School Forfeited Baseball Game Rather Than Playing A Girl

Killgore, completely unrelated example. Unless you're saying there was an entire baseball team and stadium full of people watching the consensual and reciprocated touching.

I don't think that kind of play is in the rule books - have you ever tried to get some on a baseball field? The outfield's fine, but the infield's all gravel. Ouch.

Alice -

My 15 year old male cousin was recently arrested for consensual and reciprocated touching that he engaged in with a 15 year old girl, after her mother walked in on them and accused him of rape.

I don't really see why you insist that such a situation is less than likely or unreasonable. You claim it is not a crime - yet it is treated as such on a daily basis. It can and does happen extremely frequently in our litigious culture.

RD: I thnk Craig's first comment was fine before he started going off the deep end. My only question is why should we treat women any differently from men?
Men and women come in all shapes and sizes. Some men are not as physically strong as some women.

As for this being about Catholicism, the school may not be associated with the Vatican, but does it call itself a fundementalist Catholic school? If so, then that's not really making s**t up. We can call an obscure Muslim group a fundamentalist Muslim group if they indicate that's what they are, even if they're not part of an official group. It's what they identify with.

Ugh, it's a pity that the Catholic Church had to be dragged in to this, as if this were any part of what the Church teaches. The head of the school was excommunicated, he's making up his own religion at this point. Might as well call his religion Williamsonism. And according to Williamsonism, girls don't play sports. According to Catholicism, there's nothing wrong with girls playing sports.

But I guess any chance people can take to spit on religion, they'll take it, even if they're ultimately just making shit up.

It's a lose-lose situation for the other team.

If they win the nay-sayers will say, "So what, you beat a girl."

If they lose, then they'll say, "Ha Ha, you lost to a girl."

They can't win, so they took their ball and went home.

In response to comment 49- This had nothing to do with what the girl thought she could or could not do. The team that forfeited wasn't forcing her to stop playing. Their team leader decided it was not in the best interest of the boys based on their beliefs. They were not asking her to get kicked out of the league. I agree with comment #2.

And Craig... You got quite the beating, but your argument style was solid. I may not agree with everything you said, but you're no idiot.

Simple lesson here: Whenever your team is to play against Our Lady of Sorrows Academy, put a few girls in the team and you will win by default. Not a good lesson for the kids, but if every team does it, Our Lady of Sorrows Academy will forfeit the season.

Wow, Craig. See, I thought you sounded reasonable anough but a little stodgy, to start out. You ignored the whole gay angle, which was sad. I don't think people think of baseball as a sport that leads to inadvertent inappropriate touching.

Sure, the argument against males and females playing together is as old as the hills, but the arguments are usually the "boys will be too rough for the girls" or "the boys will hold back, and not play as rough as they would with other boys, giving the girls an unfair advantage".

I don't know if it's a Catholic thing. I think the prejudice goes way beyond any religious motivations. Do women play golf at the Masters yet, or are they worried that the male golfers might aim for a hole in one? I really don't think boys are thinking about copping feels during the baseball game. It just sounds ludicrous.

Not That Amy -

I have no doubt that you are completely right. Nor does he believe a girl might be able to take a tackle, get up, dust herself off, then sling some great trash talk. Women can be fierce and amazing, and it likely annoys the hell out of him.

I think what Craig is having difficulty wrapping his brain around is the idea that a 15 year old girl can decide for herself what she can and can't do.

Can't

Resist

Commenting

I do feel that I must address this before leaving. Yes, this is an example of totally misrepresenting what was said. You were not accused of:
2) Supporting the burying of live babies
3) Supporting those who consume capsules of dead baby flesh
4) Supporting those who picket funerals

My comment said that these are examples of people using their faith to justify heinous acts and they were not even directed at you. They were directed at commenter Kalel. You are choosing to take all comments that you identify as critical of your point of view and conflating them into one large personal attack on you.
Nope, not acting like a victim at all…

Not Surprised - you made ludicrous comparisons with charges 2, 3 and 4. And when I called you on them started back peddling furiously. Try as you might though, you cannot defend the indefensible. And as to the consternation I have caused those in this thread who revel in moral self-aggrandizement, why yes, I think I have won. Thank you for acknowledging it.

