do it to often either!

You, I, Jeeping Baseball and an amoeba all have about the same chance of being able to hit a screaming liner off of Ben Sheets. The difference is that even the amoeba knows that the ladies in the forum aren't saying that they want a shot.

[BigStellyPADRES4LIFE]

OK Well I am fully aware that girls are saying they dont want to play in the MLB. But if you look at what is being said its clear that several people seem to think that they could possibly if they had the same oppurtunities, and that to me is just hillarious. If you are denying some people have said on this forum that they could if given the proper oppurtunities, then YOU havent been reading the forum, I clearly saw several posters say they think a woman could if given more oppurtunity.

And if they wanna have their own major league, thats fine i encourage that, but sorry to say this it will be like the WNBA..... nobody cares, and i would never watch one of those games.

[JeepingBaseball]

And after all of that, this is your response...



Dude, stop. Are you even reading what these people are taking the time to try to explain to you, or do you just skim it quickly and say "Man these girls are so dumb, they think they can play in MLB." As you can see from time after time the above posters have said it, THAT'S NOT WHAT THEY ARE SAYING.


Thank you! I tried to do my part, it didnt work... I couldnt make the words any smaller.

Reminds me of Ron White when he says "You just cant fix...."

[JeepingBaseball]

OK Well I am fully aware that girls are saying they dont want to play in the MLB. But if you look at what is being said its clear that several people seem to think that they could possibly if they had the same oppurtunities, and that to me is just hillarious. If you are denying some people have said on this forum that they could if given the proper oppurtunities, then YOU havent been reading the forum, I clearly saw several posters say they think a woman could if given more oppurtunity.


You have taken it out of content and assumed. You have not actually read the meanings of these thread. Yes, a women could reach a higher level if ever given the opportunity. You seem to think that MLB is the only opportunity. We don't think that. Read things again with a clear mind. I'm not going to repeat myself over and over and over and over. You just dont get it.

[BigStellyPADRES4LIFE]

You have taken it out of content and assumed. You have not actually read the meanings of these thread. Yes, a women could reach a higher level if ever given the opportunity. You seem to think that MLB is the only opportunity. We don't think that. Read things again with a clear mind. I'm not going to repeat myself over and over and over and over. You just dont get it.

If by higher oppurtunity you mean a womans professional league.... ok fine duh id be a fool to argue against that point, and NO I havent been. Again im going to type this in all caps cuz nobody seems to see this one.
PEOPLE HAVE BEEN ALMOST INFERRING THAT WOMEN COULD MAKE THE MLB FOR GUYS AS A UTILITY INFIELDER OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. This i find quite offensive, there is a reason to coin the phrase you play ball like a girl.

If the only point is women deserve a pro league of their own absolutely and id be very happy to see that and would have no objections to allowing women access to training and whatnot to see what they could do. I wouldnt watch it myself because I like watching sports at the very highest skill level out there.

There is also the economic perspective as well, really how many people buy WNBA tickets as opposed to NBA tickets. There is just no contest because not very many sports fans really care about the WNBA. Many of the guys who would watch womens professional sports are just doing it so they can well look at certain things. Very few people would really care too much, but if my daughter wanted to play baseball i would totally support her in what she wants and give her every oppurtunity.

[digglahhh]

And if they wanna have their own major league, thats fine i encourage that, but sorry to say this it will be like the WNBA..... nobody cares, and i would never watch one of those games.

Okay, ladies you heard that? Don't bother, Stelly won't watch, so you shouldn't bother. Good thing he told you that before you went through the trouble of actually trying to create opportunities and build a league. Saved at the final hour...

IThis i find quite offensive, there is a reason to coin the phrase you play ball like a girl.

You find that offensive? As what? You are not a professional athlete. I don't understand... Though you do display your heightened level of sensitivity with the follow up statement, so perhaps, I'm just as perceptive as you...:sorry:

I wouldnt watch it myself because I like watching sports at the very highest skill level out there.

No college sports for you, huh? No Minor League Baseball? Little League World Series? Somehow, I get the feeling that you wouldn't mind watching a tennis match between two Playmates...

And, by the way, skill and strength are not the same thing. Or are we too assume that Shaq was more "skilled" than say Scottie Pippen. Or that, as a hitter, Dave Kingman was more skilled than, say, Ozzie Smith.

[BigStellyPADRES4LIFE]

No college sports for you, huh? No Minor League Baseball? Little League World Series? Somehow, I get the feeling that you wouldn't mind watching a tennis match between two Playmates...

And, by the way, skill and strength are not the same thing. Or are we too assume that Shaq was more "skilled" than say Scottie Pippen. Or that, as a hitter, Dave Kingman was more skilled than, say, Ozzie Smith.

No i never really watch college sports, all the bowl games in college football, they bore me, I watch team sports at the highest level. Otherwise it doesnt really interest me, and no i would not watch a tennis match between two playmates unless they were both superb tennis players. That statement shows how little you really know about me.

You have labled me as a shovenist, not exact words and while im sure my attitudes cancome across that way to some I do not veiw women as any less important or capable than men. They are just better in different areas, most of which is not athletic skill or competition. Their reaction time is also slower, i know that will totally make some people fly off the handle but ive seen countless studies to support this. When i was in physics in high school they had a ruler that would randomly drop from a holder, and from there each student would catch it, the average boy in the class reacted noticably more quickly than the average girl, and in baseball a difference of about 5% in reaction time or in most sports is HUGE!!! Start your swing .01s later, and youve missed the ball as opposed to hitting it dead on. That is a personal experience with it but ive seen alot of scientific data to support this and none to contradict it.

There is a huge reason women live longer..... if you take the mean performance level of the average man physically in almost all senses you will find the difference men beat women in physical is almost perfectly correlated to the extra time by percentages lived by women.

[BigStellyPADRES4LIFE]

Its kind of funny i should say this, its an afterthought to my last post, Women are more likely to make the NFL than the MLB.... why is this?
Well simple a woman could very legitimately and easily be a kicker. You dont have to make 55-60 yarders or even really 50 yarders on a consistent basis to be a placekicker in the NFL.

If reaction time or speed are slightly sacrificed, its alright as a kicker as long as you are accurate, and its been my personal experience that women are more accurate so to speak with firearms and whatnot than men are, so i see no reason a woman couldnt be a kicker, as long as she had a really good line.

[NotAboutEgo]

No i never really watch college sports, all the bowl games in college football, they bore me, I watch team sports at the highest level. Otherwise it doesnt really interest me, and no i would not watch a tennis match between two playmates unless they were both superb tennis players. That statement shows how little you really know about me.

You have labled me as a shovenist, not exact words and while im sure my attitudes cancome across that way to some I do not veiw women as any less important or capable than men. They are just better in different areas, most of which is not athletic skill or competition. Their reaction time is also slower, i know that will totally make some people fly off the handle but ive seen countless studies to support this. When i was in physics in high school they had a ruler that would randomly drop from a holder, and from there each student would catch it, the average boy in the class reacted noticably more quickly than the average girl, and in baseball a difference of about 5% in reaction time or in most sports is HUGE!!! Start your swing .01s later, and youve missed the ball as opposed to hitting it dead on. That is a personal experience with it but ive seen alot of scientific data to support this and none to contradict it.

There is a huge reason women live longer..... if you take the mean performance level of the average man physically in almost all senses you will find the difference men beat women in physical is almost perfectly correlated to the extra time by percentages lived by women.

I'll challenge ANY GUY ANY DAY in terms of skill in baseball, hockey, and soccer. Would I get beat buy some? Of course. Would I beat some? Of course.

Your statment saying women have less skill than men is just plain ignorant. As many of us have stated hear oodles of times... skill is completely DIFFERENT than size and strength.

I work out and play 3 sports with guys and gals regularly. I can say, from experience, there are NO differences between gender when it comes to skill. I have experienced SEVERAL things that tell me that. Would you like to go out and play a game of baseball or hockey or soccer with some of us women who you say are less skilled than men?

[JeepingBaseball]

I'll challenge ANY GUY ANY DAY in terms of skill in baseball, hockey, and soccer. Would I get beat buy some? Of course. Would I beat some? Of course.

Your statment saying women have less skill than men is just plain ignorant. As many of us have stated hear oodles of times... skill is completely DIFFERENT than size and strength.

I work out and play 3 sports with guys and gals regularly. I can say, from experience, there are NO differences between gender when it comes to skill. I have experienced SEVERAL things that tell me that. Would you like to go out and play a game of baseball or hockey or soccer with some of us women who you say are less skilled than men?

HA! That's funny... and sounds like fun. Sign me up for that! Let this guy put his money where his mouth is.

[captlid]

This is my first post on this board. I read through the whole thread and alot of thoughts came to mind. I play baseball in a women's league in my area and here's my current opinion on the state of the women's game. It has drastically improved in the last 8 years I have observed and played it. Unfortunately I have never had an opportunity to watch the silver bullets because of my young age. So I wont get into the discussion of whether a woman can take on a man.

Based on my own personal experiences when I played sandlot ball with the high school varsity baseball players during the summer, its very possible for a girl to hang with the guys, up to the age of 18. I know I did, even though I did not have their speed or strength let alone size. I cant say anything about higher levels except for some experience playing with former minor leaguers in a coed softball league who were still younger than 25.

The biggest problem I see with girls and women developing their skills in the game is the fact that the girls dont want to be the only girl on a baseball team, even if she wants to stick with the sport. After little league, you rarely see a girl playing baseball. In my area I have also asked alot of females who play some version of softball if they would like to play baseball and some of them look at me like I have a third eye.
To the others the possibility never even occurred.

Unfortunately the people around the girls that would like to continue with baseball tell the girls, "oh the scholarships are in fastpitch softball, baseball is a waste of time".

What I find very interesting is that in Southern California the development of fastpitch softball is on a very high level, but women's and girl's baseball is given lip service. I wonder how good some of these girls could get if they focused their energies on baseball? I played fastpitch in high school and there were a few girls on my team that could hit the ball at least 300 feet and throw it that far too. This is in NYC by the way. I can imagine with the year round warm weather in California if some girls were interested in playing baseball the level of play would be awesome.

Until that time comes though, I really doubt there will be a woman who can make the majors. MLB wont bite until they see a girl who has had success at the high school level => 18U summer leagues > college > then the wood bat collegiate summer leagues. And if such a woman does come along there would have to be absolutely NO DOUBT that she belongs at that level of play. So she would basically have to be a superstar player so the media does not ask the question, "If she were a guy, would she make it?"

In terms of a women's professional baseball league coming along anytime soon, IMHO the overall level of play is just not there yet. It will get there. Once the infrastructure to develop female ballplayers at a level past little league is there then it will happen. Again I doubt most girls would want to play with guys, just from what I have seen personally.

