Girl on my HS baseball team [Archive]

NotAboutEgo

04-27-2007, 06:31 AM

If she has really good hitting mechanics but simply missed the ball because of timing, then she just needs to adjust to the timing. I've had that happen to me before... after hitting off an Iron Mike for a long time and with the speed of the ball (factoring in the speed of the machine and the distance of the machine to the plate... which was closer than 60' 6") around 80 mph, I wasn't able to hit slower pitches for a short period of time. I started my motion too soon, and then either missed the ball or hit the ball weakly because of being thrown off by starting too soon. For a good hitter and athlete, it takes a short amount of time to adjust. I'm sure she'll do fine. If her mechanics are better than some of the guys' mechanics, then perhaps that's what the coach/coaches were considering when they chose her. If she's a great hitter and player, she will have no problem adjusting.

It's funny how the ones who don't make the team because of having less skill are the ones who like to run their mouths more. Like BBall Mum said, they need to pick up their game rather than shooting their mouths off. Oddly enough, the guys who are good and who made the team didn't say much at all about a girl being on the team.

It's cool that you coach/coached baseball, BBall Mum.

Utility07

04-27-2007, 07:44 AM

I know this is off topic...but you just had tryouts? When does school let out for canadians?

Richmond Hill Phoenix

04-27-2007, 12:43 PM

Williamsburg2599

04-27-2007, 02:31 PM

The whole season is played in May. We're not allowed (by the town) on the diamonds until May 1st, because they want the grass to start growing for a while first.

HS Baseball isn't as intense up here as it is down south, but it's still good baseball.

Same here in New England, although we started about 2 weeks ago, but some schools in the south start in early Feb.

Padday

04-27-2007, 04:22 PM

Ther's a girl on our team who's definitely one of the better players. No one has any objections, but that's probably because no one else will play catcher. She's just one of the team.

Good luck to your team RHP.

Utility07

04-27-2007, 05:01 PM

heh, your the guy who said he couldnt find cups in his area...no wonder a girl is catching!:dance

Padday

04-27-2007, 05:46 PM

heh, your the guy who said he couldnt find cups in his area...no wonder a girl is catching!:dance
Exactly.:laugh

captlid

04-27-2007, 05:59 PM

So that's the reason I was asked if I dont mind catching when I was 16. :p

Erik Bedard

04-28-2007, 06:27 AM

There was a girl on my middle school baseball team. She wasn't very good in games, but she did well in practice. She started one game at catcher because our starting catcher was sick and our backup didn't know he'd be catching, so he forgot his cup.

Anyway, it's typical for guys with lesser skills to make fun of a girl on their team. I saw it in my rec league the other day. We were playing a team that had a girl on it, and people were... well, not really making fun of her, but making jokes at her expense. Then she made a backhand stop of a ball going down the line at third and threw one of our guys out by two steps. The jokes stopped.

metrotheme

04-29-2007, 12:35 PM

BigStellyPADRES4LIFE

04-29-2007, 11:00 PM

Man this reminds me of when i was in high school a girl played football on my HS team.

NotAboutEgo

04-30-2007, 06:31 AM

Title IX protects girls often in that situation. It is VERY difficult for a coach to cut a girl when they try out for a boys team unless they have very measurable standards as to why she was cut. If the parent starts to claim gender discrimination or can prove a lesser skilled boy was taken, very often the girl will be put on the team so that the school district avoids a lawsuit.

This is a tough position for a coach, but if the girl can play I'm all for it. I grew up playing with a few girls, we didn't think much of it, but that was little league. Usually most girls are pushed towards softball in the middle / high school years, but there are a rare few that enjoy baseball more than softball.

There are a rare "few" who enjoy baseball more than softball? Are you basing this on opinion or on fact? I find it contradictory that people say that girls are pushed into softball when they reach high school, yet people say girls enjoy softball more than baseball. Is it really that they enjoy softball more, or are they just going with the flow and switching to softball, because that's all, for the most part, that their schools offer them, and since the status quo still keeps saying softball is for girls and girls like it better than baseball, that's what they end up playing? If baseball was offered to girls in high school and in college like it is offered to boys, do you think they'd say "$@%$#%@ softball... I'm playing baseball"? I'd bet on it that most girls would play baseball.

It's quite ironic, then, that I've had a poll on my women's baseball team's web site (it's been there for at least 2 years) asking whether females prefer baseball or softball and asking if they were given the chance to play baseball while growing up, would they play it with softball or instead of softball.

At this present time, here are the results:

Question 1...
"If given a choice, do women prefer to play baseball or softball?"
153 responses for baseball (71%)
63 responses for softball (29%)

Question 2...
"For females only: If you would have had the chance to play baseball as a little girl, would you have played it instead of softball or along with softball?"
127 responses for playing baseball instead of softball (60%)
85 responses for playing baseball with softball (40%)

For Question 1, we can see that the majority is for baseball. For Question 2, the results are closer to being even, but "baseball only" still wins out.

This isn't a highly scientific poll, since I don't know who the respondents are, but every computer/IP address can respond to this poll ONLY once, so that means the same person can't keep going back to sway the poll.

I love how people keep saying women prefer softball over baseball, yet the facts don't point to that. Only opinions do, and only the politics of softball vs. baseball do.

My team's poll can be found here http://eteamz.active.com/detroitdanger/index.cfm?

People need to get out of their "women prefer softball" and "softball is for females" fog. It's gotten to the point of being ridiculous... especially since plenty of guys play slow pitch softball all over the place, there may still be coed/men's fast pitch leagues out there, and the numbers of girls and women who play baseball are steadily on the rise.

Utility07

04-30-2007, 11:59 AM

Not only is it not scientific, its beyond biased, its on a girls baseball site.

It would be like if they put a poll :" Is wearing fur right?" on the PETA site.

NotAboutEgo

04-30-2007, 12:11 PM

Not only is it not scientific, its beyond biased, its on a girls baseball site.

It would be like if they put a poll :" Is wearing fur right?" on the PETA site.

It's only biased if only female baseball players are responding to the poll. No one has any way of knowing who's responding. I have a hard time believing only females who are already playing baseball are responding. It's more than likely a mix of softball players, baseball players, and athletes and some non-athletes. We've had guys' baseball teams and other sports team, people from the military, people from several other countries, etc. write to us because they somehow found us on the web for whatever reason. Baseball players aren't the only ones who frequent baseball sites. People other than female baseball players are going to our site as well. It's a bit different than an animal advocate group's web site.

My knowledge of many females choosing baseball over softball has to do with working in women's baseball for almost 10 years. Through the experiences of doing clinics, charity events, other baseball-related etc., one finds out the truth.

digglahhh

04-30-2007, 01:17 PM

Not only is it not scientific, its beyond biased, its on a girls baseball site.

It would be like if they put a poll :" Is wearing fur right?" on the PETA site.

Unfortunately, NAE, I have to agree.

That's not to say that there isn't substantial interest in womens/girls baseball or that many females who play softball wouldn't relish the opportunity to play baseball instead, just your site probably does attract women who are interested in playing baseball. The ideal sample would probably be athletic females in general, like taking surveys at local gyms or something. Of course, you would have to account for the fact that many of those who are inexperienced might opt for softball solely because they assume it would be easier, but perhaps would rather play baseball in the long run.

captlid

04-30-2007, 03:39 PM

Unfortunately, NAE, I have to agree.

Of course, you would have to account for the fact that many of those who are inexperienced might opt for softball solely because they assume it would be easier, but perhaps would rather play baseball in the long run.

That was actually the exact problem that I had trying to recruit softball players. They percieve baseball as being much harder than softball. Even the women who played fastpitch as young girls told me that.

NotAboutEgo

04-30-2007, 05:16 PM

Unfortunately, NAE, I have to agree.

That's not to say that there isn't substantial interest in womens/girls baseball or that many females who play softball wouldn't relish the opportunity to play baseball instead, just your site probably does attract women who are interested in playing baseball. The ideal sample would probably be athletic females in general, like taking surveys at local gyms or something. Of course, you would have to account for the fact that many of those who are inexperienced might opt for softball solely because they assume it would be easier, but perhaps would rather play baseball in the long run.

IMO, it's not biased... unless... like I said... all the respondents are already playing baseball. If female ball players, whether they play/have played baseball, softball (fast or slow pitch), or a combination, are the ones responding, and the majority are saying they choose to play baseball over softball even if they have never played baseball before, how is that biased? That's the whole point of the poll... to see which one female ballplayers choose.

If women who aren't into playing sports for whatever reason respond, their choices and answers are still valid, but the whole point is to see which one female ballplayers choose. I highly doubt it's only baseball players who are responding. There are a lot of women out there who choose baseball over softball but who aren't playing it for many different reasons... one being that tey think it's too difficult... like Digglahhh and Captlid stated.

A lot of people are afraid to fail, and if they think something is tougher than what they're used to or is too tough, they won't even try it. We hear so many women who've played some flavor of softball saying they'd like to play baseball but aren't sure if they would be able to do it... so a lot don't even try it. Most of the time, you can talk them into giving it a try to see if they like it. And, most of the time, they are very easily able to play once they allow themselves to give it a try.

