Male field hockey player.

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

Роберт
Posts: 4285
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 1:56 am UTC

Re: Male field hockey player.

Postby Роберт » Wed Nov 17, 2010 9:39 pm UTC

Azrael wrote:
Роберт wrote:I still don't think it's a good situation for someone to not be allowed to participate in a sport at all just because of their sex or gender. I'm okay with segregating into men's and women's teams if there is enough interest. I dislike the idea of having something "men only" or "women only" without a counterpart available, though.
Sounds good to me.

Hmmm... so you agree that since there is no men's field hockey team available for this guy to join, that it should be okay for him to be in the field hockey team that he is in? In other words, if there is not a men-only team available, any man who would otherwise qualify for a team should not be excluded on the basis of sex or gender?
The Great Hippo wrote:[T]he way we treat suspected terrorists genuinely terrifies me.

User avatar
Azrael
CATS. CATS ARE NICE.
Posts: 6491
Joined: Thu Apr 26, 2007 1:16 am UTC
Location: Boston

Re: Male field hockey player.

Postby Azrael » Wed Nov 17, 2010 9:49 pm UTC

As usual, the devil is in the details. I don't have a problem with a co-ed team being co-ed. I don't have a problem saying that this co-ed league/team could be split if male interest picks up, or starts to overwhelm female involvement. I do have a problem saying you can't ever have a gender segregated team without the matching opposite-gender segregated team.

I hate to keep harping on the age comparison, but say a town has a miscellaneous sports team for 16-18 year old kids but not for adults. Let's assume there isn't enough interest to start an adult team. Should they let a 20 year old join? Failure to do so could be seen as age discrimination, after all. To me the answer is an easy no; the existence of a team for 16-18 year old kids should not require the creation of an adult team too (when there is not enough interest to start one of their own), and excluding the individuals with an obvious advantage in physicality is not unfair.
Last edited by Azrael on Wed Nov 17, 2010 9:56 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Oregonaut
Posts: 6511
Joined: Wed Jun 02, 2010 9:58 pm UTC
Location: Oregon

Re: Male field hockey player.

Postby Oregonaut » Wed Nov 17, 2010 9:55 pm UTC

Yes, but that same difference would exist regardless of gender. A 20 year old female would be more physically mature than a 16 year old.

I don't feel comfortable saying with blanket-suredness that women of athletic prowess at a non-professional/olympic level are going to be so consistently beneath the male standard that it would be unfair. So the two can't be directly compared, and still be seen as anything other than saying that women will always be the weaker sex period.
- Ochigo the Earth-Stomper

The EGE wrote:
Mumpy wrote:And to this day, librarians revile Oregonaut as the Antichrist.

False! We sacrifice our card catalogues to him in the name of Job Security!

General_Norris
Posts: 1399
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 12:10 pm UTC

Re: Male field hockey player.

Postby General_Norris » Wed Nov 17, 2010 10:17 pm UTC

Oregonaut wrote:I don't feel comfortable saying with blanket-suredness that women of athletic prowess at a non-professional/olympic level are going to be so consistently beneath the male standard that it would be unfair.

The difference is still here. The problem is that competition and thus sports rely on an equal play field. If the field is unequal then competition can't exist. It doesn't matter how you look at it, a 450HP car against a 500HP car is unfair.

Sport simply can't exist with unfairness.

User avatar
Azrael
CATS. CATS ARE NICE.
Posts: 6491
Joined: Thu Apr 26, 2007 1:16 am UTC
Location: Boston

Re: Male field hockey player.

Postby Azrael » Wed Nov 17, 2010 10:22 pm UTC

Oregonaut wrote:Yes, but that same difference would exist regardless of gender. A 20 year old female would be more physically mature than a 16 year old.
Yes. Thus the 'obvious physical advantage'. That's the whole point of comparison.

I don't feel comfortable saying with blanket-suredness that women of athletic prowess at a non-professional/olympic level are going to be so consistently beneath the male standard that it would be unfair. So the two can't be directly compared, and still be seen as anything other than saying that women will always be the weaker sex period.

Avoiding all the typical bullshit stereotyping that the comes with the whole 'weaker sex' tag: Statistically (and we all know how statistics break down when applied to an individual) women are the less physically-strong sex when physical maturity level is held constant.