Currently the NPF, the women's professional fastpitch league is struggling, even though the MLB is a development partner?
I wonder why the MLB does not support women's amatuer baseball. :(

[MSUlaxer27]

This is my first post on this board. I read through the whole thread and alot of thoughts came to mind. I play baseball in a women's league in my area and here's my current opinion on the state of the women's game. It has drastically improved in the last 8 years I have observed and played it. Unfortunately I have never had an opportunity to watch the silver bullets because of my young age. So I wont get into the discussion of whether a woman can take on a man.

Based on my own personal experiences when I played sandlot ball with the high school varsity baseball players during the summer, its very possible for a girl to hang with the guys, up to the age of 18. I know I did, even though I did not have their speed or strength let alone size. I cant say anything about higher levels except for some experience playing with former minor leaguers in a coed softball league who were still younger than 25.

The biggest problem I see with girls and women developing their skills in the game is the fact that the girls dont want to be the only girl on a baseball team, even if she wants to stick with the sport. After little league, you rarely see a girl playing baseball. In my area I have also asked alot of females who play some version of softball if they would like to play baseball and some of them look at me like I have a third eye.
To the others the possibility never even occurred.

Unfortunately the people around the girls that would like to continue with baseball tell the girls, "oh the scholarships are in fastpitch softball, baseball is a waste of time".

What I find very interesting is that in Southern California the development of fastpitch softball is on a very high level, but women's and girl's baseball is given lip service. I wonder how good some of these girls could get if they focused their energies on baseball? I played fastpitch in high school and there were a few girls on my team that could hit the ball at least 300 feet and throw it that far too. This is in NYC by the way. I can imagine with the year round warm weather in California if some girls were interested in playing baseball the level of play would be awesome.

Until that time comes though, I really doubt there will be a woman who can make the majors. MLB wont bite until they see a girl who has had success at the high school level => 18U summer leagues > college > then the wood bat collegiate summer leagues. And if such a woman does come along there would have to be absolutely NO DOUBT that she belongs at that level of play. So she would basically have to be a superstar player so the media does not ask the question, "If she were a guy, would she make it?"

In terms of a women's professional baseball league coming along anytime soon, IMHO the overall level of play is just not there yet. It will get there. Once the infrastructure to develop female ballplayers at a level past little league is there then it will happen. Again I doubt most girls would want to play with guys, just from what I have seen personally.

Currently the NPF, the women's professional fastpitch league is struggling, even though the MLB is a development partner?
I wonder why the MLB does not support women's amatuer baseball. :(

From a simple cost benefit analysis: Why would MLB clubs invest the money necessary to create a womens pro league? They have the minor leagues which provide them ample supplies of qualified players for their teams. A womens league with 8 teams of 25 players might if lucky produce 1 or 2 bench players every 10 years. So from that standpoint it's a waste of their resources.

I also think it is completely unrealistic to think that women can ever successfully play pro sports at the exact same level as men.

Believe me just because I am an athletic male doesn't mean that I think I could beat a women's college basketball player (or WNBA for that matter) one on one or any high level women's athlete, but I do think that head to head a pro male athlete will always beat a female pro athlete.

Before we spend the money (and subsidies) required to create more womens pro sports leagues let's compare some sports where women have been able to train at the same level as men for at least the last 20 years...

Track and Field: Mens 100M record world 9.77 (seconds)
Mens 100M record high School 10.13
Womens 100m record world 10.49

Mens Mile record world 3:43 (minutes:seconds)
Mens Mile record high School 3:54
Womens Mile record world 4:13

Swimming: Men's 100M FreeStyle record 47.84 seconds
Women's 100M FS record 53.52

I realize that these two may not be comparable because physiological differences but we can see the difference at the highest training levels.

So how about:

Golf: Anika Sorenstam is arguably the best women's golfer in modern history and was unable to make the cut in a men's tournament (granted this was only one tourney and she did beat 15 men but finished behind 96).

Tennis: Does anyone really think that if we took the top ten women and top ten men and placed them in the same tournament with the same rules (ie best of 5 not 3) that the women would come out on top...yes there might be some upsets, but realistically the men would win.

It's tough to gauge basketball since the men and women use different size basketballs.

Keep in mind as well that two women's soccer leagues have failed even with the success of the women's world cup team.

Play baseball, love the sport but I don't think we'll ever see a women's pro league any time soon. Maybe semi pro like that football league but nothing on the we'll see on ESPN.

[captlid]

because I wanted to know if anyone knew why MLB is listed as an official development partner of the NPF.

So basically the question is why not encourage more women to PLAY baseball, even if they will never meet the physical requirements to make it in the MLB. The best way to create fans and more business for the MLB, is to encourage people to play the game in their childhood and teenage years. Obviously the AAGPBL lasted slightly over a decade, so the women's game was and could be a viable thing in the future.

IMO, the best environment for a women's professional league would be in a warm weather state or country during the winter season.

You are totally correct that from a cost benefit analysis it makes absolutely no sense to invest in the women's game for the MLB at this time. Women are just not encouraged to play baseball.

[CuriousBoston]

From a simple cost benefit analysis: Why would MLB clubs invest the money necessary to create a womens pro league? They have the minor leagues which provide them ample supplies of qualified players for their teams. A womens league with 8 teams of 25 players might if lucky produce 1 or 2 bench players every 10 years. So from that standpoint it's a waste of their resources.

I also think it is completely unrealistic to think that women can ever successfully play pro sports at the exact same level as men.

Believe me just because I am an athletic male doesn't mean that I think I could beat a women's college basketball player (or WNBA for that matter) one on one or any high level women's athlete, but I do think that head to head a pro male athlete will always beat a female pro athlete.

Before we spend the money (and subsidies) required to create more womens pro sports leagues let's compare some sports where women have been able to train at the same level as men for at least the last 20 years...

Track and Field: Mens 100M record world 9.77 (seconds)
Mens 100M record high School 10.13
Womens 100m record world 10.49

Mens Mile record world 3:43 (minutes:seconds)
Mens Mile record high School 3:54
Womens Mile record world 4:13

Swimming: Men's 100M FreeStyle record 47.84 seconds
Women's 100M FS record 53.52

I realize that these two may not be comparable because physiological differences but we can see the difference at the highest training levels.

So how about:

Golf: Anika Sorenstam is arguably the best women's golfer in modern history and was unable to make the cut in a men's tournament (granted this was only one tourney and she did beat 15 men but finished behind 96).

Tennis: Does anyone really think that if we took the top ten women and top ten men and placed them in the same tournament with the same rules (ie best of 5 not 3) that the women would come out on top...yes there might be some upsets, but realistically the men would win.

It's tough to gauge basketball since the men and women use different size basketballs.

Keep in mind as well that two women's soccer leagues have failed even with the success of the women's world cup team.

Play baseball, love the sport but I don't think we'll ever see a women's pro league any time soon. Maybe semi pro like that football league but nothing on the we'll see on ESPN.


Her last sentence asked why MLB did not provide support for women's amateur baseball. Yes, a number of women's leagues have failed. This thread needs to be renamed so it is clear that the women in this thread are 95% talking about the probability of a MAJOR LEAGUE OF THEIR OWN.

This thread does not need any more posts comparing, contrasting the physical differences between females and males. What is the probability of a women's baseball league surviving? Supported by who, if anybody?

Possible for a mod to split this into two threads?

[NotAboutEgo]

From a simple cost benefit analysis: Why would MLB clubs invest the money necessary to create a womens pro league? They have the minor leagues which provide them ample supplies of qualified players for their teams. A womens league with 8 teams of 25 players might if lucky produce 1 or 2 bench players every 10 years. So from that standpoint it's a waste of their resources.

I also think it is completely unrealistic to think that women can ever successfully play pro sports at the exact same level as men.

Believe me just because I am an athletic male doesn't mean that I think I could beat a women's college basketball player (or WNBA for that matter) one on one or any high level women's athlete, but I do think that head to head a pro male athlete will always beat a female pro athlete.

Before we spend the money (and subsidies) required to create more womens pro sports leagues let's compare some sports where women have been able to train at the same level as men for at least the last 20 years...

Track and Field: Mens 100M record world 9.77 (seconds)
Mens 100M record high School 10.13
Womens 100m record world 10.49

Mens Mile record world 3:43 (minutes:seconds)
Mens Mile record high School 3:54
Womens Mile record world 4:13

Swimming: Men's 100M FreeStyle record 47.84 seconds
Women's 100M FS record 53.52

I realize that these two may not be comparable because physiological differences but we can see the difference at the highest training levels.

So how about:

Golf: Anika Sorenstam is arguably the best women's golfer in modern history and was unable to make the cut in a men's tournament (granted this was only one tourney and she did beat 15 men but finished behind 96).

Tennis: Does anyone really think that if we took the top ten women and top ten men and placed them in the same tournament with the same rules (ie best of 5 not 3) that the women would come out on top...yes there might be some upsets, but realistically the men would win.

It's tough to gauge basketball since the men and women use different size basketballs.

Keep in mind as well that two women's soccer leagues have failed even with the success of the women's world cup team.

Play baseball, love the sport but I don't think we'll ever see a women's pro league any time soon. Maybe semi pro like that football league but nothing on the we'll see on ESPN.

If, in fact, women can't compete with men at the pro level in any sport, why does that warrant NOT having women's pro leagues of their own? Somehow, I get the idea that a lot of people are saying women shouldn't have their own pro leagues just because they can't compete with men on the pro level. Who made men superior to women by saying that only men should have everything? And, who ever said that in order for women to DESERVE to have their own pro leagues, they should be able to compete with and beat men??? That's nothing but a bunch of bull @#*()W$*&)$!!!

This kind of thinking goes along with the thinking that, by creating women's sports in high school and college, it's taking away from men's sports. A lot of guys cry that by giving women an equal number of sports in schools and colleges, it's taking away from guys' sports.

WAH, WAH, WAH, WAH, WAH, WAH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Why do some guys think they are so superior and deserve MORE than women do????????????????????????

Would you like us to change your diapers and wipe your @sses for you, too???

[NotAboutEgo]

Great posts, Captlid. You are right on the money. Obviously, some people don't get what you and most of the rest of us are saying on here.

IMO, MLB won't support women's baseball, because it would compete with their MEN'S baseball in terms of having fans... and why would they want to do that????????????

My women's baseball team played a Toronto women's all-star team at historic Tiger Stadium in August 2001. The Detroit Tigers, who lease the stadium from the disfunctional City of Detroit and who control every move the city makes, made us play the game when the Tigers were out of town!!!!!!!!!!! If women's baseball is so inferior to men's baseball, why would the Tigers demand that we play when their team was out of town???? Perhaps it had to do with the fact that the team sucked so horribly at the time that Mike Ilitch thought our women's game would attract more attention than his embarrassing team would. We had over 300 people watching our game. Perhaps there would have been more people there if there was more money to advertise it.