A lot of it is also about changing the status quo so women aren't so intimidated by the thought of trying baseball.

captlid

04-30-2007, 05:48 PM

A lot of it is also about changing the status quo so women aren't so intimidated by the thought of trying baseball.

What status quo? The perception that baseball is harder to play? How should we go about doing that?

IMHO there are not enough female role models for women and girls to look up to in regards to playing baseball. How many people know about the women of the AAGPBL or the Colarado Silver Bullets, or even that Ila Borders played professionally in an independant league?

Also have noticed that alot of female players come with friends. When guys play baseball they will happily play it with perfect strangers. Girls on the other hand won't do that unless they are really interested in the activity.

Utility07

04-30-2007, 06:33 PM

Its on a womens baseball site. Most of the people looking at it are gonna be female baseball players, or someone related, or someone already looking into womens baseball. To claim otherwise makes ZERO sense.:disbelief:

NotAboutEgo

04-30-2007, 09:27 PM

What status quo? The perception that baseball is harder to play? How should we go about doing that?

IMHO there are not enough female role models for women and girls to look up to in regards to playing baseball. How many people know about the women of the AAGPBL or the Colarado Silver Bullets, or even that Ila Borders played professionally in an independant league?

Also have noticed that alot of female players come with friends. When guys play baseball they will happily play it with perfect strangers. Girls on the other hand won't do that unless they are really interested in the activity.

No, I was speaking of the status quo mindset that says women play softball. Because of it, a lot of women play it and don't think about playing baseball, and some may think it's too hard to play because of being told that softball is for girls and because of their perception that baseball is harder. Once the stereotype of women playing softball only is leveled, I think more girls and women will try baseball without giving it a second thought.

I agree that there aren't enough female baseball players who are role models for girls and women. The part about women going to baseball tryouts/games/workouts has to do with social conditioning, IMO. Females are taught to do things in groups while guys are taught to be independent, strong, and manly. Women go to the restroom in groups, like it's a social thing. If guys did that, they would be accused of being gay. It's accepted for women to do it but not for guys to do it. It's the same with baseball and other sports.

It's strange how things can work in one area but not in others. About 2 months ago, my women's team had 4 women on the roster (we didn't play last summer, so we are rebuilding the roster this summer). Now, we have 10 women, and we haven't done any recruiting. All has been done through word-of-mouth and from women finding our web site. All have played softball before and want to play baseball. We have officially started a women's rec. level league in Detroit but haven't done anything in the way of recruiting. Play in that league will start in 2008. with 2 women's teams in Detroit already, we should have plenty of players for the league next summer.

MarinersFan51

04-30-2007, 11:42 PM

one time i pitched agaisnt a girl in HS ball, and she battled me for 14 pitches before she bled a single over the first basemens head, i was pretty chapped at the time, she had some good mechanics and a great 2 strike swing. i didnt hear the end of it from the guys on my team for awhile though hahaha.

digglahhh

05-01-2007, 07:40 AM

IMO, it's not biased... unless... like I said... all the respondents are already playing baseball.

So, are you saying that if the same poll was taken on a women's softball website, you'd expect the same responses?

The responses themselves aren't biased (I mean there are ways of limiting bias in responses by tweaking wording and methodology, but that's not what were concerned with here). The conclusions drawn from them are inferences though. If you don't know who the respondents are, then you can't make any inferences. Your only conclusion is "among the people who responded to the poll..." If you want to make a more specific claim about who those people are, you have to get demographic info about them.

NotAboutEgo

05-01-2007, 08:36 AM

So, are you saying that if the same poll was taken on a women's softball website, you'd expect the same responses?

The responses themselves aren't biased (I mean there are ways of limiting bias in responses by tweaking wording and methodology, but that's not what were concerned with here). The conclusions drawn from them are inferences though. If you don't know who the respondents are, then you can't make any inferences. Your only conclusion is "among the people who responded to the poll..." If you want to make a more specific claim about who those people are, you have to get demographic info about them.

That's true and also applies to the fact that no one knows who's responding, so we don't know if only or mostly female baseball players are responding. Perhaps many of them are in fact softball players who haven't played baseball before. It doesn't mean that they are solely baseball players just because it's a women's baseball site. What if a lot of female baseball players went to a softball site that had the same kind of poll asking the same kinds of questions? My point was, just because more women play softball, it doesn't meant that women prefer softball over baseball and that's why they're playing it. It's what they've been pushed to play for almost 100 years. It's about the opportunities that exist for each one and what one chooses to play based on that and other factors.

Through my experiences of recruiting in the past (at coed and women's softball leagues), most women say they would rather play baseball because it's more competitive and is what they're interested in. They say they are only playing softball because they thought it's the only thing available to them. They also state they'd rather play in women's leagues rather than playing coed all the time. Most softball leagues in this areas are coed.

People keep saying women prefer softball over baseball just because more women are playing softball right now thatn they are playing baseball. It's simply because that's what's available to girls and women from little league up to college so that's what they play.

For those who don't know some of the history of women's baseball and the history of women's softball, women have been playing organized hardball longer than they've been playing organized softball. The first historical account of women playing organized baseball in the U.S. dates back to 1866 at Vassar College. Softball wasn't invented until 1887... and it was invented by a guy as a form of indoor baseball and was played by men in the beginning. According to a women's sport timeline at http://www.northnet.org/stlawrenceaauw/timeline.htm, the first women's softball team wasn't formed until 1895. Women have been told, since the first time they started playing organized baseball, that it isn't ladylike for them to play and it's a man's game.

How many women would be playing baseball today if they were given equal opportunities and that choice of playing baseball, softball, or both from the get-go?

NotAboutEgo

05-01-2007, 08:39 AM

So, are you saying that if the same poll was taken on a women's softball website, you'd expect the same responses?

The responses themselves aren't biased (I mean there are ways of limiting bias in responses by tweaking wording and methodology, but that's not what were concerned with here). The conclusions drawn from them are inferences though. If you don't know who the respondents are, then you can't make any inferences. Your only conclusion is "among the people who responded to the poll..." If you want to make a more specific claim about who those people are, you have to get demographic info about them.

That's true and also applies to the fact that no one knows who's responding, so we don't know if only or mostly female baseball players are responding. Perhaps many of them are in fact softball players who haven't played baseball before. Perhaps some or most don't play any form of ball... who knows. It doesn't mean that they are solely baseball players just because it's a women's baseball site.

What if a lot of female baseball players went to a softball site that had the same kind of poll asking the same kinds of questions? The results could be similar. My point was, just because more women play softball, it doesn't meant that women prefer softball over baseball and that's why they're playing it. That could be the case with some women, but it may not be with others. It's what women have been pushed to play for around 100 years. It's about the opportunities that exist for each one and what one chooses to play based on that and other factors.... such as harassment, stereotypes, time, money, opportunities, status quo, control of other people, skill level, perceptions, etc.

Through my experiences of recruiting in the past (at coed and women's softball leagues), most women say they would rather play baseball because it's more competitive and is what they're interested in. They say they are only playing softball because they thought it's the only thing available to them. They also state they'd rather play in women's leagues rather than playing coed all the time. Most softball leagues in this areas are coed.

People keep saying women prefer softball over baseball just because more women are playing softball right now thatn they are playing baseball. It's simply because that's what's available to girls and women from little league up to college so that's what they play.

For those who don't know some of the history of women's baseball and the history of women's softball, women have been playing organized hardball longer than they've been playing organized softball. The first historical account of women playing organized baseball in the U.S. dates back to 1866 at Vassar College. Softball wasn't invented until 1887... and it was invented by a guy as a form of indoor baseball and was played by men in the beginning. According to a women's sport timeline at http://www.northnet.org/stlawrenceaauw/timeline.htm, the first women's softball team wasn't formed until 1895. Women have been told, since the first time they started playing organized baseball, that it isn't ladylike for them to play and it's a man's game.

How many women would be playing baseball today if they were given equal opportunities and that choice of playing baseball, softball, or both from the get-go?

digglahhh

05-01-2007, 09:14 AM

My point was, just because more women play softball, it doesn't meant that women prefer softball over baseball and that's why they're playing it.

I agree. I'm just stating that the poll on your site doesn't "prove" it, per se.

Utility07

05-01-2007, 09:48 AM

It doesn't even come close. It would be like if whitesox.com had a poll: Do you prefer the sox, cubs or both. Of course the majority are going to say sox, some will say both, and few will say cubs.

You arent keeping track of the demographic, and the place in which the poll is being taken makes the poll completely biased.

MSUlaxer27

05-04-2007, 03:34 AM

How many women would be playing baseball today if they were given equal opportunities and that choice of playing baseball, softball, or both from the get-go?

Still less than men and less then their representative slice of the population. More men than women will always play sports. Men are more competitive and will always try to find a productive (and sometimes destructive, not so good) outlet for this. There was a survey taken...men were competitive against all others (men or women) while women were only competitive against other women. You want a wet blanket for a husband/boyfriend...keep telling us that there's no difference between men and women...or maybe you dream of Harrison Bergeron? Just in case you don't get the reference:http://instruct.westvalley.edu/lafave/hb.html

All are created equally, all are are not created equal. Please stop feeding us the line that women can compete athletically with men.

digglahhh

05-04-2007, 08:43 AM

All are created equally, all are are not created equal. Please stop feeding us the line that women can compete athletically with men.

