Gender Equality In Sports

[c-rex]

Okay so this topic is near and dear to me. Now that our hockey team lost its only female player we're catching flack from the femnazis for not having gender equality in recreational equality (sorry ladies, just part of our master plan to keep ya in kitchen, NO RECREATIONAL HOCKEY FOR YOU! How could it possibly fail?). So far the feminazis have failed to understand that not many girls find it enjoyable to play sports that include players such as former linebackers who joined the team "because they never got to play on the football team and just want to hit something." Hell I don't even find that part of it enjoyable. But even so the femnazis want gender equality. So when I found this article about guys using the same logic to get on girls teams I cracked up. Now if you'll excuse me I'm going to try out for the women's varsity hockey team, maybe I can get a varsity letter in hockey. And no I'm not being sexist, they're 0 and 5 against us, so we must be better.


As two Winnipeg sisters find out Tuesday if they've made the boys' hockey team at their high school, their recent human-rights victory has spurred boys to try out for girls' sports teams.

Morris Glimcher, executive director of the Manitoba High Schools Athletic Association, said Tuesday that several requests from boys wanting to play on girls' teams started coming shortly after the ruling was handed down on Friday.

"We've had five requests already from boys saying: 'In the past, we haven't been eligible. But my school doesn't have a boys' team and we have a girls' team and we'd like to play,' " Glimcher said Tuesday.

"Now that the rule has come down, I guess what they're saying [is] if it's gender equity, then let's make it gender equity. And that's the general theme of the calls that I've been getting."

Glimcher said the five requests came from boys who want to play on girls' volleyball, basketball, curling and fastball teams. He said all of the requests so far have been serious requests from boys or their coaches.

'If we get four guys or five guys going out for the [girls'] basketball team, there's four or five females that won't make the team.'
-Morris GlimcherHe described one call "from one young fellow who [was] just very honest, and he said: 'You know what? We're not good enough to make the varsity basketball team. But the girls' basketball … have a smaller ball and we think we could make that team.'

"He said, 'I don't know if we would start but we just love basketball and want to play and we think we could make the girls' team,' " Glimcher said.

On Friday, independent adjudicator Lynne Harrison ruled that twin sisters Amy and Jesse Pasternak, 17, suffered sex discrimination from an MHSAA policy that denied them the opportunity in 2004 to try out for the senior boys' hockey team at West Kildonan Collegiate.

The Pasternak sisters have played hockey since childhood and have been on boys' minor hockey teams outside school before.

The MHSAA's policy required athletes to play on teams of their own gender if teams for both genders exist at a school. In her decision, Harrison said that policy was discriminatory and could not be justified.

Harrison ordered the MHSAA to lift the policy in question, as well as compensate the girls $3,500 each in damages and provide them with coaching to help them prepare for tryouts this month.

The Pasternaks should find out Tuesday if they have indeed made the boys' team.

Glimcher said the requests from boys will be refused until the association holds its next board meeting, likely on Oct. 12. At that time, the organization will review the ruling and consult legal counsel on whether to appeal.

"I say up until now, our rules are going to remain status quo in that they're not eligible," he said.

With the exception of the Pasternaks, Glimcher said the association is waiting until its board meeting to discuss how it will handle cases of other girls wanting to join boys' teams.

"We have to see as a board what we want to do. Our big concern is how this whole thing could affect female participation in sport," he said.

"If we get four guys or five guys going out for the [girls'] basketball team, there's four or five females that won't make the team — and I dare say a bunch of other ones aren't going to compete — and we could end up with some female teams being made up of mostly men.

"We worked very, very hard to promote and build up female participation in sports," Glimcher added.

"Everything that our organization has done … is based gender-equal. And if we all of a sudden get an influx of males participating, it could affect female participation and that would be a travesty."

[Kusoyaro]

I'm not touching this

[Josh]

Fair is fair I suppose... I mean, i'd rather just not play at all if the only choice was the girls team but thats just me.

