Did you see the weird exchange with the obviously uncomfortable male anchor on the today show? The young girl was sort of very awesomely talking about playing in the NBA, and the anchor turned it into a slam on the WNBA.

He also equated her scoring a lot of points with her going back to play against the lowly girls.

Plus, the little boy teammate of hers is adorable for using the word "sprinkles".

"Her greatness... it kind of sprinkles off and onto us."

Wow. Cutest ever.

"Her greatness... it kind of sprinkles off and onto us."

Wow. Cutest ever.

These young kids shouldn't be fouling and playing rough anyway. It's a lousy excuse, that they can't foul her. They shouldn't be fouling the other boys, either. The real problem is that the parents are concerned that their little precious boys might feel inadequate because they're being outplayed by a girl.

I feel really bad for the boys she has played against so well. Not because she whupped them, but because the parents they are stuck with are so mortified that they got beaten by a female athlete that they are shaming their own kids with their actions.

WTG, asshole helicopter parents.

If you would let your kid(s) take some lumps in life they might figure out how to overcome adversity and learn from such things. Instead you're setting your kids up to be little wimps who go running to mommy and daddy any time they fail. Hope you people have pull out couches or large basements for your kids to live in forever.

Two things:

1. I didn't realize teams of 12-year-olds scored 30 points in an entire game, let alone by a single player.

2. The conversation thread on the second article linked on this post (http://msn.foxsports.com/other/story/8178466?GT1=39002) is absolutely absurd -- precisely what you'd expect from a cross-section of sports fans and Fox news readers.

These young kids shouldn't be fouling and playing rough anyway. It's a lousy excuse, that they can't foul her. They shouldn't be fouling the other boys, either.

That's exactly what I was thinking. Only those players who aren't talented enough to win using skill will try to beat their opponents through physical force.

These kids already lack the talent. Rather than encouraging their kids to work harder and practice more, parents are complaining that their boys feel bad about breaking the game rules (fouling) and are telling them to take advantage of sexist rules to get the really talented players off the court.

When you read the article it seems bad, (well it is bad), but look at a movie of her playing with these kids. Boys or girls, she had absolutely no reason to be playing with kids when she literally towered 2 feet above most of the others.

I'm going to make it clear-I don't know much about this league, I didn't look into it, but the intelligent thing to do is not to kick her off the team, but to bump her up to the age 14 bracket or so, this would have made it fair.

I understand that in games like this people should accept natural talents, but
from what I understand this is a private league, meaning they had to preserve the game for the other costumers. If one single player allowed a single team to absolutely dominate the league, and stop it from being fun for the rest of the kids, why would the kids (and the money) come into the league?

Anyway, to conclude-shouid have just bumped her up to a higher bracket instead of kicking her off the team.

BluePencils / ellestar:

I see where you're coming from, but like it or not, strategic fouling is part of the game, and as competitive as youth sports seem to be nowadays, I don't doubt they start teaching that sort of play early (which may or may not be a bad thing -- if you're gonna have a sports team, might as well take it seriously, right?).

Still, you don't have to beat someone up or shove someone to the ground to foul them, so the argument still doesn't hold water in my book. I don't see why a boy would be loath to foul a girl any more so than any other player on the court...

It is so lame that they are *using* her sex to kick her off. I mean, she's not really being cut out because she's a girl, but because she's dominating the game. They're just using the girl rule as an excuse. And then to solve it by literally changing the rules against co-ed teams?? lame lame lame. What a weird way to go about addressing a common problem.

Kids leagues deal with this all the time -- some kids are naturally talented/gifted and some kids need more practice and coaching to get skills. Her parents and the league should just move her up a couple of brackets. To the big boys league or the big girls league, whatever.

@jmberhrens

You can call me sexist if you want to, but if I was on the court with a co-ed team, I'd be much more willing to foul a male before a female. It's the way I (and 99% of the male population) was raised, don't hit a girl, don't ever attempt to hurt a girl.

Even if it's just slapping a hand away from the ball for instance, I'd still have to work hard to do it against any girl, it just feels wrong.

JohnDoes-

On your first comment: I played (girl's) basketball for several years and often came up against girls at least a foot taller than me. That's the nature of the game. Basketball never stopped being fun, and, actually, the teams with the taller girls did not always dominate (we had some tiny, fast-as-lightning ones to help us out). The league would be too complicated if they started assigning people to brackets based on height and talent.

On your second comment: Not wanting to hit a girl does not make you sexist, but it is a strong indicator of the sexism inherent in our society. We need to teach these boys not to feel uncomfortable playing against a girl, not shelter them and implicitly condone these sexist teachings.

When one player in a youth league dominates, the losers look for a way to disqualify the dominant player. Shaq (for those who don't know, a big dominant pro player for years)said people were always challenging his age when he as a kid. So the losing teams looked over the rules and saw there was a rule against mixed-sex teams and found a way to disqualify this girl.

At 12 girls are often almost at their max height while the boys don't catch up for another year or two. You can see that in the video. The solution is coaching the boys to play her tough. They don't have to play mean or dirty, just play her like any other 6-1 kid they might have to face.