NOBODY IS ASKING FOR WOMEN TO COMPETE WITH MEN!!!

Are you people that stubborn, or just illiterate?

CuriousBoston

05-04-2007, 10:08 AM

"More men than women will always play sports."

When did women start competing in the biathalon? When did women start competing in dogsled races? Basketball? Ice Hockey? Rollerblade competition? Being a jockey instead of riding sidesaddle? My mother was never offered archery as a sport. I was never offered ice hockey.

Women were not allowed to vote. Now there is a female third in line for the Presidency. Society changes.

The history of female astronaunts is amazing. The powers that be, aka, closed minds, tried to keep them on the ground.

The ratio in Congress is not yet close to 50-50. Are you implying it will NEVER be 50-50?

Please let me know how you can foretell the future.

My definition of a wet blanket: a mind closed to new experiences.

Please note: I used non sport examples to demonstrate how society has changed, and how it many change in the future. Society is not frozen. Humans change their minds, humans learn new things. OOPS! Make that SOME humans.

dl4060

05-04-2007, 11:49 AM

It's only biased if only female baseball players are responding to the poll. No one has any way of knowing who's responding. I have a hard time believing only females who are already playing baseball are responding. It's more than likely a mix of softball players, baseball players, and athletes and some non-athletes. We've had guys' baseball teams and other sports team, people from the military, people from several other countries, etc. write to us because they somehow found us on the web for whatever reason. Baseball players aren't the only ones who frequent baseball sites. People other than female baseball players are going to our site as well. It's a bit different than an animal advocate group's web site.

My knowledge of many females choosing baseball over softball has to do with working in women's baseball for almost 10 years. Through the experiences of doing clinics, charity events, other baseball-related etc., one finds out the truth.

I think it's pretty hard too justify a claim that most of the people responding to the pole are not female baseball players. If you can find the information out, then come back, it will carry far more weight. In all likelihood, the vast majority of people who visit the site are female baseball players. Until you get some science to your pole I would expect people to take what you say with a grain of salt. You may be correct, but I don't think you are looking at this issue from a neutral position. It's very clear you have strong personal feelings here, your words would hold more weight if they came from an outside source. It would not shock me if what you say is true, I far prefer baseball over softball so it would not surprise me if women did as well.

I don't see how it is all that different from an animal rights website, people who oppose them visit those sites too. PETA gets a ton of hate mail on their site. Do you have statistical evidence that more non-female baseball players visit your site than non-animal rights types visiting those websites?

"one finds out the truth."

This is a pretty bold statement. You are working with women who prefer baseball. If you survey 20,000 high school female softball players and find similar results that will hold more weight. If the vast majority of those players do prefer softball that would not invalidate any of your claims, as there would be biases involved.

As to the issue at hand, if the girl is good enough to play, good for her. If not, she should have been cut.

dl4060

05-04-2007, 12:21 PM

"More men than women will always play sports."

Women were not allowed to vote. Now there is a female third in line for the Presidency. Society changes.

The history of female astronaunts is amazing. The powers that be, aka, closed minds, tried to keep them on the ground.

The ratio in Congress is not yet close to 50-50. Are you implying it will NEVER be 50-50?

Please let me know how you can foretell the future.

My definition of a wet blanket: a mind closed to new experiences.

Please note: I used non sport examples to demonstrate how society has changed, and how it many change in the future. Society is not frozen. Humans change their minds, humans learn new things. OOPS! Make that SOME humans.

I don't see how that statement could be used to imply the ratio in Congress will never be 50-50. The poster was talking about sports and you put words in his mouth. It's pretty irrational and it destroys your credibility. You should have more dignity than that.

It is very likely that men always will be more interested in sports than women. Men have certain advantages which are physiological, the fastest person in the world will never be female, neither will the strongest.

As barriers in society are broken down, more and more men stay at home with children, while women go off to work. I still find it very unlikely that we will ever be in a situation where the typical family will consist of the woman working and the man staying at home with the kids. While these types of families are likely to become common in the future, they still will not be the majority. The crumbling of barriers is wonderful, and it is happening all over. In Socal or New York a man can walk into an upscale salon and not be called gay(not sure about the rest of the country). Women are common in gyms now, and not just on the cardio machines. Despite all of this, there are fundamental differences in men and women which are unlikely to change. In psychological studies, women shown pictures of infants tend to have pupil dilation, while men do not. There are still traits far more common in men than women, and vice versa. That is not likely to change any time soon.

While it is possible that more women will play sports than men in the future, it is still very unlikely. The poster should not have used the word always, but it is very likely that he will be correct.

CuriousBoston

05-04-2007, 05:15 PM

I don't see how that statement could be used to imply the ratio in Congress will never be 50-50. The poster was talking about sports and you put words in his mouth. It's pretty irrational and it destroys your credibility. You should have more dignity than that.

It is very likely that men always will be more interested in sports than women. Men have certain advantages which are physiological, the fastest person in the world will never be female, neither will the strongest.

As barriers in society are broken down, more and more men stay at home with children, while women go off to work. I still find it very unlikely that we will ever be in a situation where the typical family will consist of the woman working and the man staying at home with the kids. While these types of families are likely to become common in the future, they still will not be the majority. The crumbling of barriers is wonderful, and it is happening all over. In Socal or New York a man can walk into an upscale salon and not be called gay(not sure about the rest of the country). Women are common in gyms now, and not just on the cardio machines. Despite all of this, there are fundamental differences in men and women which are unlikely to change. In psychological studies, women shown pictures of infants tend to have pupil dilation, while men do not. There are still traits far more common in men than women, and vice versa. That is not likely to change any time soon.

While it is possible that more women will play sports than men in the future, it is still very unlikely. The poster should not have used the word always, but it is very likely that he will be correct.

Please specify exactly what was "pretty irrational". I stated I was using non-sports examples to demonstrate how society has changed. I was listing examples. I was not putting words in his mouth.

That is not irrational. My credibility is not destroyed. I was not stating he said that that the ratio in Congress will never be 50-50. There was a question mark. I was asking a question. I was using Congress as an example.

I did not state that there would be more women than men playing sports in the future. I questioned his use of the word never. Don't put words in my mouth, that's pretty irrational, it makes you lose credibility. You should have more dignity than that.

What on earth does the mother child bond have to do with women in Congress, women playing sports? I hope you are not implying that the number of females playing sports, involved in politics, is not going to increase? Please note the question mark!

You chided me for using non-sports examples, then you did the same thing, using the mother child bond.

My point was SOCIETY CHANGES. The psycological and physiological differences between the genders have not prevented society from changing. It will not prevent more females from being involved in sports, and more kinds of sports. Being stronger or faster has no relevance. It is certainly possible, in the future for more women than men to be involved in sports. 50-50? More? I don't know.

You attacked my rationality, my credibility, my dignity.

I believe you did not read my post carefully enough. After you read it carefully, perhaps you would be willing to PM me to discuss my rationality, credibility, and dignity.

NotAboutEgo

05-04-2007, 06:35 PM

Please specify exactly what was "pretty irrational". I stated I was using non-sports examples to demonstrate how society has changed. I was listing examples. I was not putting words in his mouth.

That is not irrational. My credibility is not destroyed. I was not stating he said that that the ratio in Congress will never be 50-50. There was a question mark. I was asking a question. I was using Congress as an example.

I did not state that there would be more women than men playing sports in the future. I questioned his use of the word never. Don't put words in my mouth, that's pretty irrational, it makes you lose credibility. You should have more dignity than that.

What on earth does the mother child bond have to do with women in Congress, women playing sports? I hope you are not implying that the number of females playing sports, involved in politics, is not going to increase? Please note the question mark!

You chided me for using non-sports examples, then you did the same thing, using the mother child bond.

My point was SOCIETY CHANGES. The psycological and physiological differences between the genders have not prevented society from changing. It will not prevent more females from being involved in sports, and more kinds of sports. Being stronger or faster has no relevance. It is certainly possible, in the future for more women than men to be involved in sports. 50-50? More? I don't know.

You attacked my rationality, my credibility, my dignity.

I believe you did not read my post carefully enough. After you read it carefully, perhaps you would be willing to PM me to discuss my rationality, credibility, and dignity.

You go, girl... my thoughts exactly!!! :applaud:

NotAboutEgo

05-04-2007, 08:18 PM

I don't see how that statement could be used to imply the ratio in Congress will never be 50-50. The poster was talking about sports and you put words in his mouth. It's pretty irrational and it destroys your credibility. You should have more dignity than that.

It is very likely that men always will be more interested in sports than women. Men have certain advantages which are physiological, the fastest person in the world will never be female, neither will the strongest.

As barriers in society are broken down, more and more men stay at home with children, while women go off to work. I still find it very unlikely that we will ever be in a situation where the typical family will consist of the woman working and the man staying at home with the kids. While these types of families are likely to become common in the future, they still will not be the majority. The crumbling of barriers is wonderful, and it is happening all over. In Socal or New York a man can walk into an upscale salon and not be called gay(not sure about the rest of the country). Women are common in gyms now, and not just on the cardio machines. Despite all of this, there are fundamental differences in men and women which are unlikely to change. In psychological studies, women shown pictures of infants tend to have pupil dilation, while men do not. There are still traits far more common in men than women, and vice versa. That is not likely to change any time soon.

