Join 3,555 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)


But Would They Let Saint Mary Officiate?
February 14, 2008 12:32 PM   Subscribe

WWJD? Well, he definitely wouldn't let a woman tell him what to do. At least, that's the theological position one institution of Christian learning has taken. And this isn't the first time the perhaps ironically named St. Mary's Academy has taken a "positive stand" on principle. Another take on the story here. (Via Boing Boing.)
posted by saulgoodman (72 comments total) 3 users marked this as a favorite

 
Seriously?
Not according to some guy named Mark.
posted by Baby_Balrog at 12:39 PM on February 14, 2008 [1 favorite]


Well, you know, I guess since he's Jesus he wouldn't let anyone tell him what to do.
posted by Artw at 12:41 PM on February 14, 2008


I just want to thank saulgoodman for not taking the "Haha, look how backward and dumb those Kansans are" approach with which so many others have posted this news today. St. Mary's is a weird excommunicated offshoot of the Roman Catholics. They're practically a cult. And everyone else involved in the story was appalled by the school's comments. Kansas has its problems, but I don't think this story reflects badly on my state of origin.

Sorry, just needed to get that off my chest.
posted by JeremyT at 12:48 PM on February 14, 2008


Just to play devil's advocate. This statement seems to make a good point:

"How can promoting women to act and look like men be called upholding their dignity?"
posted by oddman at 12:52 PM on February 14, 2008


They say they're taking a "positive stand" against the "egalitarian principles of our times" like it's the end of the fucking world.

Fuck off you patronizing assholes.
posted by notsnot at 12:54 PM on February 14, 2008


Another take on the story here
Where?
posted by beagle at 12:56 PM on February 14, 2008


They're practically a cult.

That word gets thrown around far too much. It should really only be used when discussing the band.
posted by The World Famous at 12:59 PM on February 14, 2008 [1 favorite]


Well, it'd be a good point if someone was calling for women to look and act exactly like men. I guess you could say theres a call for women to "act" like men if you assume "act" is broad enough to include "act as if they have the same kind of rights, responsibilities and job oportunities as men".
posted by Artw at 12:59 PM on February 14, 2008 [6 favorites]


Religious pricks still don't like uppity women ... film at eleven ...
posted by EatTheWeak at 1:04 PM on February 14, 2008 [1 favorite]


I'm glad to see someone finally taking a stand against this is strand of vile, apostate corruption that has been infecting our society for too long. To wit:

"Why Can't a Woman Be More Like a Man?"
1964, music by Frederick Loewe; lyrics by Alan Jay Lerner


PROFESSOR HIGGINS:
Why can't a woman be more like a man?
Men are so honest, so thoroughly square;
Eternally noble, historically fair.
Who, when you win, will always give your back a pat.
Why can't a woman be like that?

Why does every one do what the others do?
Can't a woman learn to use her head?
Why do they do everything their mothers do?
Why don't they grow up, well, like their father instead?

Why can't a woman take after a man?
Men are so pleasant, so easy to please.
Whenever you're with them, you're always at ease.

Would you be slighted if I didn't speak for hours?

COLONEL PICKERING:
Of course not.

PROFESSOR HIGGINS:
Would you be livid if I had a drink or two?

COLONEL PICKERING:
Nonsense.

PROFESSOR HIGGINS:
Would you be wounded if I never sent you flowers?

COLONEL PICKERING:
Never.

PROFESSOR HIGGINS:
Well, why can't a woman be like you?

One man in a million may shout a bit.
Now and then, there's one with slight defects.
One perhaps whose truthfulness you doubt a bit,
But by and large we are a marvelous sex!

Why can't a woman take after a man?
'Cause men are so friendly, good-natured and kind.
A better companion you never will find.

If I were hours late for dinner would you bellow?

COLONEL PICKERING:
Of course not.

PROFESSOR HIGGINS:
If I forgot your silly birthday, would you fuss?

COLONEL PICKERING:
Nonsense.

PROFESSOR HIGGINS:
Would you complain if I took out another fellow?