The dummies who don't want their little boys' egos to be crushed by losing to girl are missing an opportunity. She might be a star someday and their kids could say, with a little pride, that they once played against her.

@mathgoddess

In your league the taller girls may have not always dominated, but it's very clear thats not the case here. I don't agree with shunting her off the team, but it was more than likely a business decision. Was her single payment worth the money the league would lose if the other players quit? That seemed to be the point.
I never said what they did was right, but it was logical.

I'm not saying assign everyone to different brackets for talent and height, thats clearly not required simply because this girl seems to be the only one to have been kicked off. I'm simply saying move her to a older age bracket-where she can still impact the game, but she won't make it so the outcome of every game is predetermined by the question of who's team shes on.

99% of the male population doesn't hurt or attempt to hurt females, JohnDoes?

Don't make me laugh.

Aaaanyway, this story pisses me off so badly. The parents who campaigned to get this talented girl kicked off the team in order to protect their sons' fragile male egos should be ashamed of themselves.

I love your comment, LogrusZed.

When in the world has excellence not "sprinkled" itself on everyone around it and improved them all? If these parents wanted their kids to play better ball, they should be _begging_ to have them practice and play on her court.

A much better solution for the center would have been to form a separate league for the exceptional players, if they were so worried about the rest of the players getting left in the dust.

An addendum to my last post:
If the boys can no longer have fun because they don't win all the time, they need a few lessons about competitive sports.

It's all the feminists fault, I'm sure. If only those boys were socialized to beat the crap out of girls the way Jebus intended, it would all be OK.

@Sarah, I said 99% of males are raised not to hit females, perhaps you should go over and read my post again before putting words in my mouth?

Even that is a ridiculous exaggeration, JohnDoes. They're playing a sport. "Hitting" is not allowed, and even if it were, it would not be the same as punching a girlfriend in the face or something.

For these parents to pretend that their boys aren't as good as the girl because they're just oh-so-chivalrous is unbelievable.

jmbehrens--I don't follow basketball, it's true, but I have a nephew about that age who plays ice hockey at a competitive level, and they're not allowed to check and foul each other. Hockey is a much more violent sport where checking is allowed--just not at that age. There's no reason why twelve-year-olds should be pushing each other to the floor just because they do it in the NBA or even in high school.

I can sympathize with this girl, I was nearly 6' at age 12 (although clumsy as hell.) There's no reason to put her in with older girls just because she's talented. Socially, she's much better off with boys her own age than with girls several years older. Again--they didn't do this to help her, it's to save the boys' feelings. When the truth is that the boys would be a lot better off playing with a girl and learning how to deal with interaction between the sexes.

@Sarah

I'm not saying that is the cause at all, I simply said thats how I would feel. It may be a slight exaggeration, but how many parents do you know that take their little boy, look him close in the face, and say "now when you grow up I want you to hit women!"? (I'm talking strictly US/UK, I only know this culture so I won't presume to include others.)

Hey John, but what do you think it must have been like for all the teams that played against young Michael Jordan when he was coming up? I can see bumping her up to the 14 yr old league, esp. if she can take the challenge (And I think she can) but to say it's no longer fun for other players because they're losing sort of implies that the game's focus is wrong.

Oh, come on, JohnDoes. Teaching your sons TO hit women is not the same thing as NOT telling them not to.
I would guess that most *good* parents teach their kids not to hit PEOPLE, period.

@Lotus

I'll try to keep this short. It's obvious that the game was no longer enjoyable for a large part of the league, simply because they had enough people complaining to kick her out. I've already said, I don't condone what they did, but logically it makes sense from a business stand point.

Is one persons payment worth how many kids might get pulled out? From a numbers game, it makes perfect sense.

@Sarah, I'm not going to argue anymore, I've already admitted that I was exaggerating, going any further is a waste of time for the both of us.

It's funny, it's been my experience playing co-ed sports that the type of guys that are clearly irritated by female players are the ones that elbow, kick, push and otherwise foul us the most. That can happen with any player (male or female), and to some extent, it is part of the game unfortunately, but the chauvinists are the worst. It's not unlike sexual harrassment when you think about it (I don't want you here so I'm gonna make things hostile).

The video said that the parents thought it was great for a girl to be on the team until she blocked the first hoop. Her height is only an excuse to keep her off the team because they can't stand the idea of a girl beating the boys in basketball. If she was a 12 year old boy over 6 feet, no one would care.

"(and 99% of the male population) was raised, don't hit a girl, don't ever attempt to hurt a girl."

Considering the domestic violence rates, I seriously doubt that.

BluePencils:

I don't really follow hockey, but like I said, strategic fouling, particularly near the end of a close game (which, come to think of it, probably doesn't come up too often for this team, since this girl is putting up 30 point games at 12 years old, haha), is more or less accepted practice in basketball from the high school level up (and probably below that, but I don't find myself going to a lot of youth basketball games so I don't really know).

But like I said, you don't have to hurt someone in basketball to foul them. Basketball is a finesse game -- we're not talking slashes and full-body checks here.

And even if we were, if thats the game, and a girl with the talent and drive to play wants to play, who is anyone to challenge that?