Gender equality isnt a one way street so bleh. Let them join the girls team if thats what they want. I guarantee they wont join it next year after how much they get picked on though lol.

[Wiss]

I can see the argument being used where there is no equivalent boys team (in my high school that would be volleyball) but the statement where boys wanted to join the women's basketball team is way off base. The question would then come down to would a full women's team consent to play a coed team?

[Rear Admiral Grapefruit]

I don't understand how not being allowed to join a "boys" team is being sexist, why not just form up an alternate mixed team? it's not a boys team if it has girls in it, choosing to build a team of men to play against other teams of men isn't in any way sexist, if i wanted to open a playgroup for kids aged 4-8, then it's my right to say that a 9yr old is too old to join this playgroup, and claiming that it's sexist to not be allowed on a mens team is like complaining it's unfair for me to refuse a 9yr old into the group, it's not designed for them, equal rights BS, there's nothing equal about forcing another person to do as you and other people say. Sexism exists, but more often only in the mind, i'm gonna go complain that i should be allowed to participate in monthly periods because it's totaly unfair that just because i have a penis that i can't join in on the cramp filled fun of monthly bleeding.

But seriously, stupidest statement ever-

two Winnipeg sisters find out Tuesday if they've made the boys' hockey team

I'm not the only one who sees this right? i mean, that's astonishing, i'm guessing these people don't wear normal clothes, they just have velcro pads attached to their skin and have clothes skattered across their stairs so when they fall down the stairs each morning things just stick to them.

In her decision, Harrison said that policy was discriminatory and could not be justified.

How about the justification that a boys team should consist of boys thus making it exactly what it's designed to be, not a mixed team. Harrison is a moron, and that can not be justified.

"Everything that our organization has done … is based gender-equal. And if we all of a sudden get an influx of males participating, it could affect female participation and that would be a travesty."

I'm gonna have a go at rephrasing this sentence.

Everything thing we have done...is because we're sexist bastards. If men start trying to use our own arguement against us, we're screwed, so fuck those bastards, right in the eye.

*yawn* i'm bored.

[Lisa M]

Technically, in New York State, if there is no other-sex equivalent, then the team is automatically co-ed, even if there are only members of one sex on that team.

Now. That does not mean that if a school has girls' track-and-field and not boys' track-and-field that a boy could join track-and-field, because there is a male equivalent, even if the school doesn't have it. Wrestling, football, and field hockey are all coed sports (and, yes, boys on the field hockey teams have to wear the skirts).

Now, a girl can petition to join a boys' varsity sport if she feels that the level of competition offered in the girls' varsity team is inadequate. And while this assumes that competition is more difficult in boys' sports than girls' sports, it also is provisional that you can go into a more difficult sport, but not into an easier one. Which is why boys joining the girls' basketball team is a crock of shit - if there are enough boys that want it, the school should make a JV basketball team, or the boys should work harder in the off-season at improving their skills.

[NERD]

I believe the first requirement for anyone to make a team is that he/she can demonstrate that the individual has the physical ability to participate in the said sport competitively. That would be why there are no female NFL/NHL/MLB/NBA members, because they cannot play well amongst all those male athletes, who also happen to be physically gifted beyond the average.

If a female athlete can play well in an all-male team, I'd say give her a shot. Otherwise, those feminazis can shut up.

[Soli]

If there was a sport I wanted to play, but there was only a guys team at my school, I'd never want to join. o.o Guys are scary and tough.

[Decade]

Alright, the whole thing is just a crock of shit to begin with, not because guys want to join a girls team, but because the whole basic idea of what it is to join a team is being totally ignored:

Whenever anyone tries out for a team, they earn a place on that team for their athletic ability.

Now here's the problem with all this "You can't tell me I can't play just because I'm a boy/girl!" argument: It ignores that point.