Pickering
Never.

PROFESSOR HIGGINS:
Why can't a woman be like us?

[dialog]

PROFESSOR HIGGINS:
Why can't a woman be more like a man?
Men are so decent, such regular chaps;
Ready to help you through any mishaps;
Ready to buck you up whenever you're glum.
Why can't a woman be a chum?

Why is thinking something women never do?
And why is logic never even tried?
Straightening up their hair is all they ever do.
Why don't they straighten up the mess that's inside?

Why can't a woman behave like a man?
If I was a woman who'd been to a ball,
Been hailed as a princess by one and by all;
Would I start weeping like a bathtub overflowing,
Or carry on as if my home were in a tree?
Would I run off and never tell me where I'm going?
Why can't a woman be like me?
posted by psmealey at 1:04 PM on February 14, 2008 [3 favorites]


There was always an uneasy coalition in couples I knew when I partook of a sect of that religion. When the always-submission was brought up in front of a couple standing there, the woman would kind of throw out some monosyllabic and barely audible agreements. The guy would puff his chest out an almost imperceptible amount and kind of nod, and the couple would just stand there, while the light of the idea passed on them like a searchlight.

Then a little bit after that, they'd be back to normal. She'd tell the guy to do this thing and that thing, and make all kinds of decisions sometimes. Other times, He'd make a decision or bring up an idea and they'd discuss it together. And it would be pretty much normal and they would pretty much seem happy. Til that searchlight came back.

Every so often there was a 'practicing' couple where the guy wore this like the tin badge it was, lording over the house with the assigned authority of a kid who is asked by his sister's preteen friends to play the husband in "house". Most of the times even in that situation things were okay - the woman would pretty much play the role she signed up for, while everybody pretty much realized how ridiculous it was. But the hurt was real when the guy would 'shame' the woman by commanding her in public, or so it looked real enough to me. Those guys would think they were honorable, righteous and strong. And they couldn't have looked weaker to me.

Yes, you, big brother, I'm talking to you. It has been years since I've personally seen you act like that because I am now states and miles away in literal and figurative terms, but you always looked so weak.
posted by cashman at 1:06 PM on February 14, 2008 [28 favorites]


Two different events here, the first one being complete, total, and unmitigated crap.

The second one is only mostly crap. I could understand not wanting to be the first guy to potentially seriously hurt a woman on the field, considering how they are trained to put women up on a pedestal. I feel a sliver of sympathy when I put myself in the shoes of a young man who has probably been told all about The Blessed Virgin Mary and Litigious Libruls.

How long have they had co-ed football in Kansas? Tres Progressieve!
posted by butterstick at 1:07 PM on February 14, 2008


That was a hell of a comment, cashman. Wow.
posted by notsnot at 1:08 PM on February 14, 2008


I saw this on BoingBoing earlier and was afraid it would get posted here.

With all due respect, JeremyT, this is a fucking disgrace and people like this are a large part of why Kansas is -- rightly, IMHO -- looked down upon so often.

I spent my entire childhood in St. Marys. I didn't go to the Academy, but knew some people who did, and dated a girl who did. The people who attend and run that place are, to me personally, culturally ass-backwards and incredibly insular. So many of them have moved to the area -- many of the students are from Michigan, IIRC -- that they now have a lot of sway in city elections and policies. Majority rule, of course, but many of them that own businesses in town refuse to pay taxes. It's just really a sad little BFE town that's been more or less taken over by some seriously off-kilter sectarians. My folks still live in town, but if I never set foot there again -- not likely, but here's to hoping -- so much the fucking better.

I hate to even link to their site, but for those who are interested, go to the Society of Saint Pius X HQ and bone up on their ideas. It gets real crazy real fast.
posted by cog_nate at 1:09 PM on February 14, 2008


interesting. St. Mary's Academy states on its homepage that they are a member of the "Society of St. Pius X". Some quick googling shows that the relationship of the Society of St. Pius X to the Roman Catholic church is a bit rocky; the society is not officially recognized, and there was a fracas in 1988 regarding unauthorized ordination of bishops.