Just look at records & times for high school track athletes (men, women), which is roughly the level we're discussing and probably less high-performance selective than the various divisions of collegiate records. Men's top times are better in all the ones I looked at.

Admittedly, there is a whole statistical analysis that is absent: Mean and standard deviation of performance across the competitor field for both men and women. It is entirely possible that the women's mean is higher than the men's, but that the men have more representation at the very top. But we're completely absent an indicator that points that way, as best I can tell. Average physical size and weight (at the HS & college level both) point towards the advantage going to men.

Роберт
Posts: 4285
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 1:56 am UTC

Re: Male field hockey player.

Postby Роберт » Wed Nov 17, 2010 10:39 pm UTC

Azrael wrote:As usual, the devil is in the details. I don't have a problem with a co-ed team being co-ed. I don't have a problem saying that this co-ed league/team could be split if male interest picks up, or starts to overwhelm female involvement. I do have a problem saying you can't ever have a gender segregated team without the matching opposite-gender segregated team.

I hate to keep harping on the age comparison, but say a town has a miscellaneous sports team for 16-18 year old kids but not for adults. Let's assume there isn't enough interest to start an adult team. Should they let a 20 year old join? Failure to do so could be seen as age discrimination, after all. To me the answer is an easy no; the existence of a team for 16-18 year old kids should not require the creation of an adult team too (when there is not enough interest to start one of their own), and excluding the individuals with an obvious advantage in physicality is not unfair.

I see your comparison, and it does help me understand your perspective, but I think that age discrimination vs. sex/gender is different enough that it doesn't directly apply. Also, this is a school team we're talking about, not some team that people started in a town.

I think we all agree that it is more questionable to have classes at a school that exclude people based on gender/sex than it is to have classes that exclude people based on grade/age. Clearly, you believe it is still okay, but surely you can understand how some people would draw a line there.
The Great Hippo wrote:[T]he way we treat suspected terrorists genuinely terrifies me.

User avatar
Jessica
Jessica, you're a ...
Posts: 8337
Joined: Tue Oct 23, 2007 8:57 pm UTC
Location: Soviet Canuckistan

Re: Male field hockey player.

Postby Jessica » Wed Nov 17, 2010 10:40 pm UTC

Az: I would say that while the parents can complain til the cows come home, there really isn't any statistical evidence that a team with 1 male is statistically better than a team with no men. Especially at this level of play.

On average, yes, there are physical differences between men and women. And if this were a 1 on 1 sport, where there was only 1 measurement criteria, then there would be an argument for using, say, track times, or other stats. But, it's a team sport. It's also a team sport that's not widely played, and which has very few men attempting to join.

It is possible that, with enough data, one could find out the impact of one male bodied individual on a team has on that teams record. But it would require much more than a season to get enough data to find out. Even if you take the fact that the average male has more muscle mass than the average female (something I have no proof off right now, but lets assume it), taking that average male and putting them on a team of females doesn't significantly increase the raw power of that team.

That's the good thing about team sports - while one person's raw talent can overpower the rest of the team (if there is a significant difference in ability), it isn't necessarily going to do so. Also one can't assume that on average the one male player will be significantly better than the rest of the team, and the rest of the league.
doogly wrote:On a scale of Mr Rogers to Fascism, how mean do you think we're being?
Belial wrote:My goal is to be the best brain infection any of you have ever had.

Роберт
Posts: 4285
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 1:56 am UTC

Re: Male field hockey player.

Postby Роберт » Wed Nov 17, 2010 10:53 pm UTC

Jessica wrote:That's the good thing about team sports - while one person's raw talent can overpower the rest of the team (if there is a significant difference in ability), it isn't necessarily going to do so. Also one can't assume that on average the one male player will be significantly better than the rest of the team, and the rest of the league.
In this specific instance, people are complaining that the man on the team is making the difference. I'm not sure if they are correct, of course.
The Great Hippo wrote:[T]he way we treat suspected terrorists genuinely terrifies me.

User avatar
Jessica
Jessica, you're a ...
Posts: 8337
Joined: Tue Oct 23, 2007 8:57 pm UTC
Location: Soviet Canuckistan

Re: Male field hockey player.