Just because you're a girl doesn't give you a right to play on a boys hockey team anymore than being a boy does: it's your athletic ability that should be what earns you a spot. Likewise, being a boy does not earn you a position on a girls sports team just cause you're a boy.

If these schools REALLY want to have seperate or gender specific teams for a sport, they will either have to keep to this rule or agree to have just ONE team for the sport in the school that plays all the games of a particular bracket.

And who would play on that ONE team? Whoever the top students with that athletic ability are in that school, regardless of them being boys or girls. It doesn't matter if the team is all boys or all girls, or if there's only ONE boy or ONE girl on a schools sports team, they're there because they're obviously the best of the students who tried out for those teams in their schools, and THAT'S why any student should make or not make a team and has generally been a reason why students have all along.

Seriously, the whole argument on co-ed sports teams could be nullified if people could JUST recognize that God damn point :duh: :bang:

[Lisa M]

Exactly, Decade.

When I was on the boys' wrestling team (legally a co-ed team, but whatever), I had to qualify just like the boys did. Yes, in wrestling they had to do a few things differently (for instance, I wasn't allowed to weigh in topless unless they had a certain scale that they could put in one room with a readout in another) for, y'know, following the decency laws. But nothing was made easier or harder for me.

[c-rex]

Which is why boys joining the girls' basketball team is a crock of shit - if there are enough boys that want it, the school should make a JV basketball team, or the boys should work harder in the off-season at improving their skills.
Just to play devils advocate why isn't the same true for girls? Why should Title IX and the like force equal ratios of male and females teams and allow for co ed? By the same logic that boys need to go create a team shouldn't any girls that want a team have to work hard in the off season and recruit other girls to create their own team?

Of course maybe I'm just bitter because The femnazis are hassling us via Title IX right now. None of those women could last 10 minutes on the ice with us, yet claims we're sexist, despite our history of letting women who can hang with us on the team.

[PopCulturePooka]

So will the girls get special facilities?
Their own change rooms?

Or will they cry foul if they are expected to use the same facilities as the guys?

[Beowulf]

Girls League.

Boys League.

Mixed League.

Three seperate ones, pick your favorite.

The End.

[Pierrot le Fou]

Life ain't fair on either side of the fence. Women get Merryl Streep, men get beer and pizza. Women get a menstrual cycle, men get women to stop having said cycle. Women go through labor followed by a several month paid vacation, men go through 9 months of their wife's pregnancy, followed by having to work harder to pay the bills.

Rather than get bent out of shape about the differences, embrace them. Or kill off all the people of the opposite gender by becoming a maniacal warlord or evil mad scientist or something.

[tweek.3867]

becoming a maniacal warlord or evil mad scientist or something.
I believe the proper term is feminazi [har har].

To the OP: the whole thing is kind of amusing, really. Honestly I'm trying to hunt for something to say, but really, Scollan kind of summed it up pretty well [granted a bit harsher than I might say it, but the same ideas are there]. I just find it highly ironic that they would put up such a fuss about making sure girls could play on guys teams, but at the same time they block guys from trying out for a girls team. That just plain doesn't make sense. Gender-equality runs in two directions, not one - you can't try to make up for past inequalities by merely creating a new one in the opposite direction. Either you're equal or you're not. Simple concept.

[Roxie]

i'm not sure I understand the issue in the article.

there are guys who want to join the girls teams b/c there are no boy's teams? Is this correct?

[Pierrot le Fou]

In a nutshell:

Girls are prohibited from joining a guy's team (no mention of whether there was a girl's ice hockey team or not in the article), and a judge ruled that it is gender discrimination not to let them try out.

As a result, guys want to try out for girl's teams (those in the article want to either due to the lack of a guy's team, or due to the fact that they aren't good enough for the guy's team, but still want to play).

As far as I can tell from the information in the article, the reverse would also be considered gender discrimination, and therefore guys should be equally entitled to try out for women's teams.