You mean in addition to charges 1 through 9 I am also a fool?! The cops can't get here quick enough! Where are the razor blades? Curse you safety razor! Curse you!

I certainly don't need to believe such. You have represented yourself as a victim throughout this thread, taking criticism of the behaviour of others as criticism of you as a person. it appears that I must agree with Alice. I won't waste any more of this beautiful Sunday afternoon enabling you. I must be done. You can tell yourself your won, if that's what you need to do.
Enjoy the rest of your weekend and have a great week. And, yes, those wishes are sincere.

Craig -

I need not even say what I think of you, as you make yourself a fool all on your own.

Just to sum up, to date I have been accused of:

1) Supporting Islamic fascism

2) Supporting the burying of live babies

3) Supporting those who consume capsules of dead baby flesh

4) Supporting those who picket funerals

5) Thinking women are weak

6) Thinking that women who are raped are the ones who are really to blame

7) Being obsessed with sex

8) Thinking I am a victim because others disagree with me

9) Living in the dark ages

Quite the rap sheet. And what has occasioned this truly epic list of charges? :

"a simple common sense argument that in a physical contact sport, there is strong potential for a 15 year old boy to touch a 15 year old girl in an inadvertently inappropriate manner. And that additionally, in such a situation, allegations could be leveled at the boy by either the girl, or parents."

Well of course, the evidence is damning! Call the cops I say! Heck, I'll do it myself, the weight of my evil doings having finally driven me to my knees!

You flatter yourself. To identify behavior is not adopt the mantle of victim. Though if you need to believe such, well, no words of mine will convince you otherwise.

I really don't want to get into name calling or playing "gotcha" with anyone. I was just expressing my thoughts on this story and the ways in which people justify this type of behaviour and feel that we need to condone and accommodate it.
I think this is someone who has firmly held beliefs and, while I can't say I agree with them, don't want to provide more justification for someone feeling like victim simply because someone disagrees with him. I know I'm not going to lose any sleep over my words being misrepresented by him, though I'd really prefer to think that I was misconstrued rather than misrepresented.

This debate format is getting a little frustrating as I have two comments above both awaiting moderation. However, to answer the question, or attempt to, dependent on whether I find myself in moderation limbo again :

"How does it not compare? You are saying it wouldn’t happen if she did not choose to stand there."

So lets break this down, to acknowledge a base reality, that in a defined physical game, inadvertent inappropriate touching could occur between a 15 year old girl and 15 year old boys, is to equate blame for this occurrence to the girl in question?

This, despite the fact the acts I have talked of have been inadvertent and not deliberate, and that, I have expressed just as much concern for the boys involved, as I have the girl? Well yes, I see it now, the parallels to a wholly non-consensual attack are vast.

What I see with this argument and those clambering to climb aboard it, is intellectual dishonesty. You seek to ally yourselves with the status of victim a sufferer of sexual assault rightly holds, while painting me as one who would seek to invalidate such a woman. As an act of character assassination it is beneath contempt, and telling of the paucity of your position.

Yes, in a strictly literal sense the situation I describe would not occur if there girl was not there. But then again, nor would the situation occur if someone had not made the baseball diamond. Or heck, invented the game itself. Strict literal interpretations are the last refuge for those bereft of any substantive argument.

Not surprised -

I think we're trying to reason with the unreasonable. This man is obviously a bit unstable.

How does it not compare? You are saying it wouldn't happen if she did not choose to stand there.

"But denying a girl from participating in sports whith boys because someone might step over the line is wrong, it’s like blaming a girl for being raped because she wears revealing close."

I disagree with your comparison completely. You are talking about a physical competition in which a girl in a relatively stationary position will have young men charging directly at her. The potential for inadvertent inappropriate touching here, is high. That base physical reality can simply not be gotten around of.