On the idea of bumping her up to a higher age bracket: I think she should have that choice. I don't buy that this girl is only dominating the league because of her height. Its a factor, of course, as it is for EVERY basketball player, but her scoring is just too outrageous to attribute it all to that. This girl's got skills, no question, and if she feels up to the challenge of playing against older, stronger, more skilled and more experienced players, she should be allowed that opportunity. But nobody should force that on her.

It sucks to be a kid and be forced into "special treatment" situations, even if they are a byproduct of excellence in a given thing.

It's funny, it's been my experience playing co-ed sports that the type of guys that are clearly irritated by female players are the ones that elbow, kick, push and otherwise foul us the most.

I'm going to agree with Alexandra. I played little league basketball and for the longest time I was the only girl. Whenever I was on the court I'd get fouled like nobody's business, it was pretty much a guarantee, which turned out to be a good thing for my team because every time I got fouled I got sent to the free throw line:) Let's say I got real good at free throws and that helped win us some games.

And I'm going to echo the sentiment that this is a contact sport, you're going to get fouled at some point whether deliberate or not. Sometimes people just get caught up in the game and start slapping or grabbing for the ball. I fouled other players sometimes. I can understand not wanting it to get out of hand but they've got penalties for that as well. While I didn't play in high school we had one girl who played on our boys team (we did not have girls basketball) all through high school and she was a badass. No one complained and she ended up getting a scholarship. I guess that's one good thing about my super religious/conservative high school.

Fine by me, JohnDoes. Just wanted to point out that your excuses are based in fantasy and your logic is flawed (Not telling your sons not to hit girls =/= Telling your sons to hit girls).

i've never understood this whole coed thing. why aren't boys allowed to play on girls teams but girls are allowed to take male spaces. some boys lack the skills to play with larger boys and would be better served playing on the girls team, but for some reason these stories almost alway shave a girl taking over positions of boys

JohnDoes:

You say that this girl made the game less enjoyable for "a large part of the league," but according to the source article, it was some parents of kids on one team complaining.

Plus, the coach says that if he'd known about the mixed-gender team prohibition, he wouldn't have put "any" of his teams in the league, suggesting he coaches more than one. So the argument could be made that to honor the demands of these lunatic parents from one team would be detrimental to the league, from a business perspective, as you say.

Given that, how does this not boil down to straight up sexism?

It's funny, it's been my experience playing co-ed sports that the type of guys that are clearly irritated by female players are the ones that elbow, kick, push and otherwise foul us the most.

I'm going to chime in and agree with this, too. I play on adult (over 22) co-ed soccer leagues and get regularly fouled by the men who are aggravated that I'm a better player than they are (and a *gasp* girl).

Soccer is a contact sport and I fully expect that contact. It actually throws my own game off if guys are "pulling their punches" because they're not where I expect because they're not doing what the situation calls for. However, the mean, nasty fouls are committed by the men who hate that I have the confidence and talent to play hard against them.

I understand about strategic fouls in basketball (one of the reasons the sport bores me to tears is the half an hour it takes to play the last 5 minutes). Those strategic fouls aren't usually nasty or what boys would "feel bad" doing against a girl.

Also, this girl towers over most of the boys. I'm sure that it half of them tried a full body slam on her, she could just swat them away without a problem. The parents are more frustrated that the fouling isn't working on her because she is so good.

Also, I wanted to comment on what would happen if it was a huge boy playing. This happened to my cousin. He was a huge little kid (he consistently looked 2 years older than he was). Parents did complain when he was on the field simply crushing his opponents. However, there were no rules prohibiting him from playing, he was nowhere near talented (or mature) enough to be bumped up an age group or two, and he got to stay on his team.

ellestar--your cousin sounds like my nephew, who is 6'4" at age 13. Luckily, he's just an average hockey player, or there would be complaints about him. He's played since he was four or five and he always towered over the other kids. This girl's issue is her talent, not just her height. (Height helps in basketball, of course.) The thing about fouling is a red herring, as someone said, they probably can't foul her anyway! When I was that same height at that age, I laughed at the boys if they ever tried to threaten me physically.

The people who say she should be kicked off the team because she's too good want to have it both ways - 12 year olds can play on the team if they're average ball players but 12 year olds can't play on the team if they're outstanding ball players.

I really like owo9ja's comment. Why aren't boys allowed to play on girls teams? Isn't not allowing boys to play on girls teams sexist? With this train of logic, isn't any non coed team a reflection of sexism? And as a followup question, what are the reasons given to allow/prevent a boy from playing on a girls team?

For those suggesting that she be offered a chance to play in higher age bracket, that's fine, if, and only if, the recommendation is based on her talent alone and that the choice is hers.

Moving her to a 14-year-old age bracket because of her height is just asinine as she will tower above the 14-year-olds as well. I know that, at 6'1", I tower over most 14-year-olds.

It's funny, it's been my experience playing co-ed sports that the type of guys that are clearly irritated by female players are the ones that elbow, kick, push and otherwise foul us the most.
It's weird, that was my experience too. I played co-ed basketball until the separated the league teams by gender, around middle school. I was usually the only girl on the team.
The guys on my team were pretty cool, I'd been playing since first grade so I guess they were used to me. But the guys on the other teams could be really malicious and hostile. Like UltraMagnus, I got really good at free throws.