Ridiculousness.

[Nannou]

Only in America.....


*runs*

[Pierrot le Fou]

Winnipeg is in Canada.

[4letterwords]

Women have cooties, thats why they can't play.

If the woman is as good as the guy, I say go for it. Not many women are because we are genetically designed to be (even if its a tiny bit) more physically weak than guys. I hate feminists so much, they're so goddamn hypocritical and annoying... just like PETA and I hate PETA. FUCK I hate everybody. BLADS:JSK:L:HOSLHOSKJ.

[japanat]

The story is saying opposite things (italics inserted by me for emphasis):
1) "We've had five requests already from boys saying: 'In the past, we haven't been eligible. But my school doesn't have a boys' team and we have a girls' team and we'd like to play,' " Glimcher said Tuesday. 2) -Morris GlimcherHe described one call "from one young fellow who [was] just very honest, and he said: 'You know what? We're not good enough to make the varsity basketball team. But the girls' basketball … have a smaller ball and we think we could make that team.'

In case #1, where the school is spending money to provide a sport for only one gender; it is, as the judge ruled in the sisters' case, gender bias. "Screw you, you have/don't have little danglers, so you can't come out to play!"
In case #2, there is no gender bias, because the school already provides teams for both. If he can't make the cut, he should learn to deal with the disappointment sometimes present in real life. It's not like Mommy said: "It's OK, honey, everyone is a champion!"

A whole different ball of wax.

I don't like feminazis, either, (nor the macho-man high school boy athlete, for that matter) but the girls have a point. If only one team is available, then skills only should talk. Let them try out, and if they're good enough, let them play.

That's the situation these young men will be in when they're ready to work. When I managed 200 lifeguards/WSIs in college for a city-wide recreation department, I didn't hire boys/men, and I didn't hire girls/women. I hired the most qualified applicant for the job.

PCP: So will the girls get special facilities?
Their own change rooms? Don't all schools already have separate changing areas? (edit)Except in Japan?

[Kyoushu]

The MHSAA's policy required athletes to play on teams of their own gender if teams for both genders exist at a school. In her decision, Harrison said that policy was discriminatory and could not be justified.

If I'm taking this correctly, this means that the school already has a girls' hockey team, making this whole case bullshit.

[Soli]

The point of playing sports is to have fun! :P

Let whoever join whatever team, if they wish, and their skill level is matched.

[Nebosuke]

Basically, the ruling is that girls can play on a "boy's" team if either a) no equivalent girl's team exists or b) they feel that the level of competition in the girl's league is insufficient. Conversely, if gender equality is the goal, boys should be able to join girl's teams if there is no equivalent boy's team or they feel that the level of competition in the boy's league is too high. In theory, the ruling just turns all high school sports into mixed gender varsity/jv.

Girls could easily get as much playing time if you expanded the traditional varisty/jv mix to something like varsity/jv/junior leagues, or perhaps 4 leagues to mirror the what would previously have been varsity/jv for both boys and girls. The problem with that arrangement is that girls might be intimidated because they'd be ranked directly in relation to everyone, all the way up to the top athletes in the varsity league. Being champion of the girl's varsity basketball league is a bigger self-esteem booster than being champion of the junior league, which, by its nature, is comprised of everyone who couldn't hack the jv--much less varsity--teams.

If the Olympics were organized the same way, Jackie Joyner Kersey and Flo Jo would've just been middling competitors who might not even have made the US olympic track teams, much less become great inspirations for women athletes. It's hard to argue that gender equality would have a positive impact on girl's sports.

Basically, the school district is lying to itself. The specific goal of improving girls' participation in athletics is sexist by nature. They aren't trying for gender equality at all--and that may actually be a good thing, because gender equality is the antithesis of what is needed to meet their stated goals.

[Kass]

Stupid judge. If there is a girls' team, then the sisters should play on it, not the boys team. If there isn't a girls' team, then the sisters should be allowed to try out for the boys' team and play if they are good enough.