In such a scenario not only can the girl be victimized, but so too can the boy. What if an allegation was to be leveled against him?

None of this in anyway compares to the blame the victim mentality that so often accompanies cases of rape.

Should we have separate buses or schools for boys and girls out of fear of what might happen if they were to brush against each other? I am curious what ideology has blinded my critical thinking and caused me to ask this question.

On the continuum of what would be considered appropriate to "protect" women, where is the line of demarcation between burqas and baseball?

Alice - I was in the process of writing a response on the 'gay' question you posed. It is awaiting moderation.

As to your assertion that it is impossible that the parent of the girl, or the girl herself, could not level an accusation at a 15 year old boy who came down atop her? I suggest that you have been blinded by ideology. If you can honestly not see the potential for such a situation to arise, then the gap between us is far to vast for mere words to span.

Graig
"You are of course correct. 15 year old boys are well known for their complete disinterest in laying hands upon the 15 year old female form whenever the specter of sport is brought into play. Why, the fact that it is baseball practically turns them into eunuchs!"

Of course ypu are correct, 15 year old boys are ineterested in 15 year old girls and the other way around, it's all perfectly normal and is part of growing up.

But denying a girl from participating in sports whith boys because someone might step over the line is wrong, it's like blaming a girl for being raped because she wears revealing close. Most young boys know not to harass girls and if they do anyway, the situation should be delt with when it happen. And come on. HowiInappropriate can a situation become on a field full of players, referees and spectators?

In some islamic cultures, women wear burkas to "protect" them from male attention. I am not trying to compare islam to catholism but it's sad that girls have their freedom restricted for their own "protection" and I find it insulting for boys that they are considered sexual predators only based on their gender.

Craig -

The only damaging allegations I can see would happen if the males involved were of adult age, which they are not. A 15 year old boy touching a 15 year old girl is not a crime. Hell, when I was 15, it was downright fun.

But I do believe that kids of this age know the difference between accidental or sports related touching and what happens off the field.

I notice you didn't acknowledge my comments about gay children. I see we've found your "no-go" area. Can't handle it, eh?

Not Surprised - Not once in my defense of the school's position have I used faith as an argument. Indeed, I have eschewed Christianity completely. What I put forward instead is what I believe to be a commonsense assessment of the physical realities involved. That in a physical contact sport, there is strong potential for a 15 year old boy to touch a 15 year old girl in an inadvertently inappropriate manner. And that additionally, in such a situation, allegations could be leveled at the boy by either the girl, or parents. That's it.

Now, what have I received in response to this? Aside from ludicrous comparisons to quite obscene practices. Well, it basically boils down to two:

1) 15 year old boys would not notice a 15 year old female form in the context of sport. To which I reply, nonsense.

and

2) Well, what if some of the boys are gay?

Now, this argument directly contradicts the first. Because it acknowledges that there is the potential inadvertent touching of sexual nature to occur, and that satisfaction could be derived from this. (Yet this fact did not deter Alice from using both arguments)

Now, aside from the fact that homosexuality is not nearly as prevalent as any TV show of late would have you believe, lets run with this second hypothetical.

Firstly, for a heterosexual male there are quite obviously more targets of opportunity, targets normally off limits when it comes to teen girl, than in the situation of a gay male youth. As an obvious example, practically all 15 year old girls will cover their chest's when going to the beach. The same can certainly not be said for 15 year old boys.

Secondly, homosexuality is not the equivalent of heterosexuality. There are mass of interactions across a mass of fronts where physical and societal interactions differ. There are undoubtedly male gay youths and adults that play contact sports with other men. Yet, because such contact is accepted between men in these sports, it is not viewed through a sexual prism. (Unless something grotesque were to occur.) The reason for this is that heterosexuality is the default according to which all of society is structured.

NS - as to your use of the word 'children'. I find it completely misleading giving the sexual context of the argument.