[NotAboutEgo]

From a simple cost benefit analysis: Why would MLB clubs invest the money necessary to create a womens pro league? They have the minor leagues which provide them ample supplies of qualified players for their teams. A womens league with 8 teams of 25 players might if lucky produce 1 or 2 bench players every 10 years. So from that standpoint it's a waste of their resources.

I also think it is completely unrealistic to think that women can ever successfully play pro sports at the exact same level as men.

Believe me just because I am an athletic male doesn't mean that I think I could beat a women's college basketball player (or WNBA for that matter) one on one or any high level women's athlete, but I do think that head to head a pro male athlete will always beat a female pro athlete.

Before we spend the money (and subsidies) required to create more womens pro sports leagues let's compare some sports where women have been able to train at the same level as men for at least the last 20 years...

Track and Field: Mens 100M record world 9.77 (seconds)
Mens 100M record high School 10.13
Womens 100m record world 10.49

Mens Mile record world 3:43 (minutes:seconds)
Mens Mile record high School 3:54
Womens Mile record world 4:13

Swimming: Men's 100M FreeStyle record 47.84 seconds
Women's 100M FS record 53.52

I realize that these two may not be comparable because physiological differences but we can see the difference at the highest training levels.

So how about:

Golf: Anika Sorenstam is arguably the best women's golfer in modern history and was unable to make the cut in a men's tournament (granted this was only one tourney and she did beat 15 men but finished behind 96).

Tennis: Does anyone really think that if we took the top ten women and top ten men and placed them in the same tournament with the same rules (ie best of 5 not 3) that the women would come out on top...yes there might be some upsets, but realistically the men would win.

It's tough to gauge basketball since the men and women use different size basketballs.

Keep in mind as well that two women's soccer leagues have failed even with the success of the women's world cup team.

Play baseball, love the sport but I don't think we'll ever see a women's pro league any time soon. Maybe semi pro like that football league but nothing on the we'll see on ESPN.

Part of the problem with women's sports not getting as much support financially and in terms of having the fan bases needed to support them is the attitudes of people... people (men and women) still thinking en masse that women are inferior to men. Like I said before, most people eat what they're fed, so if they're fed men's sports all or most of the time, that's what they'll eat. If women's sports were promoted, on TV and in other avenues of the media, at the same time men's sports began to be promoted in these ways, women's sports would be as popular as men's sports. People's attitudes would be very different, and people would enjoy women's sports for what they are and wouldn't constantly compare them to men's sports and say they aren't worth watching. People's attitudes have everything to do with it.

Why is it that women aren't treated the same way in other countries as they are treated here in terms of sports? Other countries don't seem to have the same negative attitudes towards women playing baseball with or without men. Canada, Japan, and Australia are 3 of them that are way ahead of the U.S. in terms of women's baseball.

[Richmond Hill Phoenix]

Her last sentence asked why MLB did not provide support for women's amateur baseball. Yes, a number of women's leagues have failed. This thread needs to be renamed so it is clear that the women in this thread are 95% talking about the probability of a MAJOR LEAGUE OF THEIR OWN.

This thread does not need any more posts comparing, contrasting the physical differences between females and males. What is the probability of a women's baseball league surviving? Supported by who, if anybody?

Possible for a mod to split this into two threads?I've been thinking about re-naming this thread for a while. Anyone have any suggestions? Any objections?

[NotAboutEgo]

I've been thinking about re-naming this thread for a while. Anyone have any suggestions? Any objections?

Are you talking about the whole AAGPBL/Women's Baseball thread, or this topic in particular?

[JeepingBaseball]

you could split it in twos... for those who know how to read and for thoses who dont

[NotAboutEgo]

you could split it in twos... for those who know how to read and for thoses who dont

:laugh :laugh :laugh :laugh :crazy :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :hyper:

Yeah, I agree with that... one for those who can read and comprehend and one for those who can't read and comprehend!!!

[digglahhh]

Well, the first post WAS about the chances of a specific woman playing the Major Leagues, so I don't know. The thread took a turn away from that throughout the discussion. The thread starter labeled the thread correctly in terms of what she was asking. I'd say it is best to leave it as is,

[Richmond Hill Phoenix]

Ya, you're probably right (I'm talking about the thread, not the entire forum). Just that having that title entices people to come in and rant. It's probably best to leave it as is.

[digglahhh]

Ya, you're probably right (I'm talking about the thread, not the entire forum). Just that having that title entices people to come in and rant. It's probably best to leave it as is.

That's probably true to an extent. But, if you break it up, then one set of posts will still encourage people to rant. Plus then the discussion becomes fragmented, perhaps references some people made to other posts will lose their context and so forth. It could just be more trouble than it is worth. Thanks for the initiative though.

[NotAboutEgo]

That's probably true to an extent. But, if you break it up, then one set of posts will still encourage people to rant. Plus then the discussion becomes fragmented, perhaps references some people made to other posts will lose their context and so forth. It could just be more trouble than it is worth. Thanks for the initiative though.

It's interesting how the people who love to get on here and rant and put women's baseball down never get on here and make positive comments about the progression of women's baseball and all the great things that are and have been happening in it for the past 15-20 years. Rather than being encouraging and congratulating in regards to the scope of women's baseball, they are negative, pessimistic, and love to tell women how they will never be as good as men.

[digglahhh]

Yeah, I don't really know much about women's baseball, but I certainly support it. I come here to get some insight on what the regulars are up to. It does seem that some people come here just to get a rise out of people. If you don't care about women's baseball or don't want to support it, you can voice that opinion by simply not coming here.

[JeepingBaseball]

I actually have a informal interview tomorrow with my job about how I feel about events and activities at the ballpark and suggestions to make the experience better (I work at Turner's Field) and I do have several suggestions. And I just realized tonight, thru most of my own personal experience, the most available women in sports/ladies night/singles night/ect ect... are usually reserve for minor league teams (but not all, just in general). Now that's a strange observation considering that women make up 40% of the MLB fan base. With this thread going 8 pages long about women being so inferior to men in the sport and the lack of support of a women having their own league sponsored by the MLB... dont you find this all a bit odd? Does anyone THINK anymore?

[Utility07]

Just wanting to point out, 2.9 is a really bad pop time. 2.1 is a good time for high school. 1.85 will get you a college scholorship.

2.0 is not a pro pop time,at least not for a good defensive catcher.

[NotAboutEgo]

Yeah, I don't really know much about women's baseball, but I certainly support it. I come here to get some insight on what the regulars are up to. It does seem that some people come here just to get a rise out of people. If you don't care about women's baseball or don't want to support it, you can voice that opinion by simply not coming here.

Ditto! :clapping ;)

[NotAboutEgo]

I actually have a informal interview tomorrow with my job about how I feel about events and activities at the ballpark and suggestions to make the experience better (I work at Turner's Field) and I do have several suggestions. And I just realized tonight, thru most of my own personal experience, the most available women in sports/ladies night/singles night/ect ect... are usually reserve for minor league teams (but not all, just in general). Now that's a strange observation considering that women make up 40% of the MLB fan base. With this thread going 8 pages long about women being so inferior to men in the sport and the lack of support of a women having their own league sponsored by the MLB... dont you find this all a bit odd? Does anyone THINK anymore?

No, I don't think most people THINK anymore. Most people act and react before thinking... and some never do think.

[NotAboutEgo]

Just wanting to point out, 2.9 is a really bad pop time. 2.1 is a good time for high school. 1.85 will get you a college scholorship.

2.0 is not a pro pop time,at least not for a good defensive catcher.

Are you speaking of men's baseball? Have you ever watched women's baseball and do you know anything about where it stand in terms of development? If not, then judging whether a 2.9 pop time is really bad or not is a moot point. Women's baseball is still in development, and therefore, the benchmarks set and level of play will improve over time. Like I said, the 2.9 and under pop times were among the best back in 2001. It's now 6 years later. A lot has happened since then, including more women becoming involved in playing baseball.

Men's baseball, in general, is not still in the developmental stages. Plus, the size and strength issues do play a part, so comparing the two doesn't make sense.

Since women don't have high school, minor league, and MLB equivelent leagues in the good ole' USA at this time, and there's just one collegiate women's team in the USA right now (which is in its beginning developmental stages), we hardly have the same training opportunities that men have... as stated a million times in this forum. Who knows what would happen if we did have the SAME training opportunities... and I'm not talking about women playing in MLB. I'm talking about seeing how high women baseball players can rise in their own game.

[Utility07]

I am not reffering to exactly high level baseball. Even for a decent high school catcher 2.9 is brutal.

A highschool freshman, who is 15ish should have a better time than 2.9.

And if you are saying there is a strength issue, then womens baseball games would become track meets, as women are pretty comparable in terms of speed with men. But thats about it. Singles would be triples all day.

[NotAboutEgo]

I am not reffering to exactly high level baseball. Even for a decent high school catcher 2.9 is brutal.

A highschool freshman, who is 15ish should have a better time than 2.9.

And if you are saying there is a strength issue, then womens baseball games would become track meets, as women are pretty comparable in terms of speed with men. But thats about it. Singles would be triples all day.

Males do have a strength advantage when it comes to core strength, and that affects throwing. On average, guys are able to throw farther and harder than women. I wasn't talking about running speed. And, as I already stated, women's baseball is still in development.

Your statement about women's baseball games becoming track meets and singles being triples all day is completely inaccurate. There are actually few triples hit in women's baseball, based on the games I've played in and have seen. Also, pitchers are improving greatly at holding runners on the bag and at picking them off, and catchers are getting quicker and stronger.

Perhaps you should watch a women's game someday.

[captlid]

Just wanting to point out, 2.9 is a really bad pop time. 2.1 is a good time for high school. 1.85 will get you a college scholorship.

2.0 is not a pro pop time,at least not for a good defensive catcher.

The best person to ask about how the ladies are throwing down to second base is CatchingCoach. Maybe he's trained a few that play baseball?

[NotAboutEgo]

I am not reffering to exactly high level baseball. Even for a decent high school catcher 2.9 is brutal.

A highschool freshman, who is 15ish should have a better time than 2.9.

And if you are saying there is a strength issue, then womens baseball games would become track meets, as women are pretty comparable in terms of speed with men. But thats about it. Singles would be triples all day.

Someone else posted that MLB catchers' pop times are from 1.9-2.0. If that's the case, if a kid in high school has a pop time of 1.85, I'd say they need to skip college and go to MLB. If a 15 year old should have a pop time of 2.1, I would think MLB catchers would be far better than 1.9-2.0.

[MSUlaxer27]

Her last sentence asked why MLB did not provide support for women's amateur baseball. Yes, a number of women's leagues have failed. This thread needs to be renamed so it is clear that the women in this thread are 95% talking about the probability of a MAJOR LEAGUE OF THEIR OWN.