Glad it is Canada this time and not the US.

Title IX in the US was never intended to make all male sports teams co-ed. It was never intended to ensure women spots on mens' teams. It was intended to ensure that equal funding and opportunities are available to women. If there is enough of a demand for a sport to field a girls' team and there is already a boys' team, the girls' team has to be funded at an equivalent level.

The reality is that men and women are different physically and there are not a lot of women who can hold their own in a male sport, not for lack of talent or ability, but lack of size and strength. Men, on average, are still significantly taller than women. They are still significantly stronger on average.

Mandating that all teams be co-ed, as this judge essentially did, does not open up opportunities to women. It closes them. On co-ed teams, the deciding factor has to be the ability to help the team win. A talented woman amongst 15 talented men will likely fail to meet the cut on size and strength factors and in that system, that is fair. The biggest, best and strongest make the cut.

In an all co-ed system, women will lose out on opportunities. The few who can compete will get their spots, but the vast number of women who could be stars in an all-girls' league are stuck not playing.

In giving these two girls (who are probably exceptional at what they do) an advantage, the judge has managed to hurt far more girls. Now that all teams have to accept both genders, boys like the ones mentioned here who couldn't cut it in boys' varsity will try out for the girls' teams. Playing with a smaller ball, etc. now gives them yet another advantage along with size and strength. There goes the spots for the girls. Buh-bye. Congrats. They've now got a system that will effectively shut out more girls than it helps.

[c-rex]

As a followup to this, the two girls that sued to get on the team just got cut. I wonder if they'll be able to get on the girls team. They've pretty much insulted the girls team, missed its preseason practice and the like, so the odds of them making it seem slim.

[Anders]

Wait a minute. So these sisters wanted to play on the boys team even though there is a girls team? What the heck is the point in that? I think the boys who tried out for the girls team have the right idea. After all, anti-discrimination laws are supposed to work both ways.

That's one concept that I have difficulty accepting. Title IX, It could be a topic by itself. (If it should be, then would a moderator please split the thread) As Kass said in her post, Title IX is supposed to provide equal funding and programs for athletes of both sexes. Schools across the country have major trouble staying in compliance due to several reasons:

Men's football teams generally have at or above 100 players.
Leagues for women athletes are rare in some areas of the country. - like Rugby is popular on the east coast, but try to find a college rubgy league in the midwest.
Along with the previous point, travel costs to bus/fly teams across the country to compete would soak up nearly the entire sports program budget.


There is a buffer zone of around 5%, but try asking a Division I football coach to cut all but the 23 players needed to play a football game and see what the reaction would be.

I'm not opposed to sex equity. I feel that any athlete deserves the opportunity and funding to play a sport of their choice. What I disagree with is giving one group of athletes an opportunity to play by taking the opportunity away from other athletes. Across the country, schools are under increasing pressure to maintain compliance with Title IX. Boys cross country, hockey, wrestling... these sports are being cut left and right, leaving the athletes with the desire to practice and compete, but without the means to do either. That's why I'm against Title IX.

[Kass]

I do believe Hell just froze over. We actually agree on something. ;)

I think the idea behind Title IX was sound, but its wording and implementation suck. Equal opportunities is not equivalent to equal funding. There will likely never be a huge demand for a women's football team. Colleges shouldn't be pressured to create one and waste money. Nor should they be forced to cut the men's team. What they should be required to do is offer women's sports and fund them adequately. Not equally, adequately.

It doesn't cost as much for a women's field hockey team as it does a football program. Schools should be mandated to adequately fund the field hockey, just like they do football. Instead, they have to create and fund programs that no one cares about and waste money.

[PopCulturePooka]

Question.

Why is football so important in American schools?

Over here all school sport teams are pretty much considered equal, although for high schoolers, there sport team they join only plays on wednesday afternoons in lieu of lessons, and all students must join some team (or do a school based physical activity).