Postby Jessica » Wed Nov 17, 2010 10:56 pm UTC

But, there's no verifiable way to prove that hypothesis, and the information we have on gender dimorphism isn't strong enough to prove the hypothesis one way or another.
doogly wrote:On a scale of Mr Rogers to Fascism, how mean do you think we're being?
Belial wrote:My goal is to be the best brain infection any of you have ever had.

User avatar
Azrael
CATS. CATS ARE NICE.
Posts: 6491
Joined: Thu Apr 26, 2007 1:16 am UTC
Location: Boston

Re: Male field hockey player.

Postby Azrael » Wed Nov 17, 2010 11:11 pm UTC

Jessica wrote:Az: I would say that while the parents can complain til the cows come home, there really isn't any statistical evidence that a team with 1 male is statistically better than a team with no men. Especially at this level of play.
Oh absolutely. Again, I don't have a problem with this situation or the way it's been handled.

Sourire
Posts: 334
Joined: Mon May 25, 2009 3:11 pm UTC

Re: Male field hockey player.

Postby Sourire » Wed Nov 17, 2010 11:37 pm UTC

After reading the responses in this thread, I'm now really confused.

Is the argument for letting a girl play on a (traditionally) men's football team that she might be at the high end of the bell curve for testosterone? That she is in some way more masculine, and can be treated like a man? Because I thought the argument was that there's only so much money and competition to go around, and people should ideally be able to use the sports program their taxes fund (at a high school level, minimally). However, the generally liberal XKCD boards seem to disagree.

The issue for me when you assume a basis for gender segregation is that things are black and white. I mean, what really defines "man" and "woman" here? Without playing field hockey, I don't think it's related to genital mix-up. So what is it about? Muscle mass, lung capacity, testosterone levels? I have some issue wrapping my head around the idea of "bigger faster team" and "smaller weaker team" being socially acceptable.

I suppose it's possible these arguments could be logically consistent and all. But I don't see the possibility for it to be both consistent and avoid sexism. As the devil's advocate to anyone interested in continuing the "but men are just better and women would quit" train of thought might do well to think how they'd feel about blood tests being done to determine placement on a men's team or a women's team.
Emi: Let the urge take you on a magic coaster ride of innuendo!

Kewangji: The universe is having an orgasm. Right now.

Роберт
Posts: 4285
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 1:56 am UTC

Re: Male field hockey player.

Postby Роберт » Wed Nov 17, 2010 11:55 pm UTC

Sourire wrote: But I don't see the possibility for it to be both consistent and avoid sexism. As the devil's advocate to anyone interested in continuing the "but men are just better and women would quit" train of thought might do well to think how they'd feel about blood tests being done to determine placement on a men's team or a women's team.

Not all "sexism" is bad though. We are acknowledging real gaps between the sexes in terms of mean, median and top-performers' physical abilities.
The Great Hippo wrote:[T]he way we treat suspected terrorists genuinely terrifies me.

Aetius
Posts: 1099
Joined: Mon Sep 08, 2008 7:23 am UTC

Re: Male field hockey player.

Postby Aetius » Thu Nov 18, 2010 8:40 am UTC

Jessica wrote:But, there's no verifiable way to prove that hypothesis, and the information we have on gender dimorphism isn't strong enough to prove the hypothesis one way or another.


To prove it? No, there is not enough evidence. To say that it is true with a high degree of likelihood? Absolutely.

Nearly every example of sexual dimorphism in athletics points towards men on average outperforming women on average, by wide margins. So while it is possible that this particular male is at the low end of the bell curve and won't have a disparate impact on the team or its success, it's unlikely. If you up the number of men, that likelihood trends to zero.

Vo2max
Posts: 73
Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2009 4:22 pm UTC

Re: Male field hockey player.

Postby Vo2max » Thu Nov 18, 2010 11:34 am UTC

There is a complicating factor here in that the article seems to imply that Tietze has maybe just moved over from Germany where maybe he was playing in a very competitive male league and actually maybe if a German girl had gone over to the States she would be dominating in the exact same way because she was also used to playing in a more competitive league than the other players. And that obviously wouldn't be unfair as such. I imagine that if 10 American boys decided they wanted to join Cornelius in the hockey team they'd get a bit of a kicking from the girls who were more experienced at playing hockey. My grandfather played hockey at a club level all his life - I expect even in his late 60's he could have done well against school boys just because he was used to playing at a higher level even though he might have been at a physical disadvantage.