This thread does not need any more posts comparing, contrasting the physical differences between females and males. What is the probability of a women's baseball league surviving? Supported by who, if anybody?

Possible for a mod to split this into two threads?

I did read the post. When I answered that from a cost benefit analysis that it didn't make sense for MLB to subsidize women's baseball I meant more like creating a minor league system and not necessarily creating a WMLB. It does make sense for MLB to support and develop men's amateur leagues (the RBI program, international programs in China, Africa and the Caribbean development programs to name a few) since there is a very real likelihood that these programs will develop major league players. It is highly unlikely that womens amateur/development/semi-pro will be able to make the same claim.

There have been quite a few posters who have posited that women, with enough training opportunities, will someday be able to make the major leagues (or at least play at a very high level). I compared those sports that I know of where women have had the most "development" opportunities to show that this has not been proven by results over time.

Again, I'm not saying women shouldn't be able to play baseball...more power to them if they want to, but why should a for profit business (MLB) spend money on something for which they will see no return?

I was an athlete in college, not pro, by any means and if I want to continue to play lacrosse, baseball, softball or whatever I pay my $100 to join a league and do so or find like minded people and create a league if there aren't any. I don't expect to be subsidized in these endeavors. Why should women?

I also think there is a huge disconnect between the number of women who want the opportunities to play at the highest level and the general population. I play in a coed softball league in NYC and we are always scrambling to have enough women at our games to field a team (even with 7 or 8 signed up on the roster) but there are never a shortage of males.

I am not anti-womens sports. I know how much sports helps development and self-esteem and want my wife, daughters, sisters etc. to have the opportunity to experience these positives. Like I said, if they want to play, let them play, but don't expect subsidies, build your leagues like every other American mens league has had to, hell you'll have more satisfaction to know that you've done it on your own.

[Utility07]

I didnt mean they would actually be hitting triples, I meant they might as well be. If a pop time of 2.9 was being considered good, every single would be followed by 2 stolen bases.

[Westlake]

Tennis: Does anyone really think that if we took the top ten women and top ten men and placed them in the same tournament with the same rules (ie best of 5 not 3) that the women would come out on top...yes there might be some upsets, but realistically the men would win.
ss of the women's world cup team.


This is off-topic I know... but no, there would be NO upsets. Not even close.

[NotAboutEgo]

I didnt mean they would actually be hitting triples, I meant they might as well be. If a pop time of 2.9 was being considered good, every single would be followed by 2 stolen bases.

I was talking about the same thing. When modern women's baseball (women's baseball that has been around for the past 10-15 years) began, there were far more stolen bases than there are now, due to the lack of experience of women pitchers and the lack of experience of women catchers who had never had experience/little experience catching in baseball games on baseball fields. However, that has changed and will continue to change since women have more opportunities to play baseball now and can improve. How long have guys had organized leagues from little league all the way up to the pro leagues? One can't even begin to compare that to the opportunities women have had.

My point is, women will improve over time as long as their playing opportunities continue to grow.

[NotAboutEgo]

I did read the post. When I answered that from a cost benefit analysis that it didn't make sense for MLB to subsidize women's baseball I meant more like creating a minor league system and not necessarily creating a WMLB. It does make sense for MLB to support and develop men's amateur leagues (the RBI program, international programs in China, Africa and the Caribbean development programs to name a few) since there is a very real likelihood that these programs will develop major league players. It is highly unlikely that womens amateur/development/semi-pro will be able to make the same claim.

There have been quite a few posters who have posited that women, with enough training opportunities, will someday be able to make the major leagues (or at least play at a very high level). I compared those sports that I know of where women have had the most "development" opportunities to show that this has not been proven by results over time.

Again, I'm not saying women shouldn't be able to play baseball...more power to them if they want to, but why should a for profit business (MLB) spend money on something for which they will see no return?

I was an athlete in college, not pro, by any means and if I want to continue to play lacrosse, baseball, softball or whatever I pay my $100 to join a league and do so or find like minded people and create a league if there aren't any. I don't expect to be subsidized in these endeavors. Why should women?

I also think there is a huge disconnect between the number of women who want the opportunities to play at the highest level and the general population. I play in a coed softball league in NYC and we are always scrambling to have enough women at our games to field a team (even with 7 or 8 signed up on the roster) but there are never a shortage of males.

I am not anti-womens sports. I know how much sports helps development and self-esteem and want my wife, daughters, sisters etc. to have the opportunity to experience these positives. Like I said, if they want to play, let them play, but don't expect subsidies, build your leagues like every other American mens league has had to, hell you'll have more satisfaction to know that you've done it on your own.

Do you not see that the lesser numbers of women wanting sports opportunities (including those at the pro level) compared to men wanting the same thing have a lot to do with the traditional attitude of society that women don't play sports and should be passive? Yes, things have changed a lot compared to 50 years ago and before that, but the idea that women don't play sports and aren't interested in them is still permeating throughout our society, whether it comes from men or women. Traditional attitudes have a lot to do with how one thinks.

I do see this changing soon, though, since a lot more young girls are playing sports in school and summer programs. It is becoming more accepted for females to play sports.

Don't you think the fact that girls and women are STILL called "gay" and "lesbian" when they play sports affects whether a girl/woman might choose to play a sport?

[captlid]

Again, I'm not saying women shouldn't be able to play baseball...more power to them if they want to, but why should a for profit business (MLB) spend money on something for which they will see no return?


So why is the MLB providing their moral (and maybe financial) support to professional women's fastpitch but not women's baseball?

profastpitch.com/sponsors/ (http://profastpitch.com/sponsors/)


I was an athlete in college, not pro, by any means and if I want to continue to play lacrosse, baseball, softball or whatever I pay my $100 to join a league and do so or find like minded people and create a league if there aren't any. I don't expect to be subsidized in these endeavors. Why should women?

I asked about amatuer baseball because there are currently no women's professional leagues around.
The MLB as a private organization in the USA has every right to exclude women if it wishes to do so.
You are right, we, women should build our own leagues. We are currently resurrecting the NY Women's Baseball Association in the ny metro area.

[Brandon1537]

Why don't women play in the nba or nfl or mls or any of those other male sports?

[Utility07]

Why don't women play in the nba or nfl or mls or any of those other male sports?

MLS isn't a sport, but that is a topic for another day.

The reason they don't play is quite simply they would get crushed by the male opposition.


Do you guys even know the reason for the ban in MLB? Its because the owners didnt like women playing as a publicity stunt, and thought it cheapened the integrity of the game.

[Richmond Hill Phoenix]

Brandon, while you pose a good question, this isn't the place to ask it. There are many reasons why women aren't playing in men's professional leagues, so we should simply stick to baseball here. If you're interested in asking about football, www.pigskin-fever.com would be the place to do it.

Thanks.

[BigStellyPADRES4LIFE]

Someone else posted that MLB catchers' pop times are from 1.9-2.0. If that's the case, if a kid in high school has a pop time of 1.85, I'd say they need to skip college and go to MLB. If a 15 year old should have a pop time of 2.1, I would think MLB catchers would be far better than 1.9-2.0.


There is more to it than just core skill with regards to a high schooler, ive known several guys who went to my school who were clocked at 92-93MPH. They would get killed however if they went straight to the major leagues, while their bodies may be close to development, but their savy for the game has not developed. Nor has other facets of the game, I think women should be able to do whatever they want if they can make the cut. That's the beauty of pro sports, if a woman can make the cut then it benefits any team to bring them on. This isnt like the bull*%&^ of letting women try to be firefighters, the only way they did that is by lowering the standard. Im all for woman doing what they are capable of, but if they arent they shouldnt try. There are many things woman can do that men cant as well..... if you watch gymnastics woman are FAR superior to the men in many ways because they are flexible. Just think of the difference between the number of guys vs girls you know who can do the splits. However in baseball flexibility is important but not as much so as upperbody strength. Which women clearly are not anywhere near were men can be, nor do i believe they could ever reach.

[Richmond Hill Phoenix]

There is more to it than just core skill with regards to a high schooler, ive known several guys who went to my school who were clocked at 92-93MPH. They would get killed however if they went straight to the major leagues, while their bodies may be close to development, but their savy for the game has not developed. Nor has other facets of the game, I think women should be able to do whatever they want if they can make the cut. That's the beauty of pro sports, if a woman can make the cut then it benefits any team to bring them on. This isnt like the bull*%&^ of letting women try to be firefighters, the only way they did that is by lowering the standard. Im all for woman doing what they are capable of, but if they arent they shouldnt try. There are many things woman can do that men cant as well..... if you watch gymnastics woman are FAR superior to the men in many ways because they are flexible. Just think of the difference between the number of guys vs girls you know who can do the splits. However in baseball flexibility is important but not as much so as upperbody strength. Which women clearly are not anywhere near were men can be, nor do i believe they could ever reach.I'm sorry BigStelly, but this really isn't what this thread is about. We aren't here to comment on how much stronger men are than women, and we aren't here to put down women who try to do things typically associated with men (fire fighting). This simply isn't where the discussion has been going. It's not about who has a quicker pop-time (men or women) or who has more upper-body strength. This thread is about the problems and barriers faced by women who want to play baseball and not softball. It's about women who want a chance to play baseball in a good-quality league without being looked-down-upon.

I know that the title of the thread is "Women in the MLB", but if you read through all 9 pages, you will find that the discussion has moved away from the initial question posed.

I don't appreciate it when members (not just you, but anyone else who has done it too) come in here and preach about how women have no shot at making the MLB, and how women are physically weaker than men. That's not what we're trying to do here.

So please, keep the discussion away from the dead horse lying on the ground over there. It's been beaten far too many times.

[Utility07]

A big part of the reason it will never happen is because there will never be the highschool level development, as high schools arent going to support both a girls softball and baseball team because of Title IX. And 99 times out of 100 they are going to choose the traditional softball. Up until high school, girls are free to participate in Rec leagues, but it wont continue after, because unless you live in a huge city like chicago, you would probably lack the numbers to have a girls only league.

And yes, there are highschool age- rec leagues, but they are a joke, as all the good players are playing highschool, just as all the good instructors are instructing high school.

[BigStellyPADRES4LIFE]

I'm sorry BigStelly, but this really isn't what this thread is about. We aren't here to comment on how much stronger men are than women, and we aren't here to put down women who try to do things typically associated with men (fire fighting). This simply isn't where the discussion has been going. It's not about who has a quicker pop-time (men or women) or who has more upper-body strength. This thread is about the problems and barriers faced by women who want to play baseball and not softball. It's about women who want a chance to play baseball in a good-quality league without being looked-down-upon.

I know that the title of the thread is "Women in the MLB", but if you read through all 9 pages, you will find that the discussion has moved away from the initial question posed.

I don't appreciate it when members (not just you, but anyone else who has done it too) come in here and preach about how women have no shot at making the MLB, and how women are physically weaker than men. That's not what we're trying to do here.