Theres also no real 'coaches' for the team, rather a teacher who volunteers. For example next year as a young male teacher I could very well be the 'coach' of the year 11/12 boys soccer team, even though I don't play soccer.


Don't all schools already have separate changing areas? (edit)Except in Japan?
Australian schools sometimes dont have change rooms full stop.

Kids wear their sport uniform on sport days all day. SPort uniform is usually just a polo shirt in the school colours and like coloured shorts, regardless of the sport (eg girls netballers and rugby boys pretty much have the same outfit, which is a uniform).

[Kass]

Football in the US is like soccer in Europe. It's a big deal. For many kids, football scholarships are the only way they can afford college, so they (and their parents) place a great deal of importance on it.

All coaches are required to be teachers as well, though they get a small stipend for the coaching work in most places. There can also be volunteers, but they have to be assistant coachs.

Schools have physical education classes for kids. At the high school level, their chosen sport can substitute for the PE credit. Kids change at school because some uniforms require equipment that you can't wear all day and you can get pretty ripe working out, then attending classes. It isn't very nice to your classmates to stink. Changing rooms are segregated by gender by law.

[PopCulturePooka]

Football in the US is like soccer in Europe. It's a big deal. For many kids, football scholarships are the only way they can afford college, so they (and their parents) place a great deal of importance on it.Oh god, football (in the form of Rugby, Soccer or Australian Rules Football) is huge here too, and all are played in schools, along with netball, basketball and volleyball. Its a very big deal in Australian culture, and kids love playing it. But it doesn't seem as an integral part of school spirit and running as it is in America. Although colleges dont have teams at all (except privately organised social teams)

All coaches are required to be teachers as well, though they get a small stipend for the coaching work in most places. There can also be volunteers, but they have to be assistant coachs.Interesting. Would most students view them primarily as Coach Brown, foorball coach, or Mr Brown, biology teacher?

It'd definately be the latter here, because, like I said, they aren't usually real coaches, just teachers foisted with extra duties. My supervising teacher last semester was the junior girls soccer coach, and she knew nothing about the rules of soccer or positions. But neither did the girls. They sucked.

Schools have physical education classes for kids. Ditto. At least 40 minutes a week for each year level is usually mandated, as well as Tuesday afternoons for Interschool year 8 and 9's and Wednesday afternoons for Interschool 10, 11 and 12 (I forgot year 10 earlier). From grde 9 up theres also an elective Health and Physical Education unit which offers more depth of study for those into sport.

At the high school level, their chosen sport can substitute for the PE credit.Ah-ha. Credit? Don't get that system. Very rarely offered in Australia besides at uni and some private schools.

Kids change at school because some uniforms require equipment that you can't wear all day and you can get pretty ripe working out, then attending classes. Hence why the team sports days are done in the afternoons. Kids go home straight after. If theys tink its no the schools problem. Some sports do have a jersey I guess, but its usually worn over the top of their uniform shirt (or kids change in the toilets). And washing duty for the jerseys is usually rotational or the teachers duty.

It isn't very nice to your classmates to stink. Lots of Aussie high school classrooms aren't air conditioned. Big political point of contention. After lunch time in summer a grade 10 class can STINK. Not the nicest place to be in.

Changing rooms are segregated by gender by law.If schools have them here (schools that have a swimming pool will have one ajoined) they are obviously segregated.

[Kass]

Since physical education credits are required for graduation, why not allow the sport count? PE is taken every day for about 35-40 minutes in most schools. That's not a lot of activity when you subtract out roll call and such. Sports usually involve 1-2 hours of activity everyday. Frankly, they are working harder for the same amount of credit.

Depending on the sport, they can either work out before school or after. I was on the swim team. I worked out before school. We got to the pool at 6 a.m. and worked out until 8 a.m. Our first period class was PE/Swimming and that was the time we used to shower and get ready for school. You can't exactly show up in class in a dripping wet swimsuit.

