ssarge wrote:Either we (collectively) believe that these are ATHLETES - not boys in one category and girls in another - or we don't.
I get called to task sometimes when I make "allowances" for girls. And you know what - I should be called to task.
It should be consistent. For example, I DON'T see pictures posted of boys after they have been spiked saying "this should be enough reason to ban metal spikes in high school." I'm as guilty of it as anyone at times, but how this can be constured as anything other than a subtle form of sexism? Well intended, obviously, and completely understandable. I'm NOT leveling criticism. I've got a daughter, too, and I'd just as soon that her legs NOT look like a roadmap of Montana when she is done playing. BUT, the implications of feeling differently about this with my daughter than I do with my son seem pretty clear.
ssarge wrote:I just don't see the logical validation for worrying MORE about it with females competing against females than I do with males against males. The disparity of physical abilities, strength, etc. across the span of participants in baseball and softball is roughly comparable. I think it is an emotional issue for many, and that is their perogative. I'm just trying to look at it logically.
Sarge,
For the record, I think that metal cleats are unnecessary and overly dangerous for the boys too, but that issue is tangential to the real point of my disagreement with you. The centerpiece of your argument in support of allowing metal cleats for women is the far more general proposition that there is no difference between male and female athletes, and thus no reason to treat them differently. This is a proposition that is manifestly and demonstrably false. And to make matters worse--at least from where I'm sitting--you presented this demonstrably false proposition in politicized language (so treating girls differently than boys in sports constitutes "sexism," which we should feel "guilty" about). Well nothing personal, but I take issue with that, as it is an improper attempt to stake out the high ground in the argument...and in any event you are assuming the truth of precisely what you need to prove, because it's only sexism if in fact the different treatment is objectively unwarranted. If you want to support your "athletes are athletes" position with hard data or the sound logical reasoning you profess to strive for, great, but politically correct platitudes don't qualify as either.
I think you may be missing the point of my boxing comparison. Boxing almost always involves same-sized individuals matched against each other. Men versus men, and more recently women versus women. So the fatality comparison is ideal if we want to discover which gender, if any, can better withstand physical punishment dished out by others of the same gender (which is exactly what we need to ascertain to prove or disprove your proposition). And even accepting your 200 fatalities number (which isn't limited to boxing, as it should be for comparative purposes), it isn't even a close call. A woman is WAY more likely to be killed in a boxing match against a like-sized woman, despite the fact that women wear protective head gear (I would wager that there are more men's boxing matches worldwide in an average weekend than there have been women's matches in the entire period we're talking about--i.e., since 2000). What this tells us is that women versus women is not the same as men versus men, and thus that womens' sports may legitimately be considered differently when it comes to protective equipment and rules. There is admittedly a dearth of adequate comparative data of this type, but that is perhaps the most telling fact of all. Women simply don't participate in heavy contact sports like men do, and I submit to you that there is a very good reason for that. It's not just that we're unreasonably afraid that they will get hurt...they actually will get hurt.
You also dismissed as illogical/emotional my assertion that a disfiguring scar on a woman is more impactful than on a man, but I believe you failed to respond to the substantive support I provided for that assertion. It's a well-established psychiatric fact that self-perception for women is tied much more closely to personal appearance, and it is an unalterable societal fact that disfigurement for a woman is stigmatized (real sexism) much more than it is for a man. It is illogical not to take these facts into consideration when deciding what level of protection is warranted.
As far as the comparative safety of metal cleats go, if you have "actuarial rather than anecdotal" evidence, I'm all ears (really, I am). But unless I missed something, all you have told us is that you are positive that you avoided muscle strains by wearing metal cleats. Leaving aside the futility of the attemted negative-causation inference there, the "evidence" you cite constitutes nothing more than anecdotal experience. It's useless for generalization purposes. And yes I do believe that the burden of producing evidence should lie with your side of the argument...until real data is presented on the subject, those sharp things sticking off the bottom of the shoes and the picture on page one of this thread pretty much speak for themselves.
Regards,
Skarp