So please, keep the discussion away from the dead horse lying on the ground over there. It's been beaten far too many times.


OK I dont appreciate being singled out like that, I was kind of trying to discuss the original thread title, but if people wish to change it to something else and feel all that was to be said was said then fine. Its fair so i really dont have a problem with just posting on other threads if you are going to talk about training oppurtunities for women or something like that, it just doesnt interest me.

[JeepingBaseball]

Its fair so i really dont have a problem with just posting on other threads if you are going to talk about training oppurtunities for women or something like that, it just doesnt interest me.

For something that doesnt interest you, you sure have alot to say. :confused: And if talking about training opportunities for women or "something like that" does not interest you... then why do you bother making such statements as you have in this thread? If it doesn't interest you, feel free to go find something that does. :waving

[Richmond Hill Phoenix]

OK I dont appreciate being singled out like that, I was kind of trying to discuss the original thread title, but if people wish to change it to something else and feel all that was to be said was said then fine. Its fair so i really dont have a problem with just posting on other threads if you are going to talk about training oppurtunities for women or something like that, it just doesnt interest me.I didn't mean to single you out (I mentionned that you aren't the only one doing it).

What I meant to do, however, is point out that all of us in favour of women's baseball development have acknowledged that women in the MLB isn't the primary goal. In 9 pages, the thread has moved away from the initial question (as it does in most long threads) towards something different. Coming back to the question that has already been adressed is, like I said previously, beating a dead horse.

[CuriousBoston]

For something that doesnt interest you, you sure have alot to say. :confused: And if talking about training opportunities for women or "something like that" does not interest you... then why do you bother making such statements as you have in this thread? If it doesn't interest you, feel free to go find something that does. :waving

Second the motion. If you have no interest in reading the thread, you don't have to post here. Is the ignore feature still working?

[BigStellyPADRES4LIFE]

For something that doesnt interest you, you sure have alot to say. :confused: And if talking about training opportunities for women or "something like that" does not interest you... then why do you bother making such statements as you have in this thread? If it doesn't interest you, feel free to go find something that does. :waving

The original topic was interesting I was just trying to steer it back to that, but apparently thats not what everyone wants to do. Is it a crime to think that the original topic is more interesting? Most of my posts were trying to adress the orignal question(and yes beating a dead horse is quite fun for me).

[NotAboutEgo]

A big part of the reason it will never happen is because there will never be the highschool level development, as high schools arent going to support both a girls softball and baseball team because of Title IX. And 99 times out of 100 they are going to choose the traditional softball. Up until high school, girls are free to participate in Rec leagues, but it wont continue after, because unless you live in a huge city like chicago, you would probably lack the numbers to have a girls only league.

And yes, there are highschool age- rec leagues, but they are a joke, as all the good players are playing highschool, just as all the good instructors are instructing high school.

Obviously, you don't have a clue as to what's happening in women's baseball. You obviously don't attend conferences and aren't involved with women's or girls' baseball at ANY level... so, you are way off mark when you say there will never be women's baseball in high schools. Legally, not just under Title IX, but also under the Equal Protection Act and the Amateur Sports Act, schools CANNOT discriminate against girls playing baseball on boys' teams no matter what the situation is, and, legally, softball is NOT equivelent to baseball; therefore, schools can't say girls have an equal substitute for baseball. If you don't believe me, you can talk with the Women's Sports Foundation which investigates such cases and let's schools (including colleges) know when they are in the wrong, and the WSF takes action to correct the situation.

There WILL be women's baseball in high schools AND colleges in the near future. I would lay money on it.

I just met a 15 year old young lady today who made her freshman boys' baseball team that's in a suburb of Chicago. This is becoming more common, and women are starting to receive collegiate baseball scholarships to play on men's teams. Women's high school and college teams will follow that.

[Utility07]

So, can the boys play softball? I wanna see how safe that is when some hulk of a man crushes a ball at a softball pitcher from 40 feet away.

When that Athletic director tells the boy no, I cry sexism.

Call me curious, what high school? I live near chicago.

If its Maine East I will laugh hysterically.

[NotAboutEgo]

So, can the boys play softball? I wanna see how safe that is when some hulk of a man crushes a ball at a softball pitcher from 40 feet away.

When that Athletic director tells the boy no, I cry sexism.

Call me curious, what high school? I live near chicago.

If its Maine East I will laugh hysterically.

Of course boys can play softball. In fact, Little League, Inc. started a boys only softball division 5 years ago or so. And, in the Chicago area, high schools have 16 inch softball for boys.

Have you heard of a case where an AD has told a boy he can't play softball on the girls' team?

You are quite defensive, which shows how you think. The WSF knows that discrimination goes both ways and isn't saying girls' and women should get more sports opportunities, and they proceed to fix problems in schools and colleges and in recreational/amateur leagues where females are being discriminated against. The WSF fights for equality for females, since gender discrimination has been rampant against females throughout history and continues to exist, especially in baseball and sports.

If anyone hears/knows of a case where a boy hasn't made his school's or rec program's baseball team and tries softball but is told he can't play softball, then the discrimination is the same as girls being told they can't play baseball. Then, it's up to someone to take action against the school or rec program. Schools and rec programs that discriminate either way aren't going to fix problems on their own, because they don't care... until someone approaches the situation.

You are so close-minded, it isn't funny. And, no, it's NOT Maine high school.

[CuriousBoston]

So, can the boys play softball? I wanna see how safe that is when some hulk of a man crushes a ball at a softball pitcher from 40 feet away.

When that Athletic director tells the boy no, I cry sexism.

Call me curious, what high school? I live near chicago.

If its Maine East I will laugh hysterically.

It's boy wanting to play softball, a boy being told no, but hulk of a man crushing. That's an interesting view of your gender.

If you have an example of a male told by a AD he can't play softball, please post the link here.

You make fun of facts that are posted, facts about teams that are playing, teams that are being formed.

One example: "I will laugh hysterically." You were posting about a young woman playing on a male high school team. Apparently, if she was on a certain team, your school?, you would laugh hysterically. You did not make clear if you would do that sitting front row in the stands. If her team will be playing near you, why don't you go, sit in the front row, and laugh hysterically.

You do not know the laws regarding male and female participation in sports.

You do not seem interested in learning about the laws, about learning about the experiences of other people, about what is happening today, about what may happen tomorrow.

If you don't know the rules, are only interested in putting down the experiences of other people, why are you here? Here we respect each other, learn from each other, try to understand each other.

You seem to be very sure that you are always right. That must be quite a feeling. Or perhaps you are trying to get attention from us. Trying to bully people here will not work. It's plain you don't know what you are talking about. It's plain you don't want to learn, you intend to be rude.

It's fine if you laugh hysterically. I think you don't realize how much that reveals about you. If you met any of us in person, I don't think you would laugh.

It's very sad that you are making fun of people that are trying to engage you in discussion. A closed mind does not learn anything, until someday someone with power, a boss, an admission committee, or someone you respect, says something that opens your mind, very quickly, very painfully.

[Utility07]

Please, show me when I have made fun of anyone.

And 16 inch is NOT the same.

16 inch softball is where people go when they cant cut it in 12 inch or baseball anymore.

[digglahhh]

So, can the boys play softball? I wanna see how safe that is when some hulk of a man crushes a ball at a softball pitcher from 40 feet away.

When that Athletic director tells the boy no, I cry sexism.

Call me curious, what high school? I live near chicago.

If its Maine East I will laugh hysterically.

Mods, I'm sorry, I might veer off topic a bit, but I think this is important.

This is a common refrain and it is usually spoken by self-entitled, white males. There are double standards when it comes to these things because there actually are two different standards, one for the victims of exclusion and one for the beneficiaries thereof.

This is like when white people complain that black comedians can make fun of white guys but white comedians probably can't make fun of black guys. The double standards that were in the non-minorities' favor that related to, I dunno, education, the legal system, zoning restrictions, lending practices and so forth, benefited white males since the beginning of such institutions (all of those things, by the way, are essentially affirmative action practices in favor of whites). The first time lifelong beneficiaries of such attitudes are slighted in the most innocuous of ways, they scream bloody murder. It just ain't sexy!

The "isms" refer to institutionalized practices enacted for the primary goal of prioritizing certain demographics of people. When white dudes whine about being picked last on the ball court, or when a guy whines about not being able to play women's softball, it just cheapens the "ism." It is very unbecoming and poignantly reflective of a pretty narrow and self-centered world view.

So, it is not the same thing. And it never was, so it is not necessarily "supposed to be."

My question is always these remarks is always similar, would you be willing to take on the burdens of being a woman, including an off-top twenty-some-odd percent paycut, to play softball? I'd hazard a guess that the answer is no.

[JeepingBaseball]

this is all just stupid now.

Give me a buzz when the trolls find something better to do or there's a real dicussion.

[Utility07]

If anyone hears/knows of a case where a boy hasn't made his school's or rec program's baseball team and tries softball but is told he can't play softball, then the discrimination is the same as girls being told they can't play baseball. Then, it's up to someone to take action against the school or rec program. Schools and rec programs that discriminate either way aren't going to fix problems on their own, because they don't care... until someone approaches the situation.

No, its actually not the same. I doubt that a girl, if she was capable of making the baseball team, would get cut from softball. You say the boy would have to be cut from baseball to try softball, making it very different. You take the biggest strongest boy on the baseball team, and he could make softball a very unsafe sport, very fast.

And I agree, if I was a troll, which im not, you are failing at trolling the troll. What does me having a penis have to do with black comedians?
Your trolling by the way, contains many innacuracies Digglaah.
I am still curious, what highschool is it?

[digglahhh]

You seem to be confused as to what "trolling" is.

Nonetheless, the analogy, since you missed it, was regarding the notion that if a high school boy was prohibited from playing on the girl's softball team it was the same thing as schools not even thinking about creating women's baseball teams.

You said that if a girl can be allowed to play high school baseball, boys should be allowed to play high school softball. I said that exclusion as it related to dominant groups as opposed to minority groups is a case of apples and oranges. My example was to show how quickly people who have no problems about benefiting from double standards are to criticize the first double standard they encounter that may not work in their favor. The boys playing softball argument is a clear example of that behavior.

[Utility07]

Noone said anything about creating womens teams. You guys were previously talking about girls playing on boys teams. If girls can play baseball, on the boys team, but boys cant play softball, on the girls team, you are all but saying "Women are inferior to men".

[JeepingBaseball]

Utility07,

Could you care to tell us why you feel it's important to show such unsportmanship with members of this forum who support women's baseball? Your choice of words are viwed of nothing more than school yard bullying. I'm sorry you feel the way you do, but I totally respect it's your own opinion as you're entiled to it. However, i dont understand why you bother to spend the time to post here. I find that several of your comments have been uncalled for, disrespectful, degrading, and without merit. No one is forcing you to support the future ideas and current situation of women's baseball. No one if forcing you to think that we want to play with the big boys in the big leagues... we don't. No one is asking you to compare a man's skill to a women's skill in the game of baseball. Yet, you continue to embarrassed yourself with your immature ways. I just don't understand why you're even here.