The PE classes meet throughout the day. It just has to be done that way. Logistically, it would be impossible to put all the students in PE in the last class of the day. There's no room and not enough teachers.

How students view their teacher/coach probably depends on what role the teacher is in for that student. My biology teacher was also the golf coach. To me he was always the teacher. One of my classmates was on the golf team and always called the teacher "Coach." He behaved toward the teacher just like any other student. The teacher didn't give the kid any slack either. Nothing was different.

Same goes for my French teacher who coached gymnastics.

[PopCulturePooka]

Since physical education credits are required for graduation, why not allow the sport count? But what is the credit system?

To me credit means that in college (uni) if you've previously done a unit relevant to your course in a previous course or place of learning, you can use that older unit in place of a current one (meaning you only do say 3 units in a semester not 4). In a high school context, with the 'Need PE credits to graduate' I don't understand what that is.

PE is taken every day for about 35-40 minutes in most schools. That's not a lot of activity when you subtract out roll call and such. Sports usually involve 1-2 hours of activity everyday. Frankly, they are working harder for the same amount of credit.Thats a buttload of sport. :eyepop:

Depending on the sport, they can either work out before school or after. I was on the swim team. I worked out before school. We got to the pool at 6 a.m. and worked out until 8 a.m. Our first period class was PE/Swimming and that was the time we used to shower and get ready for school. You can't exactly show up in class in a dripping wet swimsuit.I know some private schools offer this, but I don't think public schools do. If someone is that serious about say swimming, they usually have a personal coach seperate from the school.

(Theres also the fact that the unions wouldnt like teachers working from 6am, but thats a different issue).

The PE classes meet throughout the day. It just has to be done that way. Logistically, it would be impossible to put all the students in PE in the last class of the day. There's no room and not enough teachers. For PE classes its much the same here. Its a timetabling thing.

The interschool one however is generally ok. A school of about 550kids has about 50 odd teachers all up across all faculties. On wednesday afternoon, half the kids do their interschool sport, and either play at home or travel by bus to a nearby school. Each team has a teacher and theres generally about 10 - 15, so only 15 teachers tops are gone from the hours between 1pm - 3pm, which generally covers all of lunch and two afternoon lessons. Because half the kids are gone, theres fewer lessons going on, easy enough to timetable around (in fact most of the remaining teachers dont have classes at all at this time and go home early). Schools generally compete with 4 - 5 other nearby schools as a 'district', travel in suburban areas is 20 minutes tops.

A normal Aussie high school in the burbs has two fields, one larger, one smaller, a few basketball and netball courts, two tennis courts, cricket pitches and an indoor hall. So all the kids fit somewhere.

And not all the kids will do an interschool sport. The kids on bad behaviour levels, the lazy gits and the speds usually get alternative things. At my prac school its 'walking', where the kids do supervised walking laps of the school grounds. Non stop fun.

Oh yeah, generally teams are segregated by gender except maybe the volleyball team and occasionally theres a mixed touch football team (tackling in sports is forbidden by workplace health and safety acts).



How students view their teacher/coach probably depends on what role the teacher is in for that student. My biology teacher was also the golf coach. To me he was always the teacher. One of my classmates was on the golf team and always called the teacher "Coach." He behaved toward the teacher just like any other student. The teacher didn't give the kid any slack either. Nothing was different.

Same goes for my French teacher who coached gymnastics.
Thought so. Here the teacher would always be Mr Brown, even if he didn't have a calss with a particular student, only 'coached' that kids Wednesday touch team.

[Kass]

But what is the credit system?

To me credit means that in college (uni) if you've previously done a unit relevant to your course in a previous course or place of learning, you can use that older unit in place of a current one (meaning you only do say 3 units in a semester not 4). In a high school context, with the 'Need PE credits to graduate' I don't understand what that is.