While it is possible that more women will play sports than men in the future, it is still very unlikely. The poster should not have used the word always, but it is very likely that he will be correct.

If a man refuses to stay home with his children... when his family can afford for only one of the parents to work... it's because most men are too macho and their egos can't handle their wives making the money while they stay home with the kids.

Strength and size differences between men and women, as CuriousBoston has already stated, have absolutely nothing to do with who is secure enough to do what. Security, and a lack of security, have to do with the strength of the mind... not strength and size of the physical body. It has to do with the mind and the character of the person.

When those who don't realize that start to realize that, many stereotypes and discrimination will be broken down... for both women and men.

Women are NOT soft of the mind just because they, in general, are smaller and not as physically strong as men. Women are socially conditioned to open up to their emotions, to feel them, to realize them, and to process them. Men, however, are taught to be macho, tough, strong, manly, etc., and they are taught that opening up to their emotions, feeling them, realizing them, and processing them makes them weak and that makes them too feminine or even gay.

Why do you think men are so much more reactive than women? It's because of how they are taught to bottle up their emotions. Without processing emotions, one can't possible be able to handle them.

Who is it that started to condition women and men the way they are conditioned? It would be interesting to figure that out. It has to stem from men, since they are the ones who put pressur on themselves to be manly and macho and not sensitive. Men are the ones who have kept women under their thumbs for so long (not all men have done this, but men as a whole have done this) telling them how inferior they are to men. Their is a ton of historical evidence on this.

It's so ironic... the ones who try to act the toughest and the most macho are actually the ones who are the weakest of mind and the most insecure.

Most of the differences (differences in thought processes) that people see between men and women are nothing but bullsh*t. It's social conditioning at it's best. I see the root cause of social conditioning as insecurity. Insecurity leads to other emotions like fear, jealousy, greed, hatred, nervousness, selfishness, control, angst, negativity, being disrespectful, etc.

When people wake up and start to realize this and stop making bullsh*t excuses for the way things are... for how women and men differ in the way they think (which is nothing but social conditioning)... how size and strength have something to do with how women think and how men think (which is bullsh*t)... things will change.

NotAboutEgo

05-04-2007, 08:20 PM

Furthermore, having an interest in something has NOTHING to do with physiological anything... period. Different people have different interests in different things... because they are different.

dw8man

05-09-2007, 11:18 AM

If a man refuses to stay home with his children... when his family can afford for only one of the parents to work... it's because most men are too macho and their egos can't handle their wives making the money while they stay home with the kids.

Strength and size differences between men and women, as CuriousBoston has already stated, have absolutely nothing to do with who is secure enough to do what. Security, and a lack of security, have to do with the strength of the mind... not strength and size of the physical body. It has to do with the mind and the character of the person.

When those who don't realize that start to realize that, many stereotypes and discrimination will be broken down... for both women and men.

Women are NOT soft of the mind just because they, in general, are smaller and not as physically strong as men. Women are socially conditioned to open up to their emotions, to feel them, to realize them, and to process them. Men, however, are taught to be macho, tough, strong, manly, etc., and they are taught that opening up to their emotions, feeling them, realizing them, and processing them makes them weak and that makes them too feminine or even gay.

Why do you think men are so much more reactive than women? It's because of how they are taught to bottle up their emotions. Without processing emotions, one can't possible be able to handle them.

Who is it that started to condition women and men the way they are conditioned? It would be interesting to figure that out. It has to stem from men, since they are the ones who put pressur on themselves to be manly and macho and not sensitive. Men are the ones who have kept women under their thumbs for so long (not all men have done this, but men as a whole have done this) telling them how inferior they are to men. Their is a ton of historical evidence on this.

It's so ironic... the ones who try to act the toughest and the most macho are actually the ones who are the weakest of mind and the most insecure.

Most of the differences (differences in thought processes) that people see between men and women are nothing but bullsh*t. It's social conditioning at it's best. I see the root cause of social conditioning as insecurity. Insecurity leads to other emotions like fear, jealousy, greed, hatred, nervousness, selfishness, control, angst, negativity, being disrespectful, etc.

When people wake up and start to realize this and stop making bullsh*t excuses for the way things are... for how women and men differ in the way they think (which is nothing but social conditioning)... how size and strength have something to do with how women think and how men think (which is bullsh*t)... things will change.

Ego, I don't think this is your best post. I really enjoy reading the topics in this section but get a little tired of hearing the man bashing. I can point out specifics but I think it is very obvious in this last post.

I would really like to hear, without blaming men, why is it so unbelievable and wrong that woman might not be as interested in sports to the level of men? I would think that because of chemicals like testosterone and estrogen, which, I believe, are different on the whole in men and women, the level of aggression and competitiveness between the men and women would not be the same. From that logic, I would think that the desire to do certain things would also be impacted.

digglahhh

05-09-2007, 12:57 PM

I would really like to hear, without blaming men, why is it so unbelievable and wrong that woman might not be as interested in sports to the level of men? I would think that because of chemicals like testosterone and estrogen, which, I believe, are different on the whole in men and women, the level of aggression and competitiveness between the men and women would not be the same. From that logic, I would think that the desire to do certain things would also be impacted.

I'm not any sort of expert in biochemistry, the endocrine system or anything like that, so let me get that out of the way.

I would, however, state that women are plenty competitive in their own right. The competitive drive is not something that seems to be linked to a particular sex, at least in any way profound enough to explain the difference in participation in athletics. To start to explain the disparity, I would suggest we look toward the way men and women are conditioned to channel their competitive drive.

dw8man

05-09-2007, 01:09 PM

I'm not any sort of expert in biochemistry, the endocrine system or anything like that, so let me get that out of the way.

I would, however, state that women are plenty competitive in their own right. The competitive drive is not something that seems to be linked to a particular sex, at least in any way profound enough to explain the difference in participation in athletics. To start to explain the disparity, I would suggest we look toward the way men and women are conditioned to channel their competitive drive.

I like that idea. I would like to ask why you think the way we channel our competitive drive is conditioned. Are you saying there are not biological reasons for the way we channel it? Just asking, I really have no idea myself but am thinking about it..........

digglahhh

05-09-2007, 03:39 PM

I like that idea. I would like to ask why you think the way we channel our competitive drive is conditioned. Are you saying there are not biological reasons for the way we channel it? Just asking, I really have no idea myself but am thinking about it..........

I'm not saying that there are no biological reasons. Like I said, I can't really speak to that. What I am saying is that biologically and in terms of genomes and the like, men and women differ in very tiny ways. We are two versions of the exact same species. Something that is orders of magnitude more similar than different can only account for so much of our differences.

On the other hand, my education is in social theory and I can say that without question society pushes boys and girls to channel their competitive energies into different outlets, they are taught to prioritize different things, where you focus your energy the natural outgrowth of your priorities.

Sports aren't considered to be important validators of self-worth to a girl, so she is not terribly likely to direct her energy there.

I don't complete rule out any sort of biological reasons, but I would hypothesize that, in terms of their impact, they are far less responsible for these differences than our socialization. That is to say that were a complete 180 degree shift to occur in our social norms, we could swap gender identities.

Dodgerfan1

05-09-2007, 03:57 PM

Once, in high school, when I was finished practicing on the varsity team, I was wandering past the JV practice field and there was a girl playing. I had to do a double-take I remember, because it was the mid-'70s and lots of guys had long hair and I wasn't sure it was a girl but, yep, it was a girl. I had never seen her around school before and every once in a while I watched her when a play came her way. She was horrible. She couldn't catch a thing and had no arm, either. I actually felt sorry for her. No one was putting her down or making fun of her, at least, so that was good. In fact, the guys were all very encouraging and kept trying to buck her up, as she was getting discouraged, we could tell. I never did get to see her bat. Who knows, maybe she could mash!

NotAboutEgo

05-10-2007, 08:08 AM

Ego, I don't think this is your best post. I really enjoy reading the topics in this section but get a little tired of hearing the man bashing. I can point out specifics but I think it is very obvious in this last post.

I would really like to hear, without blaming men, why is it so unbelievable and wrong that woman might not be as interested in sports to the level of men? I would think that because of chemicals like testosterone and estrogen, which, I believe, are different on the whole in men and women, the level of aggression and competitiveness between the men and women would not be the same. From that logic, I would think that the desire to do certain things would also be impacted.

I wasn't bashing men. I was replying to what someone else said about more men becoming stay-at-home-dads but not that many... which is a fact. My point is, if a guy (or a woman) refuses to be a stay at home parent when it would be the best situation for the family, it usually has to do with insecurity. Let's face it... men are less apt to be stay-at-home-parents than women are and it's less accepted by society... and why is that?

When we talk about women wanting to play sports and baseball and having equal opportunities, it has NOTHING to do with which gender has MORE interest or MORE talent or MORE skill or MORE power. Why does almost every discussion end up being a contest on here???????????????????????