Sincerely.

[Utility07]

Actually, by saying girls should be allowed to play high school baseball, you are asking people to compare.

And the only comment that has even come close to being offensive was in the other thread, when I said the pitcher "threw at a girl, like a girl"

You are reading between the lines.

[JeepingBaseball]

And naturally you assume we want to play with the guys.

[dw8man]

And naturally you assume we want to play with the guys.

While I do not like the tone of a lot of comments posted in this thread, it really has been very interesting reading.

However, I do think that this comment needs a reply.

I would like to point out that for the first 5 1/2 pages, most all of the discussion was about woman playing in the Majors. The female posters were very adamant about the possibility, skills and desires of woman playing in the majors one day. This conversation was not started by the male posters (especially the white ones :ughh ) but the female ones.

You jumped into the conversation with post #136 where you very nicely outlined your opinion and started to steered the conversation away from whether women can play in the majors to whether or not they should have their own league (clearly stated in post #155 on page 7). I think this is a fine topic but it doesn't seem right to 1. blame someone for talking about the originally topic because you declare it over and 2. to falsely accuse someone of something that is so clearly not true.

Utility07 didn't start the topic, she/he/it just posted thoughts about it.

[JeepingBaseball]

While I do not like the tone of a lot of comments posted in this thread, it really has been very interesting reading.

However, I do think that this comment needs a reply.

I would like to point out that for the first 5 1/2 pages, most all of the discussion was about woman playing in the Majors. The female posters were very adamant about the possibility, skills and desires of woman playing in the majors one day.



Women players in general, do not want to play in the majors with the guys. I believe we were speaking in terms of our own major league. I believe the confusion started by saying something like "women could play in the majors!" Leave one word out and the whole subject goes into chaos.

However, if some Shera or amazon women of amazing talents never seen before did appear out of nowhere and proven to be better than the boys in every aspect of the MLB organization... then yeah, give her a shot... if that's her goal. Do I think any such women today capable of being in the MLB? Maybe 1 or 2 as pitchers or short stops. Will they make it? No. Will they try? Probably not. Should they try? I'm willing to bet the farm they dont even want to. That doesn't mean they don't dream of their day on the diamond of a major league ballpark.

Women would like to have a chance at the level of the majors. (read that carefully).

[Utility07]

And the conversation continued being steered toward women playing with men because of the talk about girls currently playing HS baseball.

[JeepingBaseball]

oh my bad... the idea of a high school women's baseball team is out of the question. How silly of me.

:disbelief:

[MSUlaxer27]

Women players in general, do not want to play in the majors with the guys. I believe we were speaking in terms of our own major league. I believe the confusion started by saying something like "women could play in the majors!" Leave one word out and the whole subject goes into chaos.

However, if some Shera or amazon women of amazing talents never seen before did appear out of nowhere and proven to be better than the boys in every aspect of the MLB organization... then yeah, give her a shot... if that's her goal. Do I think any such women today capable of being in the MLB? Maybe 1 or 2 as pitchers or short stops. Will they make it? No. Will they try? Probably not. Should they try? I'm willing to bet the farm they don't even want to. That doesn't mean they don't dream of their day on the diamond of a major league ballpark.

Women would like to have a chance at the level of the majors. (read that carefully).

What does that mean?
Women want their own MLB?



Again I ask what do we gain in society by subsidizing a lesser league? No matter how much they train I don't think a women's "pro" ball will ever be equal to even Single A. At their best, who will pay to watch (and that in a nut shell is what "major league" means) a women's pro league. The WNBA, the highest subsidized league in women's history draws less than half the NBA in less than half the NBA season. 35 years after Title IX no unsubsidized women's pro team sports league has succeeded. Again not to take anything away from women who want to play baseball, but why should MLB waste money on a women's pro league that will very,very rarely produce an MLB player? Doesn't matter how much women train, men are bigger, faster & stronger in team sports. (Notice, I didn't say better, read that carefully) Again that doesn't mean women shouldn't be able to play sports (baseball, hockey, whatever).

What does that mean that women want a "chance" at the level of the majors?

I will never agree that any sport should be subsidzed. Don't care if its mens, womens or green aliens. If people won't pay to watch, then you pay your $100, or create your own league and have fun playing the sport.

In response to the quote that there are a few women who could play Shortstop generally the shortstop is the best athlete on the field (in other words a major league shortstop can play any other position on the field, but any other position player can not necessarily play shortstop). So it MAY be possible that there are 1 or 2 women ever who could pitch in the majors, there are probably never be any women who could play MLB shortstop. To suggest otherwise is quite frankly is disrespectful to all those shortstops toiling in the minors waiting for their chance. (And I know if they are so good why don't they change positions? You'll find that most SS have played other positions as they have come up through the leagues, just shows how hard it is to break into MLB at any position)

And again not to say they can't or shouldn't play, but let's take those women's leagues that are "successful", (LPGA, WNBA, Olympic soccer, WTA, AVP) not a single women's chapmpion (Again Anika Sorenstom missed the cut and Bobby Riggs was 55 when he played Billy Jean King) have ever either succeeded or proposed to play the men in their sport, they have nothing to gain because they they know they will lose head to head and have nothing to gain.

Again not to say women shouldn't play baseball but it's wrong to expect subsidies to be able to do so.

[CuriousBoston]

While I do not like the tone of a lot of comments posted in this thread, it really has been very interesting reading.

However, I do think that this comment needs a reply.

I would like to point out that for the first 5 1/2 pages, most all of the discussion was about woman playing in the Majors. The female posters were very adamant about the possibility, skills and desires of woman playing in the majors one day. This conversation was not started by the male posters (especially the white ones :ughh ) but the female ones.

You jumped into the conversation with post #136 where you very nicely outlined your opinion and started to steered the conversation away from whether women can play in the majors to whether or not they should have their own league (clearly stated in post #155 on page 7). I think this is a fine topic but it doesn't seem right to 1. blame someone for talking about the originally topic because you declare it over and 2. to falsely accuse someone of something that is so clearly not true.

Utility07 didn't start the topic, she/he/it just posted thoughts about it.


The Moderator, Richmond Hill Phoenix, has posted on the change in topic, in addition to other topics. Perhaps you were not aware that Richmond Hill is a Mod. When the Mod has declared a topic over (Please refer to "beating a dead horse), the topic is over.

#2 facts. If you believe Person A is "accusing" (disagreeing/debating) Person B, you need facts proving A wrong, facts proving B right. Facts supported by links are good. Facts that can be googled are good. Facts that are the PERSONAL experience of a poster with a record of posting factual proven information are good.

Posts of the Mods relating to the direction of the thread, and our comments are law.

(For we are but hotdogs, and taste good with mustard.)

I don't know how you determine race by unseen posters, you cannot assume race by what anyone posts. I strongly,very strongly advise you, STOP.

[NotAboutEgo]

Actually, by saying girls should be allowed to play high school baseball, you are asking people to compare.

And the only comment that has even come close to being offensive was in the other thread, when I said the pitcher "threw at a girl, like a girl"

You are reading between the lines.

You are so off mark. Allowing girls to play high school baseball has absolutely NOTHING to do with comparing. What it has to do with, since you are too close-minded to see it, is that many girls choose to play baseball and NOT softball. Girls wanting to play and being good enough to play high school baseball is the issue here... and whether they are allowed to or not. It doesn't matter what gender a person is. What matters is if they are good enough to make the team they are trying out for... whether they are male or female... period. When a coach or a group of coaches has tryouts to pick their team, gender should not come up at all as an issue. All people trying out should be judged on performance, skills, talent, attitude, etc. ALONE... without gender coming into play at all.

The fact is, many women CHOOSE to play baseball and HATE softball. When a woman is told she CAN'T try out for her high school's baseball team, just because she's a woman... that is where the problem lies. Since high schools don't have girls' baseball teams yet, high school girls who want to play baseball try out for boys' teams. This, however, will change once girls have their own baseball teams in high school.

All of that is the issue. It has NOTHING to do with comparing, as many others and I have stated here millions of times.

The only comparison that exists is in your limited mind.

[MSUlaxer27]

You are so off mark. Allowing girls to play high school baseball has absolutely NOTHING to do with comparing. What it has to do with, since you are too close-minded to see it, is that many girls choose to play baseball and NOT softball. Girls wanting to play and being good enough to play high school baseball is the issue here... and whether they are allowed to or not. It doesn't matter what gender a person is. What matters is if they are good enough to make the team they are trying out for... whether they are male or female... period. When a coach or a group of coaches has tryouts to pick their team, gender should not come up at all as an issue. All people trying out should be judged on performance, skills, talent, attitude, etc. ALONE... without gender coming into play at all.

The fact is, many women CHOOSE to play baseball and HATE softball. When a woman is told she CAN'T try out for her high school's baseball team, just because she's a woman... that is where the problem lies. Since high schools don't have girls' baseball teams yet, high school girls who want to play baseball try out for boys' teams. This, however, will change once girls have their own baseball teams in high school.

All of that is the issue. It has NOTHING to do with comparing, as many others and I have stated here millions of times.

The only comparison that exists is in your limited mind.

"The year was 2081, and everyone was finally equal."

[NotAboutEgo]

What does that mean?
Women want their own MLB?



Again I ask what do we gain in society by subsidizing a lesser league? No matter how much they train I don't think a women's "pro" ball will ever be equal to even Single A. At their best, who will pay to watch (and that in a nut shell is what "major league" means) a women's pro league. The WNBA, the highest subsidized league in women's history draws less than half the NBA in less than half the NBA season. 35 years after Title IX no unsubsidized women's pro team sports league has succeeded. Again not to take anything away from women who want to play baseball, but why should MLB waste money on a women's pro league that will very,very rarely produce an MLB player? Doesn't matter how much women train, men are bigger, faster & stronger in team sports. (Notice, I didn't say better, read that carefully) Again that doesn't mean women shouldn't be able to play sports (baseball, hockey, whatever).

What does that mean that women want a "chance" at the level of the majors?

I will never agree that any sport should be subsidzed. Don't care if its mens, womens or green aliens. If people won't pay to watch, then you pay your $100, or create your own league and have fun playing the sport.