Why aren't boys allowed to play on girls teams? Isn't not allowing boys to play on girls teams sexist? With this train of logic, isn't any non coed team a reflection of sexism? And as a followup question, what are the reasons given to allow/prevent a boy from playing on a girls team?

I have never once heard of a boy who wanted to play on a girls' team.

Usually, with the soccer and basketball leagues that have girls teams, there are always accompanying boys teams. And from my experience with soccer, they only split up boys and girls at young ages in the very, very competitive leagues. This is because they will eventually be split up at the older ages and want to keep the teams consistent and have the players grow into the sport together. Teams are split up at later ages because of the physical changes that happen between males and females after puberty. The style of play based on the sexes different strengths and weaknesses changes and matures differently.

In older age groups, males playing on females' teams is often an unfair advantage to those teams because they have the greater height and muscle mass/strength than many of the girls based on physical differences. On the other hand, females on males' teams are often seen at a disadvantage for these same reasons.

And for keeping all teams co-ed, it's not going to happen. I've played lots and lots of co-ed soccer. I'm pretty good at soccer, yet some of the men on my teams, even those who are much worse players than I am, will not pass to me because they see girl = bad at sports. And my leagues have rules that to play, a certain number of females have to be on the field at all times. I like playing co-ed most of the time because I eventually win over most of my male teammates with my ability. But it still shouldn't have to be this hard. I wouldn't fault any other female for quitting under those circumstances. And those women deserved to play, too.

Coed leagues especially at a young age are generally really good for society. In a nutshell they force both males and females to view each other both as team and individual as well as ally and foe.

"Hoops" though seems like it is really single sex, with one team that has a ringer who is also a girl. Did the coach cherry pick just to win and now the opposing parents are mad?

Where I'm from we got moved around to keep the talent level similar. That way all the kids develop and no one gets to bully. Not sure what the rule is in the pacific northwest.

Not sure why I didn't ask this before, but why was she allowed to play on the boys' team to begin with?
I can't seem to find an explanation via the links.

Girls SHOULD be allowed to play with boys if there is no girls' team.
I think co-ed teams would be optimal.
But like another commenter pointed out, boys will often dismiss girl teammates outright (irregardless of their skill at the sport), which is not fair to the girls. Perhaps if boys and girls were just raised playing together, the boys would not make assumptions about the girls based on sex.

As for why boys shouldn't be allowed to play on girls' teams... why would they want to? Clearly, girls teams are considered less-than. But that brings me back to my question above. What was the rationale for letting this girl play on the boys' team?

ellestar:"I play on adult (over 22) co-ed soccer leagues"

I'm so jealous! I haven't played soccer since I was 14, and there's no adult league around here.

I'm a guy, and I'm all for co-ed leagues. Boys need to learn to treat everyone the same. Off the court, boys shouldn't hit girls -- OR boys, period. Same for girls (and with some of the recent teen girls on videos beating up other girls -- they need to be taught this as well). We need to move away from these antiquated notions of chivalry. Mothers teach boys to treat girls "special" as much as or more than the fathers, so it's a problem that crosses genders.

What I know is not fair is this: Let's have co-ed leauges, but if the girls get to keep their own league, and the boys' league becomes co-ed, then THAT is not fair because for every spot a girl takes up on the co-ed team(and I suspect there will be a fair number), that means some boys don't get to play -- anywhere. If you have 40 girls playing in what is currently the boys' league, you will be forcing 40 boys to sit out. And that's fine so long as you similarly open up the girls' league to boys. It has to work both ways or else you're not promoting equality, you are promoting special treatment. When they get to high school, the boys are going to dominate so you need a girls' league and a boys' league, but why not also a co-ed league?

I played pee-wee baseball as a young girl (5-7) and was totally heart broken when I had to leave the team to play girls softball, because all the older baseball leagues excluded girls. I got over it and went on to become a stellar fast pitch softball player, but I still wonder what I could've achieved playing with the boys on the baseball diamond.

Everyone seems to be assuming that girls will ultimately not be able to compete with boys because of physical differences. I just want to mention that there has been research indicating that this is not a biological fact. If girls are given opportunities to compete in sports, they can compete with men even as adults. I don't have time to find extensive research on this right now, but here's an article discussing it. And there are more out there.

i can see moving her up a bracket. Its not simply that these kids are upset at the losing, there is a difference between losing and getting crushed. If you simply stand no chance it does not make the game enjoyable. It sucks they are using the fact that shes a girl against her but as just an athlete I see no problem with moving her up. When I was in t-ball I wasnt allowed to hit, I could only field as I was already too strong and it only got worse from there, always playing at least one bracket up, it made the most sense though up until high school as I was simply too physically dominating and it wasnt that it would just cause the other team to lose, it removed all the fun. As skills improve this became less of an issue whether the sport was basketball, baseball, football, or even wrestling. As far as coed sports, it was really hard for me to play with young girls as I wouldnt touch them, even in a sport like basketball there is a ton of contact and a good hip check is more than called for now and then, I just couldnt do it to my female classmates/bball player friends, never quite worked past that.