Finally, I note no-one has addressed the potential for allegations to leveled at a teen boy in such an interaction with a teen girl. Nor have any of those who have disagreed with me criticized the girl's mother for her statement that the sport her daughter plays does not carry the potential for physical contact. Was she being dishonest, or dim?

No true Scotsman…

This "catholic" school is not part of the Roman Catholic church. It is run by a religious order of priests called the Society of St. Pius X. This group was excommunicated from the Church because they refuse to follow Church doctrine. A school run by the Catholic Church would not have a problem playing against a team fielding a girl on the team.

Alice - adults are not children, you ignore the potential for damaging allegations that I have discussed, and as for the rest, well, copy and paste time :

"You are of course correct. 15 year old boys are well known for their complete disinterest in laying hands upon the 15 year old female form whenever the specter of sport is brought into play. Why, the fact that it is baseball practically turns them into eunuchs!"

As to how a simple, honest acknowledge of physical realities magically transforms itself into an obsession with sex, well, at least you have not stated that I am in league with Islamic fascists, or those who take dead baby capsules. So that's something for you to cling to.

Craig,my intent is not to argue directly with you nor is it to defend my comments in the face of claims of inanity. My argument is not that there is anything inherently wrong with those of us (yes, that includes myself) who adhere to Catholicism nor with you personally. My point is simply that many things are defended in the name of a variety of faiths which, if those faith were not a part of the defense, would be indefensible. Yes, I intentionally chose to paint in broad strokes and will gladly apologize for those comments if told where the line is to be drawn between what is and is not acceptable to argue in the name of faith.
I don't intend to continue to argue this point further, though I will say that I appreciate your comments. They are evidently based on your own convictions and it is important to speak or, in this case, write with conviction. 
I am curious, though: is there not also a strong potential for a 15 year old boy to touch a 15 year old boy in an inadvertently inappropriate manner?
And, yes, I felt I was being honest in describing the players as children. We can use the word "minors" or "adolescents" if it is deemed to be less dishonest (again, not my intent). Regardless, the decision was not made by them and their opportunity to play was taken away by adults who didn't feel that they would be able to control their actions or deal with inadvertent contact with the opposite sex.  
In closing, I will let you know that my final word in the previous comment was not directed at you or anyone else who felt the actions of the school were appropriate. It was directed at the situation. 

Craig -

I ignored it because it seems like you're obsessed with sex, which is actually really funny. Adults of the opposite sex can accidentally touch each other, and have it not be sexual. It's a brief moment in sports. You get up dust yourself off and keep playing. This is not a big deal.

Let me put this in a way that will make you uncomfortable :) There are boys on that field who are probably gay. They've probably seen the other boys in the shower, or accidentally touched their bums out on the field. And you know what? It doesn't mean ANYTHING! When you're playing sports, your playing sports. If you want to court and pet, it happens ooff field.

Grow up Craig, for the good of all of us.

Not Surprised - you voluntarily give your poisonous bias towards Catholicism but such was not required, as it presents itself in ten foot high letters.

This bias has hopelessly corrupted your critical thinking faculties.

I find it humorous that you derisively use words such as 'tradition' and 'faith' and 'rationalize' to describe a simple common sense argument that in a physical contact sport, there is strong potential for a 15 year old boy to touch a 15 year old girl in an inadvertently inappropriate manner. And that additionally, in such a situation, allegations could be leveled at the boy by either the girl, or parents.

And what do you compare such reasoning to? Why to people burying babies of course! And also those who consume capsules of baby flesh! And not to forget, those who picket funerals! And why wouldn't you? The similarities are obvious!

Not Surprised, I congratulate you. I had thought the inanity bar set unsurpassably high with the arguments already ranged against me that:

a) 15 year old boys would not notice a 15 year old female body because they were playing sport (NS - note the age give, 15 years old, not the far more ambiguous 'children' that you dishonestly employ)

and

b) my argument is comparable to that used by Islamic fascists who enforce the wearing of the burka by the women in their society.