In response to the quote that there are a few women who could play Shortstop generally the shortstop is the best athlete on the field (in other words a major league shortstop can play any other position on the field, but any other position player can not necessarily play shortstop). So it MAY be possible that there are 1 or 2 women ever who could pitch in the majors, there are probably never be any women who could play MLB shortstop. To suggest otherwise is quite frankly is disrespectful to all those shortstops toiling in the minors waiting for their chance. (And I know if they are so good why don't they change positions? You'll find that most SS have played other positions as they have come up through the leagues, just shows how hard it is to break into MLB at any position)

And again not to say they can't or shouldn't play, but let's take those women's leagues that are "successful", (LPGA, WNBA, Olympic soccer, WTA, AVP) not a single women's chapmpion (Again Anika Sorenstom missed the cut and Bobby Riggs was 55 when he played Billy Jean King) have ever either succeeded or proposed to play the men in their sport, they have nothing to gain because they they know they will lose head to head and have nothing to gain.

Again not to say women shouldn't play baseball but it's wrong to expect subsidies to be able to do so.

Perhaps you should read this to give you some sort of clue. It's not about baseball specifically but is about what we've been talking about, so it relates in every way. This article is from the Women's Sports Foundation web site http://www.womenssportsfoundation.org/cgi-bin/iowa/issues/article.html?record=1136 :

Purse Equity in Professional Sports

It is the position of the Women’s Sports Foundation that professional male and female athletes should receive equal purses when they are participating in the same competition (i.e., Wimbledon, X Games, a professional rodeo championship) that includes both male and female athletes participating in the same or comparable events. When men’s and women’s leagues are separate events in the commercial marketplace and operate solely on the dollars they earn, salaries of players may rightfully differ among leagues, whether male or female athletes are involved. But when men and women compete in the same sport venue for which a single ticket is offered and television advertising and rights fees are generated, any reason used to justify higher pay or purses for one sex over the other should be questioned.
How would the public react if there were higher purses for white athletes than athletes of color? Sex discrimination is no different than race discrimination.

Misconception #1: Men should get larger purses than women because the women’s events or competitions are not as exciting and/or the skills displayed by female athletes are not as high as the men (men jump higher, perform more risky tricks, hit a tennis ball harder).

Women athletes should be evaluated in their own right, not in comparison to men. Just as a heavyweight boxer and a lightweight boxer are not compared to each other when deciding prize money and the value of a boxer’s skills and ability are not based on weight class and size, we cannot do this to classes of male and female athletes who are not competing against each other.

We also know that because of physiological differences between the sexes, men’s events and women’s events in the same sports may be different. Women generally have lower centers of gravity and superior balance but less upper body strength. Women compete in the balance beam in gymnastics and men do not; does that lessen the ability or perceptions about male gymnasts? Men compete in the rings in gymnastics and women do not; does that lessen the ability or perceptions about female gymnasts? So, we should not be surprised if men and women don’t perform the same types of tricks or stunts in competitions like the X Games. "Different" does not mean "better;" it just means "different."

It is also important to ask, in sports such as the X Games, whether differences in the size of the purses for male and female competitors affect the difficulty of tricks being attempted when difficult tricks create a significant risk of injury. Does a $100,000 pay differential make an athlete more or less willing to pull a risky stunt? How many more people would risk injury for a windfall than would do so for a pittance? As one female skateboarder said, “You pay me $5,000, I’ll show you a trick that’s good enough to win; you pay me $50,000, and I’ll show you a trick that’s on a whole new level.”

Misconception #2: Because female athletes do not bring in as much money in terms of sponsorship or television viewers as men, they shouldn’t receive the same prize money.

Television ratings and promotion go hand in hand. We know that television ratings are a function of (1) how much the event is advertised and promoted, (2) whether the event is scheduled to be aired in prime time and (3) whether the event is aired in the same time slot and day (predictability, such as Monday Night Football). Thus, if a television network runs 100 ads promoting a televised game on Thursday night in prime time, it will yield a higher rating than a non-promoted event in that same time slot or a different time slot. Just as a non-promoted men’s baseball game should not be compared with a promoted men’s baseball game, men’s and women’s events shouldn’t be compared if they are not promoted equally. In most cases, women’s sports are not promoted and are not given prime time or predictable time slots. For example, in the X Games, where there are fewer women’s events and the women’s events are not included in the telecast, it is misleading to argue that men’s events receive higher ratings.

Misconception #3: Male athletes’ competitions are longer than the women’s competitions; their matches are longer, include more games and, therefore, the men should receive more money.

The length of the competition does not matter; it is the top celebrity athlete at the competition, male or female, who fascinates and draws the viewers and ticket buyers. For example, a celebrity musician, like Elton John, gets paid top dollar whether he performs a 45-minute set or a two-hour set. An athlete doesn’t get paid less for defeating an opponent in straight sets in 50 minutes. Male volleyball players use a volleyball net that is higher than the women’s volleyball net. Should they get paid more? The nature, length and characteristics of the sporting event are appropriate to male and female athletes and their differences should not justify valuing one over the other.

The impact of unequal purses goes beyond the issue of money. Sport is too potent a force in society and our media culture to ignore. The implications of unequal pay extend beyond the playing field. When our sons and daughters watch a national network telecast and see the most celebrated female athletes valued less than their male counterparts, they are learning to believe that it is okay that females are less respected and less rewarded in our society. We are promulgating values for generations to come; we must be sure that the accepted values are acceptable ones.

[NotAboutEgo]

"The year was 2081, and everyone was finally equal."

Furthermore, if MLB wasn't promoted in the media, who would know about it... and how many people would attend its games?

[NotAboutEgo]

Attitudes have everything to do with what's promoted, what's not, being disrespectful to one group over another, etc. Each person is attributable and responsible for her/his own attitude.

[MSUlaxer27]

Perhaps you should read this to give you some sort of clue. It's not about baseball specifically but is about what we've been talking about, so it relates in every way. This article is from the Women's Sports Foundation web site http://www.womenssportsfoundation.org/cgi-bin/iowa/issues/article.html?record=1136 :

Purse Equity in Professional Sports

It is the position of the Women’s Sports Foundation that professional male and female athletes should receive equal purses when they are participating in the same competition (i.e., Wimbledon, X Games, a professional rodeo championship) that includes both male and female athletes participating in the same or comparable events. When men’s and women’s leagues are separate events in the commercial marketplace and operate solely on the dollars they earn, salaries of players may rightfully differ among leagues, whether male or female athletes are involved. But when men and women compete in the same sport venue for which a single ticket is offered and television advertising and rights fees are generated, any reason used to justify higher pay or purses for one sex over the other should be questioned.
How would the public react if there were higher purses for white athletes than athletes of color? Sex discrimination is no different than race discrimination.

Misconception #1: Men should get larger purses than women because the women’s events or competitions are not as exciting and/or the skills displayed by female athletes are not as high as the men (men jump higher, perform more risky tricks, hit a tennis ball harder).

Women athletes should be evaluated in their own right, not in comparison to men. Just as a heavyweight boxer and a lightweight boxer are not compared to each other when deciding prize money and the value of a boxer’s skills and ability are not based on weight class and size, we cannot do this to classes of male and female athletes who are not competing against each other.

We also know that because of physiological differences between the sexes, men’s events and women’s events in the same sports may be different. Women generally have lower centers of gravity and superior balance but less upper body strength. Women compete in the balance beam in gymnastics and men do not; does that lessen the ability or perceptions about male gymnasts? Men compete in the rings in gymnastics and women do not; does that lessen the ability or perceptions about female gymnasts? So, we should not be surprised if men and women don’t perform the same types of tricks or stunts in competitions like the X Games. "Different" does not mean "better;" it just means "different."

It is also important to ask, in sports such as the X Games, whether differences in the size of the purses for male and female competitors affect the difficulty of tricks being attempted when difficult tricks create a significant risk of injury. Does a $100,000 pay differential make an athlete more or less willing to pull a risky stunt? How many more people would risk injury for a windfall than would do so for a pittance? As one female skateboarder said, “You pay me $5,000, I’ll show you a trick that’s good enough to win; you pay me $50,000, and I’ll show you a trick that’s on a whole new level.”

Misconception #2: Because female athletes do not bring in as much money in terms of sponsorship or television viewers as men, they shouldn’t receive the same prize money.

Television ratings and promotion go hand in hand. We know that television ratings are a function of (1) how much the event is advertised and promoted, (2) whether the event is scheduled to be aired in prime time and (3) whether the event is aired in the same time slot and day (predictability, such as Monday Night Football). Thus, if a television network runs 100 ads promoting a televised game on Thursday night in prime time, it will yield a higher rating than a non-promoted event in that same time slot or a different time slot. Just as a non-promoted men’s baseball game should not be compared with a promoted men’s baseball game, men’s and women’s events shouldn’t be compared if they are not promoted equally. In most cases, women’s sports are not promoted and are not given prime time or predictable time slots. For example, in the X Games, where there are fewer women’s events and the women’s events are not included in the telecast, it is misleading to argue that men’s events receive higher ratings.

Misconception #3: Male athletes’ competitions are longer than the women’s competitions; their matches are longer, include more games and, therefore, the men should receive more money.

The length of the competition does not matter; it is the top celebrity athlete at the competition, male or female, who fascinates and draws the viewers and ticket buyers. For example, a celebrity musician, like Elton John, gets paid top dollar whether he performs a 45-minute set or a two-hour set. An athlete doesn’t get paid less for defeating an opponent in straight sets in 50 minutes. Male volleyball players use a volleyball net that is higher than the women’s volleyball net. Should they get paid more? The nature, length and characteristics of the sporting event are appropriate to male and female athletes and their differences should not justify valuing one over the other.

The impact of unequal purses goes beyond the issue of money. Sport is too potent a force in society and our media culture to ignore. The implications of unequal pay extend beyond the playing field. When our sons and daughters watch a national network telecast and see the most celebrated female athletes valued less than their male counterparts, they are learning to believe that it is okay that females are less respected and less rewarded in our society. We are promulgating values for generations to come; we must be sure that the accepted values are acceptable ones.


Interesting article...


OK for the last time I support women having the opportunities to play sports.

We are so off topic!! I never once mentioned pay. And most of the events that are mentioned in that article are minor or fringe sports. But as far as the majors which I think you were referring to it says:

When men’s and women’s leagues are separate events in the commercial marketplace and operate solely on the dollars they earn, salaries of players may rightfully differ among leagues, whether male or female athletes are involved.

All I said was I don't support subsidies ever, in any sport, mens or womens. Men and women are not equal on the playing field. I have tried to refute it when the suggestion came up that they are.

Women can play baseball. Create a League. Don't expect to be subsidized.

I played lacrosse in high school and college. In 1988 they attempted to start an outdoor pro league...wasn't subsidized by any other existing pro league... and it failed miserably in fact although they announced a season schedule and all the teams, they never played a single game. Cut to 1999, after 5 years record attendance at the Men's NCAA Lacrosse championships they launched a men's pro league. Again, unsubsidized by any other pro league. Are they struggling, yes, but 7 years later, they are still here. Could they collapse at any moment, yes (although men's lacrosse is the fastest growing sport in the country). And they've done it on their own. If women want to play baseball do it yourself.