Interesting comments on coed sports at adult sizes. In law school we had an active coed softball league that required a certain amount of women on the team and a certain amount of participation of the women required. I forget now whether it was minimum # on the field at any one time or at bats or innings or a combination. The idea was to play competitively but to prevent sitting the women down. Issues sometimes came up about breaking up double plays by colliding with the second baseman or collisions at home plate. Most of the guys didn't take kindly to an opponent crashing into one of our (usually much smaller) women teammates, even if it was within the rules. It wasn't a protectionism of women as reproducers (the usual excuse) but simply not wanting a friend who might be 100-120 pounds to be steamrolled by a guy 50-80 pounds heavier. I would hope we would have the same concern for a male teammate with the same weight differential, but I wonder.

In this basketball league, the organizers' problem was having to face the rules issue in the middle of the season. If her team had been told she couldn't play at the beginning, her team and her family could have planned to do something else (have her play up a grade or two with the girls' league). Having let her start, they should have let her finish, saying they made an exception for her.

They kicked her off for the wrong reason. But to be fair, kicking her out might be better for her. How can she push herself is she's playing against inferior opponents? I think she might find it more fun being with kids slightly older and slightly taller...or maybe not. She's only 12. That is a lot to ask from a kid.

Everyone seems to be assuming that girls will ultimately not be able to compete with boys because of physical differences. I just want to mention that there has been research indicating that this is not a biological fact. If girls are given opportunities to compete in sports, they can compete with men even as adults.

(First of all, your link doesn't work.)

There are real biological differences between males and females. There absolutely is overlap within the population (more than most people realize), but at competitive levels, very little overlap occurs.

I completely agree that girls should be given every opportunity to play, and play with boys if that's what they want. But keeping sports integrated at some levels will be discouraging for young women for a couple of reasons: 1) the physical differences will privilege young men to the point where young women will get less playing time, and 2) societal expectations will have both coaches and players expecting less of the young women and treating them differently on the teams.

Again, I think that if girls want to play with boys, they should be given the opportunity. But if girls want to play in a girls' league, they should have that option available (if there are corresponding boys' leagues).

i can see moving her up a bracket. Its not simply that these kids are upset at the losing, there is a difference between losing and getting crushed. If you simply stand no chance it does not make the game enjoyable.

From what it sounds like, she's trouncing the other teams in the girls' league even more than she was in the boys' league. I, too, am cool with moving her up to older brackets. But if the issue really was making the other teams feel bad, then she wouldn't be allowed in her current league, either.

With regard to what JohnDoes said, I believe the age of these particular players is a huge factor which is being overlooked.

So the median age is about twelve. Young Ms. Nared, then, as the only girl, is experiencing puberty earlier than the boys: she may be naturally tall, but it's this biological factor that's enabling her to tower over them so decisively.

So JohnDoes has suggested that she be bumped up to an age 14 group. By that time, her male opponents should have begun their own growth spurts... but then they'd also be up two years of experience. And she wouldn't have any team camaraderie with them. And I don't see how she could be easily reintegrated back into her own age group afterwards. So, that's not really fair either.

Maybe she really is destined to be the female Michael Jordan, and competition alone at ever increasing intensity is all she needs to realize her true greatness (I certainly think the confidence that comes with scoring 30 points should be giving her a boost)...but then again, maybe one of those few undeniable sex differences between males and females has simply tripped things up here. I can safely say that seeing this giant young woman simply trouncing my as yet prepubescent sons on the basketball court would piss me off, if I was unable to see any corresponding superiority in skill; and even there, puberty brings developments in cognitive and motor skills as well as physical changes.

The only solution I can think of though, in the interest of fairness, is to suck it up and ride it out, not come up with these lame excuses about how your sons can't foul the girl out of chivalry (as opposed to being physically unable to). Of course, separate men's and women's teams, at least around this transitional age, would also solve the problem, but there are usually never enough girls involved in sports to make a functioning league.

May I propose, then, that those special few who want to play (and deserve to play) be divided in equal numbers among teams of boys? If each team of twelve-year-olds took in one towering (and talented) pubescent girl, I think these parents arguments would be decisively shown up as what they are: bunk.

"The problem is that boys won't be "rough with girls," "

Exactly, that's it in a nutshell.

When we were kids, boys were told that it was especially taboo to hit girls. The only rationale we were ever given was that girls were weaker and more fragile which is why a lot of people still see them as weaker.

Stop that part and I guarantee stuff like this will go away.

Isn't it interesting that this knocking down of doors only goes one way?
I remember when everybody was in a tizzy over Annika Sorenstam playing golf in the men's PGA tournament.

I read the paper everyday and USAtoday was just PEPPERED with the same flavor of comments I saw earlier in the thread about "protecting the fragile male ego" and the author in USAToday queried what will happen to the performance method of judging men if Annika broke the top 10 or won?

Well, those articles fell by the wayside when she finished 96th of 111 MISSING THE CUT. When male golfers who came nowhere near finishing in the money in the PGA started inquiring about playing in the LPGA (to have a virtual lock-down on the prize purse) they were told they couldn't play in the LPGA! Lol!
When it's to men's deficit and women's benefit: sure okay. When it's to women's deficit and men's benefit the power's that be say NO-GO!