So is St. Mary's sort of the RC equivalent of Bob Jones University?
posted by dubold at 1:09 PM on February 14, 2008


Another take on the story here
Where?


D'oh. Here.
posted by saulgoodman at 1:11 PM on February 14, 2008


Just to play devil's advocate. This statement seems to make a good point:

"How can promoting women to act and look like men be called upholding their dignity?"
posted by oddman at 12:52 PM on February 14


You know, you're right - the most dignified thing a woman can possibly do is behave exactly as men would demand of her. That whole 'assuming positions of authority' thing is just too much stress for their pretty little heads. Wait, what?
posted by FatherDagon at 1:14 PM on February 14, 2008


They do seem to be rather atavistic:

"The Activities Association said it is considering whether to take action against the private religious school. St. Mary's Academy, about 25 miles northwest of Topeka, is owned and operated by the Society of St. Pius X, which follows older Roman Catholic laws. The society's world leader, the late Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, was excommunicated by Pope John Paul II in the late 1980s." from the first article.

Rocky indeed.
posted by khaibit at 1:15 PM on February 14, 2008


Just to play devil's advocate. This statement seems to make a good point:

"How can promoting women to act and look like men be called upholding their dignity?"
posted by oddman at 12:52 PM on February 14

Yes, an excellent point. Men are fucking savages.
posted by butterstick at 1:16 PM on February 14, 2008


How long have they had co-ed football in Kansas? Tres Progressieve!

No, she's a ref, butterstick. The objectionable part is she would have authority over the boys playing the game. Oops, just threw up in my mouth a little.
posted by Horace Rumpole at 1:20 PM on February 14, 2008


Oh, my bad, I hadn't read the second article.
posted by Horace Rumpole at 1:21 PM on February 14, 2008


How can promoting women to act and look like men be called upholding their dignity?

Promoting that women can act and look however they hell they want is upholding their dignity.
posted by Malor at 1:22 PM on February 14, 2008 [9 favorites]


sigh. "The hell". "They hell", while rather existentialist, just doesn't work there.
posted by Malor at 1:23 PM on February 14, 2008


I just want to thank saulgoodman for not taking the "Haha, look how backward and dumb those Kansans are" approach with which so many others have posted this news today.

JeremyT: No problem. This issue is definitely not about Kansas. Christian extremism's the problem. I found this story compelling because it illustrates the fact that non-Christian religious faiths by no means have a monopoly on backwards attitudes toward gender issues.
posted by saulgoodman at 1:28 PM on February 14, 2008


Just to play devil's advocate. This statement seems to make a good point:

"How can promoting women to act and look like men be called upholding their dignity?"


You're, uh, joking, right?
posted by Pope Guilty at 1:29 PM on February 14, 2008


It's easy to figure out what these folks think of their neighbors to the West -- Colorado School Accommodates 8-Year-old Transgender Student [YouTube].
posted by ericb at 1:38 PM on February 14, 2008 [1 favorite]


The second one is only mostly crap. I could understand not wanting to be the first guy to potentially seriously hurt a woman on the field, considering how they are trained to put women up on a pedestal. I feel a sliver of sympathy when I put myself in the shoes of a young man who has probably been told all about The Blessed Virgin Mary and Litigious Libruls.

There's a bit more too it than just hurting her. A 'guard' is an offensive lineman. This means constant hands to chest area is necessary in play (more so for the offense which is actually largely restricted to that but it would be unlikely for a game to complete without a defender having his hands in there). Even in a respectable school there would be a quite a few people bothered when the first, say 18yr old senior defensive tackle has his hands on the chest of a freshman girl. I'm guessing that white city high found ways to effectively deal with that issue in past games though I'm curious how. Fortunately, the school did not seem to catch this and defended their stance on unreasonable grounds.
posted by kigpig at 1:42 PM on February 14, 2008 [1 favorite]


I found this story compelling because it illustrates the fact that non-Christian religious faiths by no means have a monopoly on backwards attitudes toward gender issues.