We have been talking about women and girls getting the opportunities to play baseball when they want to and not being told they can't and not being harassed when they choose to play. If there are enough women and girls out there who want to play, they should have the opportunity... PERIOD. And, if a girl or a woman is good enough to play on a team of all or mostly males when there's no other opportunity in her area to play on girls'/women's teams, she should be able to. What does ANY of that have to do with whether women or men have more interest in sports?????????

On top of that, there are a LOT of girls and women out there who enjoy playing sports, watching sports, or both. That is what matters... not whether more women or more men want to play sports.

And, it is historically proven that men have had the most to do with women not playing sports in the past. It's not a blame (blame is unjustifiably pointing the finger at someone)... it's a cause and effect... a reason... that is proven. It's the link that affects why women are still fighting for equal baseball and other sports opportunities today. I'm a woman who has played sports her whole life, and I have experienced it, and so have many of my teammates... regardless of what sport it has to do with. It doesn't happen in every league in every sport everytime... but it still does happen a lot. The whole point of bringing it up is that is has been the biggest influence on women's sports. When we talk about girls and women having the same opportunities that they strive to have, there are many things that get in the way... including the gender issues. If there was no interest at all, then it wouldn't matter... but that's not the case at all and should be obvious to everyone.

When are you people going to get it?????? It totally baffles me. :shrug:

NotAboutEgo

05-10-2007, 08:33 AM

I like that idea. I would like to ask why you think the way we channel our competitive drive is conditioned. Are you saying there are not biological reasons for the way we channel it? Just asking, I really have no idea myself but am thinking about it..........

Do you think males naturally started liking dark colors and females naturally started liking light/soft colors? It's not a natural characteristic determined by gender. Rather, it's due to social conditioning of our society, and products are marketed toward that. Gender doesn't determine what one will like. Social conditioning determines that (along with other environmental influences and natural passions which aren't determined by gender), and it's based on who controls the social conditioning. What does society think if a man says he likes gardening as a hobby? Why are different forms of dance a huge part of cultures in Latin countries, African countries, and other countries, but it's not so much a part of American culture (I'm not talking about clubbing, either)?

My sister and I (we are the only children in our immediate family) grew up playing with dolls, stuffed animals, cars, trucks, tractors, matchbox cars and tracks, Leggos, sports, etc. Our parents never told us we had to play with one or the other because of our gender. They never placed any kinds of limits on us. We played with what we played with because it was fun for us.

It's no different with sports. Do you really believe less women liked sports 100 years ago as compared to how many women like sports today? How many do you think were held back from playing because of the standards of society due to social conditioning?

There's a cause and affect for everything. If less women are into sports today, it has every bit to do with social conditioning and not so much with natural interests. It still doesn't mean if women are interested in playing sports, they shouldn't be given the same opportunities.

NotAboutEgo

05-10-2007, 09:05 AM

TG Coach

05-10-2007, 10:14 AM

Why are baby boys clothed in light blue and baby girls clothed in pink? Why are babies boys clothed in outfits with sports images on them, and why baby girls are clothed in outfits with flowers and frilly things on them? Does anyone think babies know and choose? Does anyone think they even care? I think they are more concerned with adjusting to their new environment and growing through experience... along with breathing and eating, of course.

The social conditioning starts at the time of birth for people... and probably even before that... while in the womb.

My daughter was raised with all the flowers, frillies and pink outfits. She played with dolls and stuffed animals. Sports were always on in our house. She never watched a game or touched a bat until she was seven when I suggested she try softball since some of her friends were playing. Her only exposure to anything athletic before seven was the playground. How do you explain her being a college softball player and having the opportunity to run track had she chosen to. How do you explain her going from dollies, frillies and pink stuff to most of her friends being jocks and jockettes in high school? We didn't change her environment. We only introduced her to one sport and she chose to play more, earning eleven varsity letters in four sports.

NotAboutEgo

05-10-2007, 10:59 AM

My daughter was raised with all the flowers, frillies and pink outfits. She played with dolls and stuffed animals. Sports were always on in our house. She never watched a game or touched a bat until she was seven when I suggested she try softball since some of her friends were playing. Her only exposure to anything athletic before seven was the playground. How do you explain her being a college softball player and having the opportunity to run track had she chosen to. How do you explain her going from dollies, frillies and pink stuff to most of her friends being jocks and jockettes in high school? We didn't change her environment. We only introduced her to one sport and she chose to play more, earning eleven varsity letters in four sports.

Like I stated, interests come from natural passions as well and aren't dictated by gender. She's an athlete by nature and was exposed to softball (influence from her environment), and her choice to play softball was influenced by those. What if you would have told her sports aren't for girls and she shouldn't play any sports at all? Would she have stayed with what you told her, or would her natural athletic interests and her character have influenced her more?

Social conditioning is about control. Simply exposing someone to something, as long as it's just exposing the idea to them to see where their interests and talents lie, without forcing it on them is fine and should happen. If your daughter was told from the time she could understand language that she has to play softball and has no choice and then played because of that, that would be social conditioning. If she was simply exposed to it and decided that's what she likes, then it was her choice. Obviously, she is a natural athlete because of the success she's had. Things like that usually come out during a person's life in the form of passions. Whether a person takes up on their passions is influenced by their character, environmental influences, and social conditioning. Their character will determine whether they listen to the social conditioning and fall prey to it or whether they do what they want to do no matter what society says.

In this case, it sounds like her natural interest in sports influenced her more... since she was exposed to only softball but chose to play more sports. In the case of how my sister and I was raised, if our parents would have told us we coupldn't play sports, I know I would have rebelled against it as much as I could have, because I am an athlete by nature, and that's one of my passions in life. For my sister, she played some sports and enjoyed them, but being an athlete isn't one of her passions, so I don't think she would have rebelled if our parents would have said we couldn't play anything. She would have said something like, "Oh, well." For others in that type of situation, they may be afraid of going against what their parents tell them, so being told they can't play would inhibit them from playing.

Some people aren't able to overcome social conditioning and the influence of their parents and their environment. Not all people want to go against what they are told. That's what happens when people become oppressed... like in slavery, abuse, the Holocaust, etc. There is a very real link between oppression and social conditioning and effect... hence, cause and effect.

From the beginning of recorded time, women have had to fight to be able to play sports and for it to be accepted by society. Women weren't allowed to play in the ancient Olympics in for some time, so many female athletes started their own version of the Olympics. This is just one example of what has happened. Women still aren't allowed to compete in ski jumping in the Olympics, despite the fact that they compete in it all the time on the international level. Why?

NotAboutEgo

05-10-2007, 11:04 AM

My daughter was raised with all the flowers, frillies and pink outfits. She played with dolls and stuffed animals. Sports were always on in our house. She never watched a game or touched a bat until she was seven when I suggested she try softball since some of her friends were playing. Her only exposure to anything athletic before seven was the playground. How do you explain her being a college softball player and having the opportunity to run track had she chosen to. How do you explain her going from dollies, frillies and pink stuff to most of her friends being jocks and jockettes in high school? We didn't change her environment. We only introduced her to one sport and she chose to play more, earning eleven varsity letters in four sports.

Like I stated, interests come from natural passions as well but aren't dictated by gender. She's an athlete by nature and was exposed to softball (influence from her environment), and her choice to play softball was influenced by those. What if you would have told her sports aren't for girls and she shouldn't play any sports at all? Would she have stayed with what you told her, or would her natural athletic interests and her character have influenced her more? What if you would have exposed her to soccer instead... would she have played softball at all?

Social conditioning is about control. Simply exposing someone to something, as long as it's just exposing the idea to them to see where their interests and talents lie, without forcing it on them is fine and should happen. If your daughter was told from the time she could understand language that she has to play softball and has no choice and then played because of that, that would be an example of influences from social conditioning/control. If she was simply exposed to it and decided that's what she likes, then it was her choice. Obviously, she is a natural athlete because of the success she's had. Things like that usually come out during a person's life in the form of passions. Whether a person takes up on their passions is influenced by their character, environmental influences, and social conditioning. Their character will determine whether they listen to the social conditioning and fall prey to it or whether they do what they want to do no matter what society says. In a case where one hasn't been exposed to much of the social conditioning... usually when their parents haven't placed limits on them and haven't controlled them... their minds are less limited and they may not be as influenced by social conditioning.

In this case, it sounds like your daughter's natural interest in sports influenced her more... since she was exposed to only softball but chose to play more sports. In the case of how my sister and I were raised, if our parents would have told us we couldn't play sports, I know I would have rebelled against it as much as I could have, because I am an athlete by nature, and that's one of my passions in life. For my sister, she played some sports and enjoyed them, but being an athlete isn't one of her passions, so I don't think she would have rebelled if our parents would have said we couldn't play anything. She would have said something like, "Oh, well. I don't care." For others in that type of situation, they may be afraid of going against what their parents tell them and what society tells them, so being told they can't play might inhibit them from playing.

Some people aren't able to overcome social conditioning and the influence of their parents and their environment. Not all people want to go against what they are told. That's what happens when people become oppressed... like in slavery, abuse, the Holocaust, etc. There is a very real link between oppression and social conditioning and effect... hence, cause and effect.