The sport that I compete in at an amateur level is quite small in the UK but big on the European continent. Over here girls and women usually have no choice other to race against the blokes, whereas in Holland or Belgium they have their own races. Our women have an outstanding record of Olympic and World Championship gold medals, even more so when you consider the size of the pool they're drawn from, and I put this down at least in part to having to compete against the boys all the way up the ranks. The unseen downside is how many women and girls give up altogether because they simply can't compete at the grassroots level. Much like in the case of Tietze the balance hangs on whether sport is about allowing fun for all, or if you consider it a very serious matter of fair competition.

User avatar
Zamfir
I built a novelty castle, the irony was lost on some.
Posts: 7594
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 2:43 pm UTC
Location: Nederland

Re: Male field hockey player.

Postby Zamfir » Thu Nov 18, 2010 12:22 pm UTC

Jessica wrote:On average, yes, there are physical differences between men and women. And if this were a 1 on 1 sport, where there was only 1 measurement criteria, then there would be an argument for using, say, track times, or other stats. But, it's a team sport. It's also a team sport that's not widely played, and which has very few men attempting to join.

It is possible that, with enough data, one could find out the impact of one male bodied individual on a team has on that teams record. But it would require much more than a season to get enough data to find out. Even if you take the fact that the average male has more muscle mass than the average female (something I have no proof off right now, but lets assume it), taking that average male and putting them on a team of females doesn't significantly increase the raw power of that team.

The article mentions that he is their star player, scores most of their goals, and is "just so much faster". presumably, a season is enough to find out that the guy is, in fact, a big advantage to the team.

And while field hockey may have few men joining in the US, there are many male leagues elsewhere, including where this guy is coming from. There is absolutely no doubt that having more guys on your team is an advantage there, and I don't see why that would need new evidence for the US.

I don't even think being a guy is the essential point. If instead of a guy, the team had got a professional female hockey player from Germany, it would have made the game less fun for many others too.

Chen
Posts: 5577
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2008 6:53 pm UTC
Location: Montreal

Re: Male field hockey player.

Postby Chen » Thu Nov 18, 2010 1:13 pm UTC

Zamfir wrote:I don't even think being a guy is the essential point. If instead of a guy, the team had got a professional female hockey player from Germany, it would have made the game less fun for many others too.


While true, in that case, assuming the woman was the proper age, they probably wouldn't have even thought of removing her from the league. A lot of NHL players up here (yes I know different hockey) are quite young. If they decided to quit playing in the NHL and go back to college should they be prevented from joining the local college team just because they have more training and are better than the other players?

User avatar
Zamfir
I built a novelty castle, the irony was lost on some.
Posts: 7594
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 2:43 pm UTC
Location: Nederland

Re: Male field hockey player.

Postby Zamfir » Thu Nov 18, 2010 1:45 pm UTC

Chen wrote:
Zamfir wrote:I don't even think being a guy is the essential point. If instead of a guy, the team had got a professional female hockey player from Germany, it would have made the game less fun for many others too.


While true, in that case, assuming the woman was the proper age, they probably wouldn't have even thought of removing her from the league. A lot of NHL players up here (yes I know different hockey) are quite young. If they decided to quit playing in the NHL and go back to college should they be prevented from joining the local college team just because they have more training and are better than the other players?


If those college teams were purely recreational teams (not serious, top-level amateur teams), those NHL players would be arses if they joined and played at anything resembling full skill. I suspect they would be told so too, perhaps subtly. A lot of such things are handled by personal contact, not by sticking to the rules.

Recreational sports works best if people can compete against people of roughly the same skill level. So we have age divisions, gender divisions and often multiple leagues with a different level of skill and seriousness. Age and gender happen to be relatively simple tricks to keep an even playing field, the rest is harder. Many leagues solve this by forcing the team that wins this year's competition to move up to the next league. Most clubs do something similar at the individual level, using more social pressure than hard rules to move the better people to the higher teams.

If you are a better player than any recreational team around, you are in a bind. Joining a team below your level is more pleasant perhaps than not playing, but it takes playing time and pleasure away from your team mates and their opponents. For your team mates, that might be partially compensated by more wins, but winning because someone else plays is only so much fun in the end. If the skill difference is limited, it's OK. If it turns out the difference too big, the best thing for you to do is quit, or for example only train with the team but not play in the competition.

So this guy tried,a s he had every right to do, and it turned out that the difference really was big. Presumably, being a guy made people more sensitive to the difference than would otherwise have been the case. That's a side effect of having gender-divided teams around, a practice that in itself helps to keep the games more fun.

Still, I don;t see the big thing. If instead of an effectively female-only league, there had been an official female-only league, he would just have picked another sport. Perhaps that's best anyway.

Роберт
Posts: 4285
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 1:56 am UTC

Re: Male field hockey player.

Postby Роберт » Thu Nov 18, 2010 3:35 pm UTC

Zamfir wrote: If the skill difference is limited, it's OK. If it turns out the difference too big, the best thing for you to do is quit, or for example only train with the team but not play in the competition.

So this guy tried,a s he had every right to do, and it turned out that the difference really was big. Presumably, being a guy made people more sensitive to the difference than would otherwise have been the case. That's a side effect of having gender-divided teams around, a practice that in itself helps to keep the games more fun.

Still, I don;t see the big thing. If instead of an effectively female-only league, there had been an official female-only league, he would just have picked another sport. Perhaps that's best anyway.

I disagree. I don't think someone should be considered "too good" to play if there are no other options available. If there are, sure, force him into the harder league if he wants to play.
The Great Hippo wrote:[T]he way we treat suspected terrorists genuinely terrifies me.

User avatar
LaserGuy
Posts: 4582
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2009 5:33 pm UTC

Re: Male field hockey player.

Postby LaserGuy » Thu Nov 18, 2010 4:05 pm UTC

Zamfir wrote:Recreational sports works best if people can compete against people of roughly the same skill level. So we have age divisions, gender divisions and often multiple leagues with a different level of skill and seriousness. Age and gender happen to be relatively simple tricks to keep an even playing field, the rest is harder. Many leagues solve this by forcing the team that wins this year's competition to move up to the next league. Most clubs do something similar at the individual level, using more social pressure than hard rules to move the better people to the higher teams.


This isn't a recreational league that we're talking about. In the United States, high school sports leagues may well be considered every bit as competitive as college or professional-level sports, simply with younger players and a lower level of play--particularly in sports like football or basketball. Championship games may be televised; players may be tested for performance-enhancing drugs; the coaches of the school sports team may be paid more than the principal. Many of these athletes probably aren't playing for fun; they're playing because, if they're very successful, they will be scouted for a college- or national-level team that will bring considerable windfall to the player.

Zamfir wrote:Still, I don;t see the big thing. If instead of an effectively female-only league, there had been an official female-only league, he would just have picked another sport. Perhaps that's best anyway.


You're okay with male-only engineering departments at universities, I'd assume? After all, the women can just do a different degree. :roll:

User avatar
Zamfir
I built a novelty castle, the irony was lost on some.
Posts: 7594
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 2:43 pm UTC
Location: Nederland

Re: Male field hockey player.

Postby Zamfir » Thu Nov 18, 2010 4:12 pm UTC

LaserGuy wrote:You're okay with male-only engineering departments at universities, I'd assume? After all, the women can just do a different degree.

The guy presumably isn't doing this to get a career in US field hockey. That alone makes a big difference with a degree.

EDIT: from the article, it is not really clear there is a problem at all, outside of internet articles and fora that is. It's about anticipation about what might become the protests if they happen to win etc.

User avatar
broken_escalator
They're called stairs
Posts: 3312
Joined: Tue Mar 23, 2010 1:49 am UTC
Location: _| ̄|○

Re: Male field hockey player.

Postby broken_escalator » Thu Nov 18, 2010 4:33 pm UTC

I know there are small differences like muscle mass, body fat and center of balance. I don't know if I trust that women are so much weaker than men that at a high school level they have a clear cut advantage. Isn't that supposed to just be conditioning? You know, biology predispositions while nurture actually sets were they are and all that jazz.

At least that is what all those sociology/feminist courses led me to believe.

Роберт
Posts: 4285
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 1:56 am UTC

Re: Male field hockey player.

Postby Роберт » Thu Nov 18, 2010 4:42 pm UTC

broken_escalator wrote:I know there are small differences like muscle mass, body fat and center of balance. I don't know if I trust that women are so much weaker than men that at a high school level they have a clear cut advantage. Isn't that supposed to just be conditioning? You know, biology predispositions while nurture actually sets were they are and all that jazz.

At least that is what all those sociology/feminist courses led me to believe.

Go Google "testosterone" and then come back and tell us what you learned. :P

It's not just conditioning.
The Great Hippo wrote:[T]he way we treat suspected terrorists genuinely terrifies me.

User avatar
Mavketl
ELEPHANT MYSTICISM!
Posts: 464
Joined: Thu Feb 21, 2008 2:34 pm UTC
Location: Groningen City

Re: Male field hockey player.

Postby Mavketl » Thu Nov 18, 2010 4:47 pm UTC

If you want to be 'fair' so badly, you should organize leagues divided by strength/athleticism. Gender is such a poor proxy.

I'd rather just have everyone be able to play together, though. I always hated the different 'scoring' we got in high school PE class for some things: I could do better than everyone in my class and still only get a "girl's A", which had lower standards than the "boy's A" (for things like sprinting, jumping, et cetera). I don't want people to hold me to lower standards because I'm a girl, it sucks.

(It's also interesting that you'd raise hell in any school by suggesting such a system for any class that is not PE, no matter how high the gender differences in grades happen to be.)
Not A Raptor: Mav can be a very wily and dangerous player.
roband: Mav has a way of making everything seem right.
ELEPHANT SCIENCE - MORE ELEPHANT SCIENCE
- NEW: Elephant Math!

User avatar
broken_escalator
They're called stairs
Posts: 3312
Joined: Tue Mar 23, 2010 1:49 am UTC
Location: _| ̄|○

Re: Male field hockey player.

Postby broken_escalator » Thu Nov 18, 2010 4:56 pm UTC

I'm pretty sure individual specifics can outweigh gender characteristics. Just because men have the capacity to be stronger doesn't mean they will reach said capacity. A woman who trains rigorously can be stronger than a man who does not, even without the magic of testosterone. Too often I see people hand-waving testosterone around, even in cases where maximum strength isn't used.

As I said, I already know the basic differences like for heavy lifters. A woman's 95% would be more comparable to a man's 75%, but this is a case of using maximum strength. But my question was more along the lines if anyone knew how big the gap was at a high school level. Google testosterone... c'mon give me more credit than that. You could have at least pointed out lung capacity or the height advantage than something as obvious as testosterone.

User avatar
Azrael
CATS. CATS ARE NICE.
Posts: 6491
Joined: Thu Apr 26, 2007 1:16 am UTC
Location: Boston

Re: Male field hockey player.

Postby Azrael » Thu Nov 18, 2010 5:32 pm UTC

broken_escalator wrote:I'm pretty sure individual specifics can outweigh gender characteristics.
Of course, and that's been said more than once. However, if you're making decisions across an entire population, then you're back to using statistical data.

But my question was more along the lines if anyone knew how big the gap was at a high school level.
I've already posted track & field at the HS level, and the kinematics of running involves way more than just physical strength.

Mavketl wrote:(It's also interesting that you'd raise hell in any school by suggesting such a system for any class that is not PE, no matter how high the gender differences in grades happen to be.)
Yup. But then again, there's no scientific evidence that (statistically speaking) one sex is innately more capable at learning than the other.
Last edited by Azrael on Thu Nov 18, 2010 5:35 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Oregonaut
Posts: 6511
Joined: Wed Jun 02, 2010 9:58 pm UTC
Location: Oregon

Re: Male field hockey player.

Postby Oregonaut » Thu Nov 18, 2010 5:35 pm UTC

Especially since past a certain point physical strength would be a problem for a runner. A balance between strength (higher) and weight (lower) would help almost any runner. Putting on strength usually means gaining weight, which means more to haul down the track.
- Ochigo the Earth-Stomper

The EGE wrote:
Mumpy wrote:And to this day, librarians revile Oregonaut as the Antichrist.

False! We sacrifice our card catalogues to him in the name of Job Security!

User avatar
Zamfir
I built a novelty castle, the irony was lost on some.
Posts: 7594
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 2:43 pm UTC
Location: Nederland

Re: Male field hockey player.

Postby Zamfir » Thu Nov 18, 2010 5:40 pm UTC

I'm pretty sure individual specifics can outweigh gender characteristics.

Which is relevant for women join male teams: by being exceptionally talented and well-trained, women can sometimes reach a fairly high level in a male competition, and if that happens it makes sense to allow it.

The other way round makes less sense: by being fairly average and not too well trained, men can play at a relatively high level in women's competitions. It is less clear why his should be encouraged.

Chen
Posts: 5577
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2008 6:53 pm UTC
Location: Montreal

Re: Male field hockey player.

Postby Chen » Thu Nov 18, 2010 5:53 pm UTC

Zamfir wrote:Which is relevant for women join male teams: by being exceptionally talented and well-trained, women can sometimes reach a fairly high level in a male competition, and if that happens it makes sense to allow it.

The other way round makes less sense: by being fairly average and not too well trained, men can play at a relatively high level in women's competitions. It is less clear why his should be encouraged.


So would it be ok for a below average male to join the women's teams because they're constantly outclassed by the male ones?

freeeeeeeeeeeeeeeen
Posts: 30
Joined: Mon Dec 28, 2009 9:38 am UTC

Re: Male field hockey player.

Postby freeeeeeeeeeeeeeeen » Thu Nov 18, 2010 6:02 pm UTC

I think a lot of people in this forum are really downplaying the difference between genders even at the high school level.

I want to first say that this guy should be allowed to play field hockey if there is only one field hockey team, just like girls are able to play football and wrestle.
However, there is definitely a huge difference in athleticism between females and males in the high school level. Just because there are some outliers like females who can out wrestle a guy or a guy who is not athletic at all does not mean that the genders are generally equal. Not to be sexist, but theres a reason the fastest and strongest people are men. I am not saying men are more skilled, but they are definitely faster and stronger on average.

This should not be a discussion about how he should be able to play because he is comparable to the female players, it should be a discussion that he should be allowed too play based on equality. Sexism goes both ways, and as long as girls are allowed to play male sports when there are no female teams, guys should be allowed to play female sports when there are no male teams.

User avatar
Oregonaut
Posts: 6511
Joined: Wed Jun 02, 2010 9:58 pm UTC
Location: Oregon

Re: Male field hockey player.

Postby Oregonaut » Thu Nov 18, 2010 6:03 pm UTC

I'd prefer Mavketl's plan. Do a skill assessment on every player and league them that way. It actually espouses equality.
- Ochigo the Earth-Stomper

The EGE wrote:
Mumpy wrote:And to this day, librarians revile Oregonaut as the Antichrist.

False! We sacrifice our card catalogues to him in the name of Job Security!

User avatar
22/7
I'm pretty sure I have "The Slavery In My Asshole" on DVD.
Posts: 6475
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2007 3:30 pm UTC
Location: 127.0.0.1

Re: Male field hockey player.

Postby 22/7 » Thu Nov 18, 2010 6:08 pm UTC

So would it be ok for a below average male to join the women's teams because they're constantly outclassed by the male ones?

Well, I'd imagine the opportunity for abuse would rule out this possibility in most people's minds.

Same as above for Oregonaut.
Totally not a hypothetical...

Steroid wrote:
bigglesworth wrote:If your economic reality is a choice, then why are you not as rich as Bill Gates?
Don't want to be.
I want to be!

User avatar
Oregonaut
Posts: 6511
Joined: Wed Jun 02, 2010 9:58 pm UTC
Location: Oregon

Re: Male field hockey player.

Postby Oregonaut » Thu Nov 18, 2010 6:10 pm UTC

An honest skills assessment done by a sports medicine clinic would prevent abuse.
- Ochigo the Earth-Stomper

The EGE wrote:
Mumpy wrote:And to this day, librarians revile Oregonaut as the Antichrist.

False! We sacrifice our card catalogues to him in the name of Job Security!

User avatar
Azrael
CATS. CATS ARE NICE.
Posts: 6491
Joined: Thu Apr 26, 2007 1:16 am UTC
Location: Boston

Re: Male field hockey player.

Postby Azrael » Thu Nov 18, 2010 6:12 pm UTC

And who's carrying the burden of that cost and time? Coaches manage to split Varsity and JV now without systematic failure.

User avatar
Zamfir
I built a novelty castle, the irony was lost on some.
Posts: 7594
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 2:43 pm UTC
Location: Nederland

Re: Male field hockey player.

Postby Zamfir » Thu Nov 18, 2010 6:18 pm UTC

In cases where an unchangeable lack of skills can be assessed at low cost, like missing your legs, such methods are indeed used.

Rackum
Posts: 132
Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2010 5:15 pm UTC

Re: Male field hockey player.

Postby Rackum » Thu Nov 18, 2010 6:23 pm UTC

Zamfir wrote:In cases where an unchangeable lack of skills can be assessed at low cost, like missing your legs, such methods are indeed used.

I think Dustin Carter might take offense to the implication that lack of limbs constitutes lack of skill. Granted he is an exceptional outlier.

User avatar
LaserGuy
Posts: 4582
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2009 5:33 pm UTC

Re: Male field hockey player.

Postby LaserGuy » Thu Nov 18, 2010 6:26 pm UTC

22/7 wrote:
So would it be ok for a below average male to join the women's teams because they're constantly outclassed by the male ones?

Well, I'd imagine the opportunity for abuse would rule out this possibility in most people's minds.

Same as above for Oregonaut.


Depends on motivations, I guess. Top level teams are the ones that are going to be scouted for university/professional play. The top ranked player in the third tier team is not going to get the same level of attention as a mid-ranked player on a top tier team. The best players will generally want to play on the top ranked teams if they have any dream of playing for money or getting a sports scholarship.

In any event, such things can be re-evaluated based on performance during the season. If someone is consistently outclassing their competition, then they can get moved up the next year. It shouldn't be all that difficult to make sure everyone is correctly placed.

User avatar
Azrael
CATS. CATS ARE NICE.
Posts: 6491
Joined: Thu Apr 26, 2007 1:16 am UTC
Location: Boston

Re: Male field hockey player.

Postby Azrael » Thu Nov 18, 2010 6:28 pm UTC

Zamfir wrote:In cases where an unchangeable lack of skills can be assessed at low cost, like missing your legs, such methods are indeed used.

I can't make heads or tails of what you're trying to say. Coaching staffs currently split pools of players into three levels (Varsity, JV and neither) based on combination of tryouts, playing time and whatnot. Why would this have to become the purview of an third party (expensive) consultant?

User avatar
Zamfir
I built a novelty castle, the irony was lost on some.
Posts: 7594
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 2:43 pm UTC
Location: Nederland

Re: Male field hockey player.

Postby Zamfir » Thu Nov 18, 2010 7:11 pm UTC

It's one thing to sort people who try to get as 'high' as possible, with people who prefer to be second-rate in the high class over best in the easier class.

The trouble is keeping multiple leagues where being best in either league is more attractive than being second-rate in the other, even though one league has somehow a lower average level than the other. For that, you need some hard to cheat criterium. Gender works, as does age or having no legs. But doctors' assessments would be hard and costly, and trial runs don't work at all.

Weight classes are an interesting in-between. People can play around with it a bit, but in practice people seem to be limited in the classes where they can get the weight and still perform.

Aetius
Posts: 1099
Joined: Mon Sep 08, 2008 7:23 am UTC

Re: Male field hockey player.

Postby Aetius » Thu Nov 18, 2010 9:31 pm UTC

I think people are really underestimating how big the performance gap is in athletics once you get a few years into puberty. I have heard knowledgeable observers of the game say that a good men's high school soccer team is likely on par with the women's national team. It's even worse in basketball and high contact sports.

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: Male field hockey player.

Postby Izawwlgood » Thu Nov 18, 2010 9:40 pm UTC

Yeah, in high school I was DEFINITELY on par with Mia Hamm. Totally.
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Sizik and 12 guests