Catholics are christians, dude.
posted by echolalia67 at 1:42 PM on February 14, 2008


Excellent point kigpig, I hadn't considered the boobiefactor. Nor the statutory issue.
posted by butterstick at 1:44 PM on February 14, 2008


But when the St. Mary’s team realized that one of the boys on the White City team was a girl...

If I had a nickel for everytime I made that realization just a little too late...

I still wouldn't have enough money to buy a punchline.
posted by SpiffyRob at 1:48 PM on February 14, 2008


Catholics are christians, dude.

No they're not, they're apostate polytheistic idolators who are leading a full third of the world's population to hell.

/Jack Chick
posted by psmealey at 1:53 PM on February 14, 2008 [2 favorites]


Christian extremism's the problem.

Yep. My whole family is very Christian -- most Mefites would likely call them "religious extremists", but in upstate South Carolina they fit in pretty well. My own mother believes it's her God-given duty to be an "obedient wife", which causes her no end of mental distress, as she is a very strong, independent woman by nature. Strong, subservient, strong, subservient... burst into angry tears!

My father, on the other hand, just wants her to be happy, and seeing her strain against herself and his non-existant oppression eats him up inside. They make the marriage work by generally avoiding contact with each other, because, you know, divorce would be Wrong.

On the upside, they've both stated, repeatedly, as near as I can quote, "Oh well. I'll die pretty soon, and then I get to go to heaven."

Fuck.
posted by LordSludge at 1:55 PM on February 14, 2008 [3 favorites]


Just to play devil's advocate. This statement seems to make a good point:

"How can promoting women to act and look like men be called upholding their dignity?"
posted by oddman at 12:52 PM on February 14


You know, you're right - the most dignified thing a woman can possibly do is behave exactly as men would demand of her. That whole 'assuming positions of authority' thing is just too much stress for their pretty little heads. Wait, what?

I don't think--or, I suppose, I'm choosing not to think--that's what oddman meant. I think that what he meant was: there are differences between men and women. Some are cultural, some are biological. Very few of those differences should ever make any real difference in terms of work of possibility of achievement, of course. But by the same token, I think that upholding the dignity of all persons means allowing them to be themselves, and not forcing them into molds. So, promoting the idea that women should act like (stereotypical) men is inherently degrading to their dignity. The reverse obtains, obviously.
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 1:58 PM on February 14, 2008 [1 favorite]


Even in a respectable school there would be a quite a few people bothered when the first, say 18yr old senior defensive tackle has his hands on the chest of a freshman girl.

Dude. The guys wear protective chest gear, don't they? Why wouldn't the women do the same?
posted by agregoli at 2:03 PM on February 14, 2008


The sooner we can get a man pregnant and explode all their heads the better.
posted by Artw at 2:04 PM on February 14, 2008


Even in a respectable school there would be a quite a few people bothered when the first, say 18yr old senior defensive tackle has his hands on the chest of a freshman girl.

But it's totally cool and completely unpervy for him to have his hands between his QB's legs.

People are so odd.
posted by rtha at 2:06 PM on February 14, 2008 [1 favorite]


rtha, I think it's about actual contact. Not many players are fondling their QB's block and tackle when waiting for the ball.

Some are, sure.. but we don't talk about TEH GHEY, because TEH GHEY doesn't exist in football. That's a sport for MEN! Grrrrr!

...yeah.
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 2:09 PM on February 14, 2008


HOW is it contact with a woman's chest when it's behind big protective padding? It's not like you can even discern boobs under that. Bizarre.
posted by agregoli at 2:10 PM on February 14, 2008


So, um, is this something to do with how your dirty bagel got numb?
posted by Artw at 2:19 PM on February 14, 2008 [2 favorites]


St. Mary’s Academy and White City High School were scheduled to play an eight-man football game Friday, October 1, at the St. Mary’s campus. But when the St. Mary’s team realized that one of the boys on the White City team was a girl, a freshman guard Kara Dowell, the team said it would forfeit the game rather than play against a girl.