From the beginning of recorded time, women have had to fight to be able to play sports and for it to be accepted by society. Women weren't allowed to play in the ancient Olympics for some time, so many female athletes started their own version of the Olympics. This is just one example of what has happened. Women still aren't allowed to compete in ski jumping in the Olympics, despite the fact that they compete in it on the international level. Why?

TG Coach

05-10-2007, 11:57 AM

What if you would have told her sports aren't for girls and she shouldn't play any sports at all? Would she have stayed with what you told her, or would her natural athletic interests and her character have influenced her more?

What if I rolled my eyes and groaned when she quit basketball to run indoor track? I did. She ran track anyway. She was already on the varsity basketball team the previous year. I sent her to speed camp for softball. She liked it too much. I hate track. It's boring. I sat through two years of track meets.

NotAboutEgo

05-10-2007, 12:14 PM

What if I rolled my eyes and groaned when she quit basketball to run indoor track? I did. She ran track anyway. She was already on the varsity basketball team the previous year. I sent her to speed camp for softball. She liked it too much. I hate track. It's boring. I sat through two years of track meets.

It's her choice and her life. Maybe for you, watching track is boring, but for her, she enjoyed it, and that's what's important. She chose what she wanted to do.

Children are supposed to be taught and guided and exposed to things as learning experiences rather than being controlled by people. That happens too often with parents in relation to their children. Parents are supposed to guide their children, teach them, and be mentors. It's about each person and what they want to do in life, not about what someone else wants them to do. No one has the right to tell anyone else what they can and can't do if there aren't legitimate reasons... like a lack of finances, lack of time, etc. That's where conflict happens and that snowballs into so much more.

digglahhh

05-10-2007, 06:50 PM

Why are baby boys clothed in light blue and baby girls clothed in pink?

Ah... but why is pink for girls and blue for boys? Why do the colors mean anything at all?

In these types of discussions it is often difficult to identify the horse and the cart.

Utility07

05-10-2007, 07:21 PM

It's her choice and her life. Maybe for you, watching track is boring.

Nope, sorry, watching track is boring for everyone.

NotAboutEgo

05-10-2007, 10:35 PM

Ah... but why is pink for girls and blue for boys? Why do the colors mean anything at all?

In these types of discussions it is often difficult to identify the horse and the cart.

To me, they mean nothing at all except for representing stereotypes. It's another way of separating people into categories. Who knows where it orginated, but I still find it ridiculous.

NotAboutEgo

05-10-2007, 10:37 PM

Nope, sorry, watching track is boring for everyone.

Really? I enjoy watching track and field events along with just about any other sport. One should only speak for themself. Also, it's up to the person playing to decide what they want to do. Just because it's boring for others to watch doesn't mean they should stop playing/participating.

TG Coach

05-10-2007, 10:45 PM

It's her choice and her life. Maybe for you, watching track is boring, but for her, she enjoyed it, and that's what's important. She chose what she wanted to do.

Children are supposed to be taught and guided and exposed to things as learning experiences rather than being controlled by people. That happens too often with parents in relation to their children. Parents are supposed to guide their children, teach them, and be mentors. It's about each person and what they want to do in life, not about what someone else wants them to do. No one has the right to tell anyone else what they can and can't do if there aren't legitimate reasons... like a lack of finances, lack of time, etc. That's where conflict happens and that snowballs into so much more.

My point conflicts with what you're espousing. I coach basketball. My daughter played basketball. She was never introduced to track other than speed camp. You talk about influences. The influence was basketball. I believe people are far more open to what they want as to what they're exposed to than you think.

NotAboutEgo

05-11-2007, 06:45 AM

My point conflicts with what you're espousing. I coach basketball. My daughter played basketball. She was never introduced to track other than speed camp. You talk about influences. The influence was basketball. I believe people are far more open to what they want as to what they're exposed to than you think.

I understand what you're saying. When someone is exposed to something rather than being forced to do something or being held back from something, it's different. If you simply exposed her to basketball by coaching it and talking about it and by her being around it and all that, you left the choice up to her. Also, people react differently in situations. Your daughter ended up choosing track over basketball, even though she was exposed to basketball a lot. She went with her own interests. Some people wouldn't do that and would stick solely with what they're exposed to. This is very different from being told you can't do something and being held back from it, though.

When someone is held back from doing things, by being told they can't do it because it's not something they should do and because society doesn't accept it, it's very different than exposing someone to a sport and leaving the choice up to them. If you were to tell your duaghter she couldn't have played basketball, would she have tried it anyway, or would she have not played it at all?

Not being allowed to play baseball and other sports and not having programs provided to you (based solely on gender) that are provided to other people is a lot different than someone choosing one sport over another, when they were introduced only to the first sport. If people/parents aren't forcing someone to do something and are letting them make thier own decisions about what they do, it's fine and that's the way it should be. However, forcing someone to do something and inhibiting someone from doing something, just because the person/people in control don't want them to do it and have no justifiable reason for it, it's wrong.

Gender doesn't determine what one chooses; rather, other things decide that.

NotAboutEgo

05-21-2007, 09:34 AM

I found this in a Women's Sports Foundation article on women's baseball. It's interesting how some people think hardly any women play baseball in high school. The numbers aren't great, but there are far more women playing than most assume.

"During the 2004-2005 school year 1,015 girls played baseball on high school teams in the U.S. (National Federation of State High School Associations, 2006)."

http://www.womenssportsfoundation.org/cgi-bin/iowa/issues/part/article.html?record=704

hot_corner_gurl

05-21-2007, 09:41 AM

I play baseball for my HS team...and I'm the only girl doing so in the district.

NotAboutEgo

05-21-2007, 10:47 AM

Being that there are just a little over 1,000 in the nation, they would be dispersed. Hopefully, the numbers will climb more soon.

hot_corner_gurl

05-21-2007, 04:27 PM

I've got a couple of friends thinking about playing next year, and my cousins play for their HS team in Arizona...but even still, 1015 girls in the entire US? That's crazy.

Baseball Mum

05-21-2007, 11:47 PM

I've got a couple of friends thinking about playing next year, and my cousins play for their HS team in Arizona...but even still, 1015 girls in the entire US? That's crazy.

A little over 1000 in your whole country? I think we'd have somewhat over 1000 in our country, and our national popultation is the same as NY state. Just recently we had 100 high school girls in a tournament comprising teams from two cities (our HS are yr 7 - 12) and most of those girls play in their school teams back at school. There aren't many of them in each team or even each district, but they are there. Our district has 2 - 3 girls playing in each division of the comp. (Mind you, some of them are my daughters and the others are in my team ;-)

It is out there and it is happening. Go girls!!!!!!!

hot_corner_gurl

05-22-2007, 10:28 PM

Wow...that's insane. Just goes to show you how much they promote women and men doing things separately over here. I'm still waiting until the day that a woman make a major league debut...

Utility07

05-23-2007, 09:01 AM

Heh, you'll be waiting a looong time.

hot_corner_gurl

05-23-2007, 11:05 AM

Heh, you'll be waiting a looong time.

Don't worry. I figured that out a long time ago. :grouchy

adamsowell

05-25-2007, 12:58 PM

Anyone remember the girl that was a lefthanded pitcher in the minors? I believe she made it as high as triple A. Anyone know her name?

captlid

05-25-2007, 02:14 PM

Anyone remember the girl that was a lefthanded pitcher in the minors? I believe she made it as high as triple A. Anyone know her name?

That was Ila Borders, I believe she played in the Indy leagues, one that was about the level of double A.

TG Coach

05-25-2007, 02:44 PM

That was Ila Borders, I believe she played in the Indy leagues, one that was about the level of double A.

Indy ball is not equal to AA. Indy is the absolute bottom of minor league baseball. The lowest level of affiliated ball is Rookie A. Then there's A and Advanced A before AA. Indy teams are not affiliated with major league franchises. The players were either never drafted or failed and cut at the affiliated level and trying to stay in the game.

Indy teams will do a lot of stuff for promotion since they struggle attendance wise. The Saint Paul Saints were the biggest gimmick promoters when Bill Veeck Jr owned the team. Guess who Ila Borders got her start with? She lasted parts of two seasons. Her career ERA was pathetic. It was 7.53 in fourteen innings before being cut her first season. It was 8.66 in forty-four innings the second year.

She was brought back by a third team her third season and had a 30.86 ERA. She went to a fourth team where she succeeded as a three inning starter. I'll guess one time through the order she had hitters on their front foot. She had a 1.67 ERA for thirty-five innings.

The next season she was passed onto another team as a side show and had a 8.31 ERA before being cut. Borders was used as a freak show publicity attendance stunt. Step right up folks and see the lady pitcher.

Her fastball was in the mid to upper 70's That's the average (not max) speed of 14U elite travel baseball. If she was a guy he never would have been signed by the Indy League unless he had a third eye in the middle of his forehead. The woman was passed around the league as an attendance getting publicity stunt. Is that want feminists want?

captlid

05-25-2007, 03:38 PM

TG Coach

05-25-2007, 05:09 PM

I am aware of her career numbers, they are unfortunately not pretty. I am not sure what the feminists want and frankly don't care.

Have never personally seen the Northern League in action, (thats where Ila played) Also not surprised that she would be used to get butts in the seats. At least she got an opportunity to go as far as her skills (or lack of) could take her.