But you have sailed easily over that mark. A feat bespeaking a dedication to your art that stretches the span of many years.

So, Craig, are you saying that we can't allow boys and girls to play sports together because of fear of what might happen if they get to second base together?
I'm curious: do the people who support the school's decision to follow its religious convictions also support the couple in India who buried their baby alive because their faith told them it would keep their other children healthy? What about the people in Korea who were arrested for smuggling capsules that contained tissue from dead babies because their belief was that it would give them vigor. What about Westboro Baptist Church who picket soldiers' funerals, harassing families at the most grief-stricken moment of their lives, because their faith tells them to do so? Kalel, would these be examples of sportsmanship extending beyond the playing field?
I was raised catholic and can't say that I'm surprised by this story, nor am I surprised by those who try to rationalize it away out of respect for "tradition" or "faith". All of these children have worked hard to get where they are. I'll use the word "unfortunate" to describe the fact that none of these children were allowed to go out and do something they love because a group of adults felt that one of them was a less equal than the others. Other words come to mind but I'm doing my best to maintain some decorum.
Infuriating…

Wow. Arizona is trying really hard to take the wacko crown from Florida.

"If the issue is that the boys may accidentially get in contact with a breast or other parts of her body, then so what?
It’s not like the female body is poisonous, they are just humans for christ sake! It’s a sports game, not a sexual situation. Jeez!"

You are of course correct. 15 year old boys are well known for their complete disinterest in laying hands upon the 15 year old female form whenever the specter of sport is brought into play. Why, the fact that it is baseball practically turns them into eunuchs!

"Craig, do you realize that your argument “shun females to protect each sides’ sexual purity” is EXACTLY what muslims use to enfoce the wearing to hijabs and burkas and shadors?"

So to believe that 15 year old boys (minors, though in full puberty) should not play a heavy contact sport in which they could potentially (inadvertently) inappropriately touch a 15 year old girl (also a minor) makes me a tacit supporter of Islamic fascism? Who knew?

Tell me oh enlightened ones, what would happen to one of those teenage boys if either the teen girl, or one of the parents, cried that such inadvertent touching was actually on purpose? The probability of such an occurrence is all too real. And has been preceded by fights on field resulting in assault charges.

Well, She did win the game for them. An excellent strategy, if you ask me. Exploit the other side's fears.

Yes, baseball is a physical sport, in which there is the possibility of contact. I say let's take it a step further and only allow straight boys to play. After all, you wouldn't want a gay guy accidentally touching your junk as he slides into home plate.

Someone took the phrse "reaching first base" a little too literally.

Craig, do you realize that your argument "shun females to protect each sides' sexual purity" is EXACTLY what muslims use to enfoce the wearing to hijabs and burkas and shadors?

But to hell with that! Make that uppity girl wear a cone of shame to show her what she deserves for being nonconformist, and thinking she could be a full human! Quick, lock her in the kitchen before it's too late!

Those silly Catholics, they had already lost 2 games and they were afraid they would lose against a girl too so they chose to pussy out.

What Mike_DK said. A sports collision isn't necessarily "inappropriate physical contact" and even if it were, both parties, being athletes, will probably get over it without lasting trauma.

Making girls pay for boy's assumed lack of control only reinforces barriers between male and female and the objectification of the other. Making boys pays for girls wanting to participate builds unnecessary resentment.

A _lady_ baseball player?

I a girl want to play ball with the boys, she have obviously accepted that there is a risk getting hurt. Thats her own choice.
If the issue is that the boys may accidentially get in contact with a breast or other parts of her body, then so what?
It's not like the female body is poisonous, they are just humans for christ sake! It's a sports game, not a sexual situation. Jeez!

Alice - on purpose you wholly ignore the potential for the inappropriate touching of a minor that I talked about. And instead, mention only rough play. Now why on earth would that be?

My daughter is not in her teens yet, but according to you I would live in the dark ages if, when she turns 15, I would not want 15 year old boys barreling into her and potentially (albeit inadvertently) touching her in a manner in which, if it occurred off of the baseball diamond, would invite the attention of the authorities? That being your position, it is safe to say that your values are very different to my own.