Kara, the girl in question, offered to sit the game out. But her teammates at White City High School voted unanimously that if she didn’t play, then the whole team wouldn’t play. So no one played, and St. Mary’s Academy lost by forfeit. [Emph. mine]
I'd just like to say: serious props to the rest of the White City High School team. As disgusted with humanity as the bullshit by the St. Mary's team makes me, that the rest of the White City team just refused to be a party to it or give in to their bigotry is a real silver lining.

Of course, I suppose it's possible that they voted not out of solidarity but tactically, knowing that it would force the other team to forfeit ... but I'm going to believe that it was the former absent evidence to the contrary.
posted by Kadin2048 at 2:25 PM on February 14, 2008


I don't want to be around when the nuns teaching at St Marys find out about this.
posted by klarck at 2:45 PM on February 14, 2008


I'm really impressed by how everyone involved (seems to have) handled this. The league is taking its time to decide, the refs walked off in solidarity, the White City team did just the right thing.
posted by Skorgu at 2:48 PM on February 14, 2008


Ahem. Sorry about my rant earlier. I should've waited a bit before posting. But really, what an embarrassment to St. Marys and, by extension, Kansas.
posted by cog_nate at 2:57 PM on February 14, 2008


Zealous Religious pricks still don't like uppity women ... film at eleven ...

Fixed that.


The one thing that irritates me about a lot of conservative Christians who take the stance that the wife needs to be subservient to the husband, like to ignore the passage saying the husband needs to serve the wife as well.
posted by Atreides at 3:03 PM on February 14, 2008


HOW is it contact with a woman's chest when it's behind big protective padding? It's not like you can even discern boobs under that. Bizarre.
Guys have that "Princess and the Pea" thing going on with our hands and boobs.
posted by Aquaman at 3:03 PM on February 14, 2008


Umm...wouldn't the QB be the one putting his hands in the Center's crotch?

I played football in high school against a team that had a woman on it as nose guard. She had about four inches of spongy padding all around her chest area so there was really no way anyone could grope her even if they wanted to.
posted by chugg at 3:11 PM on February 14, 2008


Campbell, as a woman, could not be put in a position of authority over boys because of the academy's beliefs.

Regardless of the tenet, I don't understand the rationalization here. A referee is not a coach, telling players what to do. A referee arbitrates the game, and the *rules* dictate what the players must do. I suppose things like kicking a player out of the game for misconduct falls into a gray area, but a referee seems much more of a vessel for the authority *inherent in the rules of the game* rather than an authority herself. I can only suppose that women aren't allowed *any* positions of respect. Do they allow female bank tellers or postal carriers? "Oh no! She has authority over men's mail!"

I'm likely overthinking a plate of beans, but I could see why they wouldn't allow a women's coach. I can't see why a female referee is a problem, even allowing for the (nonsensical, imo) belief.
posted by mrgrimm at 3:16 PM on February 14, 2008 [1 favorite]


Presumably because in the case of a rules violation a woman would have to tell them they were in the wrong, and even if they clearly were it would be A Thing That Should Not Be.
posted by Artw at 3:24 PM on February 14, 2008


Umm...wouldn't the QB be the one putting his hands in the Center's crotch?

Whoops. Sorry. Yes.

I can never keep straight who's supposed to put their hands in whose crotch during a football game.
posted by rtha at 3:32 PM on February 14, 2008 [1 favorite]


I don't understand the rationalization here. A referee is not a coach, telling players what to do.

You know, I think you've got them there. That's just illogical. I'm sure they'll be devastated.
posted by pompomtom at 3:42 PM on February 14, 2008


Catholics are christians, dude.

Read the sentence you've quoted again, slowly...
posted by Jimbob at 3:45 PM on February 14, 2008


FEAR MY LOGIC, ST. MARY'S!
posted by mrgrimm at 3:56 PM on February 14, 2008


From the first link:

Fred Shockey, who was getting ready to leave the gym after officiating two junior high games, said he was told there had been an emergency and was asked to stay and officiate two more games.