The simple fact is that what you have here is a contention of interests. The interests of Jaime and her parents and her (PERSONAL?) coach and the interests of the boys (and parents) on the team and the boys/parents on the opposing team.

The announcer said that her games against opposing girls teams would routinely wind up lopsided 90-12. So Jaime wanted "more challenge". On the opposite side of the spectrum you have the opposing boys (and their parents) who want her gone because she's a giant (she was 5" to 1 foot taller than all she was up against in that footage) and because she has (if I'm interpreting this correctly) a personal coach. What do you expect to happen in a game where height is everything? Basically (her gender aside) she's a ringer to help this team win (and that's why her team-mates are so ecstatic about her presence). She should be playing up in age in the girls league. It's a simple solution.

If there is a girls team, then the only reason it should be made available to her to play on the boys team is BY INVITATION. If any of the boys on any teams have a problem with it then it should be nixed.

Ditto for a boy playing on a girls team--it should be by invitation only (from the whole league).

Alternately you could have a co-ed league. But as Noah succinctly put it, if you have girls' teams as sacrosanct untouchable girls' teams, and boys team as 'open/mixed' teams you're unfairly discriminating against boys (which I suspect "some" on this board don't really care about), by reducing roster spots for boys compared to girls.

"if you have girls' teams as sacrosanct untouchable girls' teams, and boys team as 'open/mixed' teams you're unfairly discriminating against boys (which I suspect "some" on this board don't really care about), by reducing roster spots for boys compared to girls."

In high school our field hockey team welcomed the addition of two boys onto the team. Yes, they wore the kilts, as that was the regulation. Yes, occassionally they were harassed by the other teams (or, the boyfriends of girls on the other team--I remember one guy calling them "gay"), and yes, the refs were often unecessarily harsh with regulations or even refused to ref the games--we actually had to change districts when the boys joined the team. But they were an incredible asset and I think everyone on the team benefitted from their presence. I think if a sport traditionally for the "girls" (at least in the US; I met a guy from the UK who told me there it was male dominated) allowed more men, it would be great. I'm not sure if there's a co-ed team there now; when I was there actually there wasn't even a girl's soccer team, and now every town and school has one. My sister, when she was in elementary school, and even now in high school, often plays on the boy's team if they don't have enough players. And I love seeing her out there no matter what.

The video for this story was great. I really hope she is allowed to play in a situation that allows her to feel challenged.

Sad Dads teach their sons to hate and fear females (and themselves)

These fathers of boys shown up by a talented girl are pathetic. These are the same men who make porn available to their young sons if they (the fathers) suspect that their sons might be gay. The fathers set up a system (Patriarchy) where boys can fail the fathers in so many ways. Often the fathers do not even state the "infractions" that the boys "failed." So many men's sense of themselves is evidently so fragile that they live vicariously through their sons. Pride in one's kids is fine, but bullying kids to force them to compete is wrong. And exposing their sons to ridicule when the fathers complain and bar a talented girl from playing is really wrong.
Notice too that 12 year old boys are taught to foul one another hard. And that this is good. These are little boys. Fouling one another hard? In youth sport leagues as in other once all-male environments colleges, the military, workplaces, males abusing other males has long been the norm. It is only since females fought for (and began to win) equal access that the abuse of males by males in those environments has been revealed. Hard fouls, hazing, initiation rites, psychological, physical and sexual abuse and humiliation. These have all thrived in and epitomized male-only environments. Notice that boys fouling one another hard is represented to be positive. Notice that father's fears that their sons will not hurt girls in the same sanctioned way that they have been taught to hurt boys scares those fathers.
Let her play with the boys. If that one boy is indicative of other boys, the boys are lucky to be exposed to a budding superstar. If the boys can see past her femaleness and appreciate her athleticism, then the fathers have much to learn from their sons.
Thank you,
Joe Weinberg

Isn't the real issue that we need to raise the profile of womens sports rather than say that high level female athletes are 'too good' to play on female teams and should compete amoung the men?

It kinda sounds that the people saying she should compete on the male team feel that womens basketball is not deserving of the same level of respect that mens baketball is.

Like I posted just a few days ago, if girls and women are playing under the same terms, and do better, making the cut over males, the males need no "explanation" other than, they made the cut because they did better than you. These parents and boys are whiners.

Back in the day, I played in the tee ball league which was for 5-8 year olds. For some reason, there was one team which consisted of only girls, comprising all the girls in the league. By choosing to turn out, these were girls who had already been conditioned (as boys also require) to hit, throw, run and catch as would be expected of young players. They were not the best (other teams got changed up, so there was no consistency about which team was "best," even if there were good players), nor were the girls the worst.

The league could have used integration. I do not believe there were any more girls teams after that, nor were leagues for older kids integrated. A pity. There was one particular family of all girls that simply excelled at sports by any standard (their dad was a sports coach). The oldest daughter was allowed to play against boys (and do well) until high school, though not in high school. Another pity.

"Isn't the real issue that we need to raise the profile of womens sports rather than say that high level female athletes are 'too good' to play on female teams and should compete amoung the men?"