Aside from that, albeit wholly unwittingly on your part, you acknowledge that the daughter's mother is indeed obtuse and that her daughter is playing a game in which physical contact is a very real prospect.

Alice, do not worry, it is I who stands in the minority, the number of men who will afford you no consideration at all for you gender grows by leaps and bounds year after year.

BTW, having watched my wife give birth I indeed know what women are capable of. I also know that if I ran my 250lbs into her at full clip she would not be getting up again anytime soon. It's a little thing called physics, whereby the heavier the mass at a given speed the greater the force it strikes with.

So this girl single handedly won the match for her team! yeah! :D

Craig -

Feel free to live in the dark ages, but don't drag the rest of us back with you. I'm happy to rough house from time to time, and love to play softball with the guys. I can do that, and I can be a wife to a guy that treats well. Women are capable of more than you think. We're not fragile or made of eggshells. Heck, women give birth. We're damned tough.

she wins because they quit so thats an easy victory good fer her. its sad that its ok to be sexist but not racist how fucked up is that.

I think it's "Fundamentalist Catholic" vs. "Liberal Catholic" - the kind that would say it's OK for women to have rights...

You could argue that "fundamentalist catholic" makes sense because they didn't agree with some of the reforms the catholic church made, thus they are "more catholic than the catholics"... or... "fundamentalist catholic". So I don't think it's a terribly inappropriate choice of words.

Personally I would have preferred "extremely superstitious", but it's a hard sell.

The girl has obviously hit puberty, she plays second base, and a teenage boy comes hurtling towards her determined to make that base before she gets the ball. And according to the girl's mother the game is not physical? That simply is delusional.

Whether the stronger male crashes into her and hurts her, or, in the collision, lays hands upon her breasts, or collides with other areas if he comes down upon her, no intellectually honest person could deny that there is the potential for physical contact of an inappropriate nature to occur.

The only way a male player could avoid this would be to hold back in his own efforts and so disadvantage himself and his team. But this reality isn't important, because, again, according to the girl's mother, the same woman who thinks her daughter does not play a physical contact sport, "(they believe) that a girl’s place is not on a field."

The School's Statement : ""Teaching our boys to treat ladies with deference, we choose not to place them in an athletic competition where proper boundaries can only be respected with difficulty."

Unmentioned in the story above, is that the other two times the teams met, the 15 year old girl sat the games out.

Is it really so outrageous that 15 year old boys should be taught that it is not okay to go crashing into into 15 year old girls, but rather, that they should treat them with a little physical courtesy? According to Alice in the comments, it is something to be depressed about. Yet I would be depressed if I did not teach my son that.

quitting before you even try is what sports is all about lol

they should just disband and burn their equipment

talk about a pathetic excuse for a team

Alice: Thank you. Exactly.

This guy was excommunicated from the Catholic church in 1988.

If by "Fundamentalist Catholic", you mean "Not a Catholic", then...yes!

Seconding Jeff's comment above: That the term "fundamentalist Catholic" was used in this article means this reporter doesn't know up from down. It's possible there's more to this story.

I just did a little research on the group that runs this school. They are lead by this man:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Williamson_(bishop)

He's a holocaust denier and all around horrible person. Enjoy!

So, if a girl doesn't belong on the playing field, where does she belong? I can only assume these boys think this girl is good for nothing but growing up to either be a mommy or a nun. How totally depressing.

Catholics. Nuff said.

As controversial as it may seem, this is actually a good example of how to get along. No one is forcing their views onto anyone else here. Some accomodations were asked for, and granted, while others are being considered. Needs were communicated, and a working solution was negotiated. But in the end, each side had a line they could not cross... and that's OK.

I'm sure the athletes on each side were disappointed, but sportsmanship extends beyond the playing field.

Beware the religion writer who uses terms like "fundamentalist Catholic."