"When I found out what the emergency was, I said there was no way I was going to work those games," said Shockey, who spent 12 years in the Army and became a ref about three years ago. "I have been led by some of the finest women this nation has to offer, and there was no way I was going to go along with that."


That's beautiful.
posted by ferdydurke at 4:11 PM on February 14, 2008


Baby Balrog:
Seriously?
Not according to some guy named Mark.
That passage doesn't strike me as "letting a woman tell him what to do". Frankly, it strikes me as "being an asshole to a woman because of her ethnicity, and then relenting (while retaining a haughty demeanor nonetheless) after the woman makes a snappy but absurdly humble comeback".

I suppose you could say that our disagreement on whether that passage shows Jesus "letting a woman tell him what to do" is a matter of taste and interpretation. On the other hand, though, according to some guy named Paul:
Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.
I think that's pretty unambiguous on the subject, and I find it hard to interpret it in any remotely charitable manner.
posted by Flunkie at 4:25 PM on February 14, 2008 [1 favorite]


I think that's pretty unambiguous on the subject

Or Paul's alleged opinion on the subject, anyway.
posted by The World Famous at 4:27 PM on February 14, 2008


Whatever. If Christians want to disown Paul's writings, then they should do so. And frankly, I think the world would be a better place if they did. But every copy of their supposedly holy and god-inspired book features that passage, and many other flatly repulsive ones as well.
posted by Flunkie at 4:37 PM on February 14, 2008


If Christians want to disown Paul's writings, then they should do so.

I thought that's what I just did (in part, anyway). Christianity is not a single monolithic entity whose adherents walk in lock step on every issue of doctrine, which is why St. Mary's is in the news instead of being the norm. There are and have always been loud disagreements over the import and significance of the various passages of the Bible among those who canonize it, and yes, there are even some who go so far as to remove the passages that they do not like.
posted by The World Famous at 4:52 PM on February 14, 2008


Incidentally, Paul also wrote this:

Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband. The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife. -1st Corinthians

Of course, interpret that as you will. The basic premise is that Paul was writing from the perspective of his age and time. Initially, women had a growing and active role in Christianity, which freaked out a lot of people (men). Paul, the master of conversion, basically sided on a conservative position on women to make Christianity less threatening to non-Christians, etc. Much of Paul's writings involve attempting to balance the interests of existing Christians from different origins, such as converted Jews and Gentiles. (One example concerns eating non-kosher food. Paul said it was fine for the Christian Gentiles to do, but it'd be good of them to be thoughtful and not do it around the Jewish Christians.) As a result, Christianity from the Jewish perspective could be quite radical, and at the same time, conservative, as well.

By no means, is this a defense to Paul's writing on women, but one would have to wonder if Paul might edit his writings if he were around today to make them as broadly appealing as possible. His goal in life was to convert as many as possible to the faith. Course, if he was just a chauvinist, then he might even turn even more conservative were he to be dropped into our world today. ;)
posted by Atreides at 5:34 PM on February 14, 2008 [1 favorite]


I'm with ferdydurke and Kadin2048, its nice to see the reactions of the other people involved in the affairs. They did good in a weird situation where it would have been easy to just go along.
posted by sotonohito at 5:51 PM on February 14, 2008


But it's totally cool and completely unpervy for him to have his hands between his QB's legs.

Well would you want to place a freshman girl into the middle of a gay sex orgy? The fun stuff happens on the fumbles anyway.