There are sports where audiences for the women are larger than the audience for the men. IIRC, tennis was among them. Damn right that the women's purse of winnings should reflect this.

Otherwise, it appears to be capitalism at work. The public and sponsors need to accept women's sports and female athletes as equals (and of equal interest as with men's sports) and get behind them, they way they do the men. It's not as if every "men's" sport is worthy of widespread interest. For example, pardon me, kabaddi:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kabaddi

Efforts were made to bring kabaddi into mainstream western culture (it has succeeded in Asia), and failed.

Personally, I am not a sports fan, and therefore do not consider the achievements of men any more exciting than the achievements of women. I have seen the US Women's Professional Football League covered on TV. What they are forced to endure as women is bullshit.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women's_Professional_Football_League

"Fifteen teams competed in the 2006 WPFL season. The league has hundreds of players and is growing, but the league is more 'semi-pro' as all of the athletes do not earn enough money to make a living."

How about team members needing to take time out of their day to stand in front of stores to sell tickets for their games and raise money, because people in their own home towns don't give a shit to turn out? Lame.

I would agree with Johndoe, if he added the words "in public."

I would agree with Johndoe, if he added the words "in public."

"Notice too that 12 year old boys are taught to foul one another hard. And that this is good. These are little boys. Fouling one another hard? In youth sport leagues as in other once all-male environments colleges, the military, workplaces, males abusing other males has long been the norm. It is only since females fought for (and began to win) equal access that the abuse of males by males in those environments has been revealed. Hard fouls, hazing, initiation rites, psychological, physical and sexual abuse and humiliation."

You say this is accepted as the norm. Some of this sort of abuse also exists among females, e.g., in school bullying. That YouTube video

http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/04/10/girl.fights/

"In 2003, 25 percent of high school girls said they had been in a physical fight in the past year, according to a survey by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (The figure for boys was 40.5 percent.)"

"A Justice Department report released in 2006 showed that by age 17, 21 percent of girls said they had assaulted someone with the intent to cause serious harm." WTF?

or the story of "Nevada-tan"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nevada-tan

(An 11 year old girl slit another's throat at school)

are simply two shocking examples which can result in assault, suicide, or even murder. This sort of aggression and abuse should instead be viewed as unacceptable, and in adults at least, punishable by law (other than e.g., simple fouling in the NBA).

This reminds me of a few years back, that high school girl who when competing against other girls would score over a hundred points resulting in crushing, 100+ point losses for the other teams. During one game, she attempted to set a record for either most points scored by a player in a game, highest ever score, or most disparate win. The game was called prematurely to end the opponents' humiliation and denied her the record. Maybe some sports fans can remember the specifics for a link.

In a case as extreme as that, I have no solution. There is no higher age bracket for that player. I do not recall if "playing with the boys" was an option. I would not consider such performance sporting, or fun. She's in a different league. 30 points a game, however, is not unreasonable. Great players do that.

My problem with "playing with the boys" as an obtion for girls who are 'too good' to play with the girls is that it strongly implies that the girls team is the "B Team". It also implies that the girls team is by default a lower status than the boys team, and should be viewd as a lower status game, as the good players can't be expected to stay in the 'lower' girls league and instead should aspire to be promoted to the boys league.

That's how it is when there are such outstanding players like that older girl who can score a hundred points in a game (ok, averaged "only" 42 points), and crush opponents. She never lost a high school league game. I believe this was the girl:

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/news/story?id=2315990

Look out, Kobe: NYC girl scores 113 in HS game
Associated Press
Updated: February 2, 2006, 5:27 PM ET

NEW YORK -- Hey Kobe, top this.

Epiphanny Prince of Murry Bergtraum High School scored 113 points in a game Wednesday, breaking a girls' national prep record previously held by Hall of Famer Cheryl Miller.

Prince, a 5-foot-9 senior guard, led her team to a 137-32 victory over Brandeis High School.

[end quote]

113 points in a single game, and a 135 point spread? The USA Today reports, [Her school] "Bergtraum, which has exceeded 100 points four times, has outscored foes 1,032-366, an average margin of 61 points." The opposing coach said of Prince's coach allowing her to go for the record, "She didn't earn this," Springer told the Post, adding that her team stopped playing defense in the second half. "It was like picking on a handicapped person." No shit. Me playing elementary school kids wouldn't be as much of a mismatch. Guys who actually play in wheelchairs would have my ass.

At university, she can find people who are a challenge, though still among the very tops in her region:

http://www.scarletknights.com/basketball-women/roster/prince.asp

OTOH, a great player who can score 30 points per game particularly as kids leave others behind in development, is not unreasonable.

What were Prince's options, or for her opponents, until there were enough such players or teams (e.g. a collection of college bests) to make it sporting? Even Tiger Woods, sometimes called the best golfer in history, has bad days, loses tournaments or *gasp* simply fails to make the cut. Same with Michelle Wie, in the LPGA. She's still inconsistent in the LPGA, but wants to compete alongside men on their terms, and even when she fails to make the cut, can outperform half of male professionals. It's not the men's fault they can outperform women in some sports. This Prince in high school, particularly as a senior, was simply something else.