High school works on a credit system of sorts. You have to have a certain number of math, english, history, etc. courses to graduate depending on if you are taking the college prep curriculum or the just get out of high school curriculum. Pretty much you need four years of most of those. I had to have three of science and three of math (algebra, geometry and algebra 2--I stopped short of trigonometry.)

That includes PE, foreign languages and the fine arts. I had to have two years of PE, half a year of heath education, three of foreign language (I took four), two of fine arts (drawing, music, etc), and one year of home economics/skill courses. Those are classes like traditional home ec (that cover cooking, managing a household budget, sewing, etc.), typing, industrial arts (auto shop), wood shop, etc. I hated those. I put them off and got called on it my senior year. I ended up taking a sewing course. It was easy since I'd been sewing since I was five.

I competed in swimming on a private team and the school team. I probably spent about 5 hours a day in the water. I was allowed to subsitute my participation on the school swim team for my PE credits. I probably worked a whole heck of a lot harder than the kids in PE.

The idea is to produce kids that have well rounded education, though the fine arts are taking it on the chin budget-wise.

[Jetsetlemming]

Yeah, basically four years worth of math, science, english, and history/politics, (sometimes 3 for some of those) 3 years of a foriegn language (sometimes substitutable with a business or computer course, in my last school it was "intro to business" as the alternative), and 2 misc. classes on top of that per year. Each class you take counts as a credit, basically, though some are half credit (single semester courses, etc) and some are more than one credit (honors and AP classes, they were considered 1.2 credits per class where I went). It's just a way of counting how much of each subject you've completed (obviously, you don't get the credit for a failed class).

[Trump]

For the most part, a "credit" is equivalent to 1 hour of class per week.

[Kass]

On the college level, yes. In secondary schools, it is a year of study. A one semester class is 1/2 a credit.

[Roxie]

I love the way this thread derailed.


Seriously, love :innocent:

[Anders]

That's fine by me- It just tells me that everyone agrees with and shares my opinion on the matter.

[raevyn]

Last year, I wanted to play on the water polo team. I was denied because I was a boy and told that if I wanted to play water polo I needed to start my own club with guys. (Water polo is a girls sport here)

[Kass]

I love the way this thread derailed.


Seriously, love :innocent:

It didn't derail, it evolved.

[delen]

It is now about gender equality in credits!

[spaik]

so stupid. different sports have different rules as well. in womens ice hockey for example, hitting is not allowed, yet beyond a certain age level, hitting is an integral part of mens ice hockey. even olympic womens ice hockey doesnt have any hitting. if the girls want a physical game, there shouldnt be anything to stop them beyond the requirements (which, noted by another poster, they failed to meet and got cut). another sport that is the same way is lacrosse. womens lacrosse has no hitting, mens lacrosse has hitting, in both box and field lacrosse (on a side note, too bad there isnt any womens box lacrosse. man i'd love to watch a game where women pound the fuck out of each other in an enclosed box in a brutally physical game like lacrosse) if a guy doesnt want to play lacrosse with the physical hitting involved, then there should be nothing to stop him from trying out for the women's rules team, so to speak. of course, the line blurs when the rules start becoming too similar, like say basketball. however, as someone pointed out, the ball is smaller, and thus there is a rule difference, so i still dont see why someone has to pick a certain ruleset to play by when there are official rules for the game that he or she prefers, regardless of gender. let people play by what rulesets they like. its not like people force kids into playing hockey on international rules or nhl rules based on their gender, only their preference and where they want to go with the sport.

on a side note, wasnt there a woman who was on an nhl team for a brief period as a goaltender? im pretty sure she got punted to the minors soon. i wonder if she even got any ice time. reminds me of that asian guy, richard park or whatever that got punted back to the minors off the canucks roster cause he couldnt cut it. kudos for tryin but i dont care about minority or gender, if you cant hack the level of competition and the rules they play by, dont make a fuss about it.