And quite frankly even if I've said something that you disagree with, I think I have always been respectful in the way I posed my comments. Please don't ask to read something, "So I can get a clue".

[NotAboutEgo]

Interesting article...


OK for the last time I support women having the opportunities to play sports.

We are so off topic!! I never once mentioned pay. And most of the events that are mentioned in that article are minor or fringe sports. But as far as the majors which I think you were referring to it says:

When men’s and women’s leagues are separate events in the commercial marketplace and operate solely on the dollars they earn, salaries of players may rightfully differ among leagues, whether male or female athletes are involved.

All I said was I don't support subsidies ever, in any sport, mens or womens. Men and women are not equal on the playing field. I have tried to refute it when the suggestion came up that they are.

Women can play baseball. Create a League. Don't expect to be subsidized.

I played lacrosse in high school and college. In 1988 they attempted to start an outdoor pro league...wasn't subsidized by any other existing pro league... and it failed miserably in fact although they announced a season schedule and all the teams, they never played a single game. Cut to 1999, after 5 years record attendance at the Men's NCAA Lacrosse championships they launched a men's pro league. Again, unsubsidized by any other pro league. Are they struggling, yes, but 7 years later, they are still here. Could they collapse at any moment, yes (although men's lacrosse is the fastest growing sport in the country). And they've done it on their own. If women want to play baseball do it yourself.


And quite frankly even if I've said something that you disagree with, I think I have always been respectful in the way I posed my comments. Please don't ask to read something, "So I can get a clue".

You have said something like, "why should women have their own pro leagues... because women will never be as good as men in sports, particularly in pro sports." It relates in every way. Why should women have their own pro leagues if they can't support themselves, and why should they get paid the same as men?

So, if MLB DID decide to subsidize a women's pro baseball league, would you have problem with it, and would you stop going to MLB men's game because you aren't interested in watching women play?

As a matter of fact, there is a women's semi-pro baseball league called the North American Women's Baseball League which financially supports the women who play in it by paying thier expenses. As I understand it, the players aren't paid but the coaches are. The league provides support and help for players who want to play in it during the summer (by finding housing, jobs, etc. for players), including international players. I think it's a great program and opportunity and is a great model league. I would do it if I was still in college and didn't have a full time job (they offered me the opportunity).

So, I guess we could say this league is subsidized by the people and companies who support it, because the league isn't making money from its attendance and memorabilia sales to support itself. In your eyes, this league should not exist JUST because it doesn't support itself.

[Utility07]

I didnt bother quoting Notaboutegos post, as its really, really long, But notice the one thing about all the examples she listed......they are individual/dual sports. Its a completely awful example. Plus, in addition to that they are not mainstream sports. Most people arent gonna go pay to see tennis, or boxing, aor gymnastics.

And Ill even agree that womens tennis is more exciting than mens for various reasons I wont go into. But its a brutal example. And yes, if its on the same ticket, should split even purses.

A woman should be told she cant play baseball, because the minute you do says she can, somewhere, softball will be ruined for girls. Unless...they make a mens division for softball too, which I doubt will ever happen, because I have never met a boy who wanted to play softball. Somewhere, however, this will occur, because if you open up the mens team to women, you have to open up the womens team to men.

[JeepingBaseball]

A woman should be told she cant play baseball, because the minute you do says she can, somewhere, softball will be ruined for girls. Unless...they make a mens division for softball too, which I doubt will ever happen, because I have never met a boy who wanted to play softball. Somewhere, however, this will occur, because if you open up the mens team to women, you have to open up the womens team to men.

I'm speechless...

[NotAboutEgo]

I didnt bother quoting Notaboutegos post, as its really, really long, But notice the one thing about all the examples she listed......they are individual/dual sports. Its a completely awful example. Plus, in addition to that they are not mainstream sports. Most people arent gonna go pay to see tennis, or boxing, aor gymnastics.

And Ill even agree that womens tennis is more exciting than mens for various reasons I wont go into. But its a brutal example. And yes, if its on the same ticket, should split even purses.

A woman should be told she cant play baseball, because the minute you do says she can, somewhere, softball will be ruined for girls. Unless...they make a mens division for softball too, which I doubt will ever happen, because I have never met a boy who wanted to play softball. Somewhere, however, this will occur, because if you open up the mens team to women, you have to open up the womens team to men.

:disbelief: :crazy :shrug:

It has NOTHING to do with specific sports. It has to do with ANY sport... including baseball.

So, "letting" women play baseball will ruin girls' softball... how? I've never heard something so funny and ridiculous in my life!!!!!!!!!!

If there is no male who wants to play softball, what would it matter if there are no boys' softball leagues? Furthermore, there are PLENTY of women and girls who want to play baseball. Your position holds no clout at all.

I don't even know what else to say to this... except for, as JP said, I'm speechless! :laugh

What do you think about the fact that, when I get married, I'm NOT going to take my husband's name and rather, I will keep my surname that was given to me at birth?

[MSUlaxer27]

You have said something like, "why should women have their own pro leagues... because women will never be as good as men in sports, particularly in pro sports." It relates in every way. Why should women have their own pro leagues if they can't support themselves, and why should they get paid the same as men?

So, if MLB DID decide to subsidize a women's pro baseball league, would you have problem with it, and would you stop going to MLB men's game because you aren't interested in watching women play?

As a matter of fact, there is a women's semi-pro baseball league called the ,North American Women's Baseball League which financially supports the women who play in it by paying thier expenses. As I understand it, the players aren't paid but the coaches are. The league provides support and help for players who want to play in it during the summer (by finding housing, jobs, etc. for players), including international players. I think it's a great program and opportunity and is a great model league. I would do it if I was still in college and didn't have a full time job (they offered me the opportunity).

So, I guess we could say this league is subsidized by the people and companies who support it, because the league isn't making money from its attendance and memorabilia sales to support itself. In your eyes, this league should not exist JUST because it doesn't support itself.

Actually, I never said women shouldn't have their own pro leagues. I said why should women expect subsidies. The fact that there is a subsidized league, congrats! Not going to affect my MLB watching habits in anyway. And again I never mentioned pay. And it is my opinion that at best a women's professional league would be equal in skill level to Single A ball. Again, I didn't say it shouldn't exist, but who will pay to watch it? In the end in order to be a "professional" you have to be able to support yourself by playing the sport. I don't think that would be the case with a women's pro league...Just my opinion.

If a womens league exists great. Play ball. I never said that they shouldn't exist. I think we have a lot of other problems that we should be subsidizing solutions for. Sports "equity" is the least of our problems.

And again I'm not the one who said there are a few women, now, who could make the MLB as a pitcher or shortstop. "Posted by jeepingbaseball: Do I think any such women today capable of being in the MLB? Maybe 1 or 2 as pitchers or short stops." I don't agree. The shortstop is generally the best athlete on the field.

And if women's baseball means so much to you (I don't know your personal situation, maybe you have student loans to pay off, so I'm not trying to be mean) and they made you an offer, well play ball.

If you asked a recent male college grad who played baseball if he wanted to go to Single A(short season, whatever) 9 out of 10 would jump at the chance just to keep the dream alive. Maybe we're dumb that way. Maybe we're built that way. I don't know.

[Utility07]

Again I am purely talking about women playing on the mens team. Somewhere, there will be nine big strong boys that decide they want to play softball just to be different. And it will all go down in court.

If girls want to play and have their own high school team, I believe it will ultimately fail due to lack of interest. I doubt the ability of every school to get enough girls to have a squad. You cant really just have a few schools, and have it be competitive.

[NotAboutEgo]

And if women's baseball means so much to you (I don't know your personal situation, maybe you have student loans to pay off, so I'm not trying to be mean) and they made you an offer, well play ball.

If you asked a recent male college grad who played baseball if he wanted to go to Single A(short season, whatever) 9 out of 10 would jump at the chance just to keep the dream alive. Maybe we're dumb that way. Maybe we're built that way. I don't know.

As I said, I have a full time career which pays me very well along with giving me outstanding benefits, so to give up that career would be quite foolish. If women's baseball could provide me the same thing or better in terms of pay and benefits, then I would jump at the opportunity in less than a second. I love what I do for my career and I love the company I work in, but I love playing baseball even more. It comes down to the difference of paying my bills and enjoying life and luxuries and giving that up to play women's baseball on the East Coast for a summer and having a great experience doing it. Like I said, if I was still in college and wasn't in the situation I'm in now, I would jump at the opportunity to go to the East Coast in the summer to play in the NAWBL.

In response to your comment about a recent male college grad jumping at the opportunity to play baseball at the Single A level, recent female college grads who play baseball would jump at that opportunity as well.

[NotAboutEgo]

Again I am purely talking about women playing on the mens team. Somewhere, there will be nine big strong boys that decide they want to play softball just to be different. And it will all go down in court.

If girls want to play and have their own high school team, I believe it will ultimately fail due to lack of interest. I doubt the ability of every school to get enough girls to have a squad. You cant really just have a few schools, and have it be competitive.

You said women should be told they shouldn't play baseball because it would ruin girls' softball. How does that have to do only with women playing on men's teams, and how can you justify it? How would it ruin girls' softball?

You may have doubts as to whether women's baseball will happen and would survive, but you know nothing about the things that are happening. There is no doubt there would be enough numbers of women interested in playing to sustain high school leagues.

[Utility07]

I have plenty of doubt, but well have to agree to disagree.

If a group of boys, not talking about boys that got cut from baseball, but boys who could easily start, decided they wanted to play softball, it would go to court. I guarantee it.

Then the boys would be allowed to play, ruining ti for girls, or girls would also be barred from mens highschool baseball.

[digglahhh]

Most people arent gonna go pay to see tennis, or boxing, aor gymnastics.

This is just categorically and empirically untrue. High level boxing and tennis command ticket prices that are beyond that of baseball by orders of magnitude. I can't speak on gymnastics other than to offer the piece of anecdotal data that the Utah gymnastics team has their meets in the same center in which they have their basketball games, and they draw just fine, over ten thousand spectators regularly.

If girls want to play and have their own high school team, I believe it will ultimately fail due to lack of interest. I doubt the ability of every school to get enough girls to have a squad. You cant really just have a few schools, and have it be competitive.

This is a valid point, which is why there is a social element to this argument. The precondition to women's baseball as a sustainable institution on any level is a player pool. That's why the first steps have to involve crumbling the stigma and opening opportunities. A women's professional baseball league isn't a decree, it is a plan or a goal.

[digglahhh]

Actually, I never said women shouldn't have their own pro leagues. I said why should women expect subsidies


Yes. I am aware of that. I don't think MLB should have to subsidize it either, although, it might be a nice gesture to do so even on a smaller scale.

I don't think the women here are opposed to having to "build" a league, nor do I believe they are seeking handouts.

If you look over the thread, the most common themes coming from the women are opportunity, acceptance and resources.