On another note, where in the world are 13 and 14 year olds throwing low 80's as a max velocity from a 60 foot mound? And is this velocity measured out of hand or when the ball crosses the plate?

Here's the statement you're rsponding to: Her fastball was in the mid to upper 70's That's the average (not max) speed of 14U elite travel baseball.

Did you miss the phrase "elite travel"? All the pitchers on my son's 14U team are in the upper 70's. My son is the slow one in the mid 70's. He's also the smallest pitcher right now. Our fastest hits 80 on a regular basis. The best pitchers we saw in a recent tournament to go to the 14U Elite 24 were in the low 80's. These kids should all pitch in high school if they have the mentally ability to handle the challenge. But even high school is light years from Indy ball.

TG Coach

05-25-2007, 05:12 PM

At least she got an opportunity to go as far as her skills (or lack of) could take her.

I disagree. She wouldn't have gone that far if she was a guy so it wasn't just about her ability. She got there as a promotion gimmick.

hot_corner_gurl

05-27-2007, 11:51 AM

Anyone remember the girl that was a lefthanded pitcher in the minors? I believe she made it as high as triple A. Anyone know her name?

Jackie Mitchell. Pitched in Chattanooga. Struck out the Babe and the Iron Horse back-to-back.

Postblank

05-28-2007, 01:32 AM

Heh, you'll be waiting a looong time.
It'd be hard for a woman to make it as a position player unless she was hands-down one of the best in her state. But I don't think it's unreasonable for a woman to make it to the major league level as a pitcher. My cousin is a decorated high school soccer player, and she's like 5'10." I'd love to train her how to pitch, she's got great focus, composure and pure athletic ability.

Even if she barely broke 80mph, I'm convinced she'd be a great control pitcher. One time I imagined her on the Tigers coming in behind two innings of Joel Zumaya relief work and knocking the opposing team off balance for two innings rather than bring in that scab Todd Jones.

TG Coach

05-28-2007, 06:49 AM

It'd be hard for a woman to make it as a position player unless she was hands-down one of the best in her state. But I don't think it's unreasonable for a woman to make it to the major league level as a pitcher. My cousin is a decorated high school soccer player, and she's like 5'10." I'd love to train her how to pitch, she's got great focus, composure and pure athletic ability.

Even if she barely broke 80mph, I'm convinced she'd be a great control pitcher. One time I imagined her on the Tigers coming in behind two innings of Joel Zumaya relief work and knocking the opposing team off balance for two innings rather than bring in that scab Todd Jones.

D3 college pitchers throw at least 80mph. No pitcher is going to get signed by a MLB organization without bringing it in the upper 80's, and that's slow for a prospect. Guys who puss it up to the plate successfully like Jamie Moyer came into the league throwing in the upper 80's. The experience he gained in the majors allows him to get away with the speed he has now.

When a pitcher can only throw 80 in high school but has control and breaking stuff, a good high school team sits on the breaking stuff and hammers the fastball up the middle and the other way because it's not fast enough to get by them. Imagine what a MLB team would do to it. Actually there's a name for it ... batting practice.

Add: MLB pitchers are almost always over six feet unless they're bringing it 90+. It's common for minor league managers to not file nightly reports on pitchers under 6'1" unless they throw 90.

tearforamariner

05-28-2007, 03:52 PM

D3 college pitchers throw at least 80mph. No pitcher is going to get signed by a MLB organization without bringing it in the upper 80's, and that's slow for a prospect. Guys who puss it up to the plate successfully like Jamie Moyer came into the league throwing in the upper 80's. The experience he gained in the majors allows him to get away with the speed he has now.

When a pitcher can only throw 80 in high school but has control and breaking stuff, a good high school team sits on the breaking stuff and hammers the fastball up the middle and the other way because it's not fast enough to get by them. Imagine what a MLB team would do to it. Actually there's a name for it ... batting practice.

Add: MLB pitchers are almost always over six feet unless they're bringing it 90+. It's common for minor league managers to not file nightly reports on pitchers under 6'1" unless they throw 90.

I've read scouting reports about Moyer coming out of college saying his top speed was 85-86.

Anyway, I'd like to see this thread back on track. Geoff, are there any updates you'd like to share with us?

captlid

05-28-2007, 09:31 PM

I'll let you guys know how it progresses, and how some of the other guys respond to it. Personally, I think she can play so I'm fine with it.

High school season is going to be over soon, how is the young lady doing so far? Both in terms of playing and meshing with the team.

steve R

05-28-2007, 11:31 PM

Hi guys,

Don't mind girls playing sports but don't complain when they take your scholarships. At some colleges they have to go out and find women to fill scholarships spots so they will not lose them. Sports like crew etc. Mens scholarships are going down will women are going up! Just wanted you to see your equal opportunity from both sides. How many women will go on to be pro crew people or whatever while men who had a real chance at going pro are left out. Not saying it's wrong just want you to go forward with open eyes.

Thanks :twocents: :twocents: :twocents:

digglahhh

05-29-2007, 08:15 AM

How many women will go on to be pro crew people or whatever while men who had a real chance at going pro are left out. Not saying it's wrong just want you to go forward with open eyes.

You think that there are a sizable amount of college age males with legitimate shots at being pro athletes who aren't able to find scholarships? Better yet, what percentage of college athletes go on the be pro athletes period?

digglahhh

05-29-2007, 08:25 AM

D3 college pitchers throw at least 80mph. No pitcher is going to get signed by a MLB organization without bringing it in the upper 80's, and that's slow for a prospect. Guys who puss it up to the plate successfully like Jamie Moyer came into the league throwing in the upper 80's. The experience he gained in the majors allows him to get away with the speed he has now.

Yeah, Moyer's "pussed" his way to an MLB record of 221-169. Who's that other weakling who also "pusses" it up there, Glavine or something like that. I heard he's "pussing" his way up to Cooperstown. Remember Game 5 of the ALDS in 1999, when Pedro came on in relief and no-hit Cleveland for 6 innings after the Tribe put up 8 in the first three frames? Yeah, no hits, 8 Ks against a team that scored over 1,000 runs during the season. You know how many pitches he threw over 90 mph? Zero!

NotAboutEgo

05-29-2007, 08:34 AM

digglahhh

05-29-2007, 08:40 AM

It seems that most (the average) MLB pitcher throws in the low 90's, some consistently throw 95+, and some throw in the high 80's. If there are so many high school guys and 14 year old travel players throwing in the 80's already, where are they after college? Seems to me that if they are that good at 14, they'd be able to throw 95+ easily when they get to MLB. I caught (in practice) for a kid who was in high school and who was throwing in the 80's (I think he was 15 at the time). He was working with former Tiger Dan Petry, and he and others were talking about how good he was at his age. It seems like a 14 year old who can throw in the 80's is more of a rarity than it is common.

They burn out. Many of them burn out because of the way they are pushed at a young age by shortsighted, insecure, and immature coaches who think that the kiddy-ball they play is at all important. 14 year olds who throw in the low 80's are not common, period. I don't care if you, personally, see a boatload of them on a regular basis, that does not make them common.

I attended a NYC public high school that is nationally renowned for academics, a whole lot of us put up 1400+ SAT scores, but none of us would be naive enough to call it common.

TG Coach

05-29-2007, 08:52 AM

You think that there are a sizable amount of college age males with legitimate shots at being pro athletes who aren't able to find scholarships? Better yet, what percentage of college athletes go on the be pro athletes period?

Absolutely! A D1 baseball team has to split 11.7 rides among 25-30 players, while Title IX has schools dragging women off the campus sidewalks to fill out rosters and rides. I was infuriated hearing a woman in our community telling people playing D1 sports was no big deal. Her daughter wasn't an athlete in high school and is rowing for her college and getting a partial ride. About 1% of high school baseball players get even partial college rides.

One college a friend's son played at, dropped baseball because they had more men's sports than women's sports. There was no demand for more women's sports so they had to drop a men's sport.

There are valid reasons for Title IX. It wasn't fair when our high school built a new locker room for the boys and gave the old one to the girls without refurbishing it. Title IX forced it being refurbished.

In turn it wasn't fair our high school boys basketball team couldn't take a trip to an invitational basketball tournament on money they raised because the girls did't want to travel for a similar trip. That booster money the boy's team raised had to be split evenly (and spent) with the girl's team.

digglahhh

05-29-2007, 10:02 AM

Absolutely! A D1 baseball team has to split 11.7 rides among 25-30 players, while Title IX has schools dragging women off the campus sidewalks to fill out rosters and rides. I was infuriated hearing a woman in our community telling people playing D1 sports was no big deal. Her daughter wasn't an athlete in high school and is rowing for her college and getting a partial ride. About 1% of high school baseball players get even partial college rides.

Right. And fewer than 1% play pro ball. That's what I was referring to.

One college a friend's son played at, dropped baseball because they had more men's sports than women's sports. There was no demand for more women's sports so they had to drop a men's sport.

That's a shame, I don't know what else to say.

There are valid reasons for Title IX. It wasn't fair when our high school built a new locker room for the boys and gave the old one to the girls without refurbishing it. Title IX forced it being refurbished.

In turn it wasn't fair our high school boys basketball team couldn't take a trip to an invitational basketball tournament on money they raised because the girls did't want to travel for a similar trip. That booster money the boy's team raised had to be split evenly (and spent) with the girl's team.

I wouldn't mind seeing some leeway, especially for extra fund raising by the teams themselves. Perhaps the girls team could have participated in the fund raising too, the boys go to the tourney and the girls use their share for something else. However, I understand the rules are strict to prevent programs from taking advantage, pressuring or using loopholes to get around providing equal opportunity. One may say that the lost baseball team or basketball tourney are the proverbial broken eggs needed to make the omelette.

TG Coach

05-29-2007, 10:39 AM

Yeah, Moyer's "pussed" his way to an MLB record of 221-169. Who's that other weakling who also "pusses" it up there, Glavine or something like that. I heard he's "pussing" his way up to Cooperstown. Remember Game 5 of the ALDS in 1999, when Pedro came on in relief and no-hit Cleveland for 6 innings after the Tribe put up 8 in the first three frames? Yeah, no hits, 8 Ks against a team that scored over 1,000 runs during the season. You know how many pitches he threw over 90 mph? Zero!

As I've stated repeatedly, these guys didn't come into the league pussing it up to the plate. They came in with reasonable velocity, and get away with their current speed due to their acquired savvy and experience. They also came into the league twenty years ago when 90mph wasn't the bar. Pedro threw in the 90's when he first game up in the Dodgers organization. When he got to the Expos, Kerrigan (his pitching coach) took something off his fastball for better movement. Sometimes pitcher's fastballs will straighten out if thrown too hard.

Right handed pitchers don't even get scouted now unless they're throwing a minimum of 88mph. Most are in the 90's. Lefties can get away with a little lower speeds. There's also a difference between max speed and cruising speed. The scouts look at max speed so they can consider once all the pitching variables are developed in the minors, what will the pitcher's cruising speed be. When a pitcher is being scouted he throws two seamers to demonstrate good movement on his fastball. He throws four seamers to demonstate max velocity. Pitchers are told when they know the gun is on them, rear back and throw one pitch as hard as possible. It doesn't matter if it's a strike or not. The scout writes down the highest number he reads.

TG Coach

05-29-2007, 10:47 AM

Right. And fewer than 1% play pro ball. That's what I was referring to.

Wrong! About 20% of D1 college players will be drafted and have an opportunity to play pro ball. In the major conferences it can be 40% of the team. Remember not all the players are juniors (and some seniors). Whether they make it to the majors is another story.

digglahhh

05-29-2007, 10:49 AM

Pitchers are told when they know the gun is on them, rear back and throw one pitch as hard as possible. It doesn't matter if it's a strike or not. The scout writes down the highest number he reads.

Right, and it's debatable how meaningful that number is, especially if it is nowhere near the strike zone. I'm just saying that there is more than one way to skin a cat. I understand what scouts look for nowadays, I'm just unconvinced that it has actually translated to better final products (on the whole) than when mid 90's velocity was seen as less important, as opposed to things like control, movement, endurance, and so forth.

To bring the discussion back to women and sports. Theoretically, we could see a female knuckleballer, I guess, right?

digglahhh

05-29-2007, 10:50 AM

Wrong! About 20% of D1 college players will be drafted and have an opportunity to play pro ball. In the major conferences it can be 40% of the team. Remember not all the players are juniors (and some seniors). Whether they make it to the majors is another story.

I meant 1% of high school players. Less than 1% get college scholarships, and less than 1% play pro ball.

TG Coach

05-29-2007, 10:53 AM

It seems that most (the average) MLB pitcher throws in the low 90's, some consistently throw 95+, and some throw in the high 80's. If there are so many high school guys and 14 year old travel players throwing in the 80's already, where are they after college? Seems to me that if they are that good at 14, they'd be able to throw 95+ easily when they get to MLB. I caught (in practice) for a kid who was in high school and who was throwing in the 80's (I think he was 15 at the time). He was working with former Tiger Dan Petry, and he and others were talking about how good he was at his age. It seems like a 14 year old who can throw in the 80's is more of a rarity than it is common.

Throwing 80 mph at fourteen is no guarantee the kid will throw 90 mph at sixteen or seventeen. Some of the kids are physical early bloomers. Some won't put in the work to reach their potential. Some will decide to focus on another sport in high school and give up baseball. Some will hurt their arms and it will be over.

When you see a 14U team with a bunch of pitchers throwing 78-80+ it's a travel team where they've selected their pitchers from a boundary less area. If you look at a community based team like a BR all-stars or whatever, you may find anywhere from zero to a couple of kids in that range if the team is strong.

TG Coach

05-29-2007, 11:03 AM

They burn out. Many of them burn out because of the way they are pushed at a young age by shortsighted, insecure, and immature coaches who think that the kiddy-ball they play is at all important.

I'd say it's more on the parents who allow it thinking being a 14U stud is important. 14U is important to the extent the high school coach's may be watching and these kids will be in high school next year. But it's not important to the point of risking injury. Most of them still have open growth plates. I see 14U as important "development" year.

14 year olds who throw in the low 80's are not common, period. I don't care if you, personally, see a boatload of them on a regular basis, that does not make them common.

If you see a lot of them you're probably at a select travel tournament. They're a small percentage of the kids their age. My son is the hardest thrower on his middle school team in the mid 70's. That's still bringing it at a decent clip for 14U. He's the slowest pitcher on his travel team. He's also a physical late bloomer and smaller than the other pitchers too.

TG Coach

05-29-2007, 11:10 AM

I meant 1% of high school players. Less than 1% get college scholarships, and less than 1% play pro ball.

Here's a startling number for the parents who think their 10U stud is on the path to stardom. 99.97% of kids who start playing baseball will not earn a living in the game. Only 3/100ths of a percent will.

I saw the exact number on the NCAA site for high school to college baseball the other day. I can't remember what it is. I was looking up something on the NCAA Clearinghouse for a friend. I went through the process with my daughter and college rides two years ago.

digglahhh

05-29-2007, 12:19 PM

I'd say it's more on the parents who allow it thinking being a 14U stud is important. 14U is important to the extent the high school coach's may be watching and these kids will be in high school next year. But it's not important to the point of risking injury. Most of them still have open growth plates. I see 14U as important "development" year.

If you see a lot of them you're probably at a select travel tournament. They're a small percentage of the kids their age. My son is the hardest thrower on his middle school team in the mid 70's. That's still bringing it at a decent clip for 14U. He's the slowest pitcher on his travel team. He's also a physical late bloomer and smaller than the other pitchers too.

Yeah, TG. Just to be clear, although I used the word "you" in my post, I wasn't referring to you. Reading it over, it may have seemed that way, just wanted to be sure about that.

Yeah, at that age kids are at different stages in puberty and such. I was a late bloomer myself. It didn't matter much because I didn't pitch very often. I was a smart ballplayer a smallish SS/2B, who was more of a 1 or 2 hitter than a middle of the order guy, anyway. When I got a little stronger, I got a little giddy because I was able to drive the ball out during normal rec league games. When I played on the travel teams against better quality pitching I couldn't crush the ball consistently enough and my development probably hurt for a while as I was figuring that out. After a while, I went back to my gap hitting, up-the-middle/opposite field style and became an important part of our team again. But, my physical maturation actually was a burden for my game at its onset.

spark240

02-08-2008, 12:23 AM

Indy ball is not equal to AA. Indy is the absolute bottom of minor league baseball.

This is not accurate. The independent leagues are outside the ladder of affiliated ball, not at the bottom of it.

Some indy leagues are better than others; one particular league might vary from year to year. But plenty of indy teams could thrash teams from the lower levels of affiliated ball.

TG Coach

02-08-2008, 11:37 AM

This is not accurate. The independent leagues are outside the ladder of affiliated ball, not at the bottom of it.

Some indy leagues are better than others; one particular league might vary from year to year. But plenty of indy teams could thrash teams from the lower levels of affiliated ball.

Indy teams are the bottom because it's players MLB franchises are not interested. They've either never been drafted or released. Some get resigned but that doesn't change what Indy ball is.

spark240

02-08-2008, 01:38 PM

Indy teams are the bottom because it's players MLB franchises are not interested. They've either never been drafted or released. Some get resigned but that doesn't change what Indy ball is.

The provenance of the players is not relevant. The issue is the quality of the play. Your comments suggested that independent league teams were not as talented as even the lowest ranks of affiliated ball, and that is simply false.

Besides, almost every MLB organization has by now come to the realization that the independent leagues serve a valuable function in catching their own scouts' mistakes. That is, some players were undrafted or released even though they were as talented, or more so, than other players who happened to have been signed or retained in a given season. When they decide to sign such a player from an independent team, MLB organizations do not treat him as if his independent season was spent below the bottom of the affiliated ladder; I've seen players signed from independent leagues go directly to high-A and AA assignments.

If that was all the independent leagues did, this would at least put them on par with, say, the SSA leagues. But independent teams also employ veteran players, often with significant MLB service, whose physical skills may well have gone into decline, but whose refinement and experience substantially elevate the competitive level of their leagues. Don't tell me a team with Rickey Henderson, even at 46, is not as good as a GCL squad of high-school kids!