Seriously though, it's not that it would NEED to be a problem, but that it COULD be a problem for some. Nothing that couldn't be resolved by the coach giving a brief 'pep talk' to his linemen before the game. But obviously St. Mary's isn't even close to that point yet. Some of these schools have policies of no guy-girl holding of hands on school property even (no idea about this particular one, but I recall some of the religious schools around when I was growing up), which placing such kids in this situation could be a bit unfair to them. Not her fault, or the school she plays for's fault, but the religious school for the way they train these kids.
posted by kigpig at 6:24 PM on February 14, 2008


Oh, my. There's a girl wearing all these pads and stuff playing football with the boys!
What year is this again?
posted by Floydd at 9:26 PM on February 14, 2008


oddman: Just to play devil's advocate. This statement seems to make a good point:

"How can promoting women to act and look like men be called upholding their dignity?"


i don't know. let's ask hillary, shall we?

oh, wait...
posted by CitizenD at 12:07 AM on February 15, 2008


We had 2 women on our wrestling team. They wrestled everyone in practice, and wrestled their weight class at meets. Wrestling other boys wasn't sexy, and neither is wrestling girls. Just like it's ok to be friends with girls, it's ok to do sports with girls.
posted by garlic at 8:26 AM on February 15, 2008


let's ask hillary, shall we?

Because she's all about dignity.

(not that I agree in any way with oddman's point, but I'm not sure Hillary is the best example of someone upholding their dignity. Maybe Ruth Ginsberg?)
posted by The World Famous at 9:13 AM on February 15, 2008


Kara, the girl in question, offered to sit the game out. But her teammates at White City High School voted unanimously that if she didn’t play, then the whole team wouldn’t play. So no one played, and St. Mary’s Academy lost by forfeit. [Emph. mine]

I'd just like to say: serious props to the rest of the White City High School team. As disgusted with humanity as the bullshit by the St. Mary's team makes me, that the rest of the White City team just refused to be a party to it or give in to their bigotry is a real silver lining.


I didn't like the idea that White City would handle the confrontation by choosing not to play. To my mind, the best approach would be for the whole team to stand up together and say "We WILL play. If you can't handle it, YOU walk away.".

But St. Mary's did forfeit, so maybe that was closer to what really happened.
posted by CaseyB at 9:56 AM on February 15, 2008


All of the arguments/discussions about girls on the gridiron are interesting, but the game referred to in the OP was basketball. Though both sports are contact sports, discussions of football have become a derail.
posted by heathergirl at 10:10 AM on February 15, 2008


Fair enough, but as far as I thought, women who play basketball also have protective "cups" for the chest area, do they not? I know I'd want such protection.
posted by agregoli at 10:49 AM on February 15, 2008


I think it's interesting that no one has thought of the fact that the football team wasn't afraid of hurting a girl but being hurt by her. Imagine the blow to the hyperinflated male ego if he found himself laying on the ground with a girl in football pads looking down on him. If they truly have a problem with a female telling males what to do, imagine the problem they would have with a girl pushing them around physically.

She was on the team and supported by her team mates. This leads me to believe they knew she could play with the boys.
posted by whatever at 10:50 AM on February 15, 2008


Wait... So the *other* team forfeited, solely because of her? So her own team took the win, solely because of her??

MVP, baybee!!!
posted by LordSludge at 11:20 AM on February 15, 2008 [1 favorite]


Don't any of those boys have mothers who tell them what to do? Female cops? Teachers? Doctors or nurses?
posted by etaoin at 11:35 AM on February 15, 2008


I think a couple of people have overlooked the fact that there were two different events--a basketball team and referee and then, separately, a story about the football team...
posted by etaoin at 11:36 AM on February 15, 2008


Don't any of those boys have mothers who tell them what to do? Female cops? Teachers? Doctors or nurses?

Yeah, that's one of the parts I find most mind-boggling: The whole traditionalist concept of respecting and obeying your elders gets trumped by the gender issue. So presumably mother's can't discipline their own male children, according to this peculiar world view--unless for some reason that would be considered a special case... Or maybe there's something more than meets the eye going on here. Maybe the academy's officials secretly suspected the female ref of being--gasp!--a lesbian, and all the rationales about women having authority over boys are meant to mask their real motivations.
posted by saulgoodman at 12:19 PM on February 15, 2008


« Older "I've been anticipating this for some time,"...  |  Henri Salvador died yesterday,... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments