Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="All4SU, post: 3641375, member: 381"] I’m all for equal opportunity for everyone. And frankly I’m not surprised that a woman got a chance to kick in a college game. It’s inevitable. But it’s also true that on average, men are bigger, stronger and faster. They have built-in advantages - on average. Just the same I have no problem celebrating a woman who has earned an opportunity to compete. My issue is more about the skewed perception of sexism in sports. Sexism is NOT that women don’t have opportunity. Title 9 went a long way to correcting that, and women have LOTS of opportunity. In some ways, more than men. No my issue is the perceived notion that we need to make things easier for women or else they can’t compete. Example: In boys high school soccer, if a game goes to overtime, a sudden death period follows. Males apparently are capable of competing in a high pressure situation. In girls soccer, however, there are two equal overtime periods to try to determine a winner. I was puzzled by this for a long time. When I asked about it, I was told that the rule goes back decades, and was established to compensate for circumstances such as wind or field conditions. The theory was/is that girls are not strong enough to kick the ball hard enough to compensate for circumstances that would give a clear advantage to the other team. You want sexism? That’s sexism. Don’t spend your time arguing over why there aren’t more female college football players or kickers. Ask why the rules of the game are different to “compensate” for women. Fight to get THAT changed. Ask why a women’s basketball needs to be smaller. You want to eradicate sexism? Start there. [/QUOTE]

Verification: What is a Syracuse fan's favorite color?