Though recall, I don't consider men's sports any more impressive than women's sports.

Oops, "only" a 105 point spread in Prince's record setting game, not 135.

Speaking of golf, what if there were an LPGA player, who playing from the tournament tees, could consistently crush all her female opponents by over 20 strokes per round (Prince's team took their opponents by a near 3:1 point ratio?). Even Tiger Woods at his best doesn't savage the competition like that. Wouldn't such a woman deserve to kick some male ass (and with conditions as they currently are) and take home male level winnings, without people complaining it is bad for female sport?

I've played co-ed hockey for my school and co-ed football (by which I mean soccer, by the way, not American football) casually.

Hockey was co-ed because there weren't enough boys for them to have their own team, and football for the reverse reason - there were never more than four or five girls in my year who wanted to play football, and only one or two boys wanting to play hockey properly.

The boys and the girls on the hockey team were pretty much even, and if the one male regular was one of the best, it wasn't because he was male, it was because he was a year above the rest of us. We all practiced a lot, and when we played mixed teams in P.E. lessons, you could see the majority of the boys expecting to beat the girls easily - we whupped their asses consistently.

In football, we never got a real chance. In primary school, girls joined in the kickarounds, and while it was made clear that you were automatically inferior, if you tried hard enough, you'd eventually get some respect. I was on the school team for my primary school, and while I was usually a sub, it was a reflection of my skill as much as my gender...I was never great at football, I just enjoyed it.
At secondary school, the boys didn't change immediately, but the girls were no longer allowed on the team, and having that confirmation from authority that girls couldn't play, we were excluded from kick-arounds as well.

I think the reason girls don't get to play in mixed teams with boys is because it's not unusual at all for the people making the who-gets-on-the-team rules to have an attitude similar to that of my year 8/9 PE teacher:

In year 9, several of us girls decided we wanted to play football. There weren't enough of us for our own team, and anyway, it would be fairer to mix in with the boys, in our opinion, since all of us could hold our own against the weaker boys, and the best two were better than most of the boys at that time.
As the stubbornest, least easily intimidated by teachers and most articulate, I was nominated to go talk to the head of PE.
Conversation went roughly as follows:
Me: Sir, we want to play football. Can we join in with the boys please?
Him: No.
Me: Why?
Him: Because girls can't play football
Me: Yes we can, you've seen Dani play. And anyway, we don't care if we're not as good, we just want to have a go. You let people like Richard play, and even I'm as good as him.
Him: That's not the point, you could get hurt.
Me: And?
Him: You don't want to get hurt, do you?
Me: No, but I don't mind getting hurt if I get to have fun first. It makes it more exciting, and anyway, why would we get hurt more?
Him: The boys are more violent. You'd get hurt playing with them.
Me: How do you know if you've never let us try?
Him: Two lads broke their arms last year playing footie.
Me: Were they playing with girls?
Him: No!
Me: So what does that prove? If there weren't girls involved, it doesn't say anything about what would happen in a mixed game.
Him: But they got hurt!
Me: So? All that means is that boys get hurt when they play with boys. If you're that worried, then the BOYS shouldn't be allowed to play with boys.
Him: Shut up and get out!

I went.

We never did get to play. The boys themselves said they'd let us play if we could beat them, but the odds were rather stacked against us, since they had half the year to pick a team from, and we had five or so people. Of course they beat us, and claimed that meant that girls in general sucked...

I think the attitude thing is partly the idea that girls aren't good at sports; secondly the fear that if a girl proves she's better than you, then that first assumption means you REALLY suck to get beaten by a girl (this, I noticed applying to robot wars in technology, and to IT, not just to sport); and finally what my PE teacher seemed to have, which is sexism masquerading as concern for our welfare - fair enough not wanting girls to get hurt, but if the girls in question say to you in no uncertain terms that they're ready and willing to get hurt, that should probably waive that...if it doesn't, it implies that the girl can't make a decision for herself, that she needs protecting from herself - and maybe as a kid you do, but if girls do, so do boys!

Apologies for length >.

Let her play. It is a game with 12 year olds for goodness sakes. It is supposed to be fun.

And yes basketball involves fouling and people get hurt. So what? She's not made out of glass. Her injuries will heal.

There are some hardcore girls out there. The idea that girls aren't good at sports is silly.

As far as co-ed professional sports, well the thing is that most sports don't require extreme amounts of strength. You don't see too many body builders playing soccer. I have a hard time believing the elite of the elite women couldn't achieve the same amount of strength as male athletes.

I really don't see why the vast majority of sports aren't co-ed.

As far as co-ed professional sports, well the thing is that most sports don't require extreme amounts of strength. You don't see too many body builders playing soccer. I have a hard time believing the elite of the elite women couldn't achieve the same amount of strength as male athletes.

Strength is definitely necessary for soccer. The reason you don't see bodybuilders playing soccer is because they condition their muscles in very different ways than soccer players.

Increased strength will result in better conditioning, the ability to run for longer periods, bursts of speed used in sprinting, the ability to kick further and harder, and the ability to withstand contact and maintain ball control.

At recreational levels, I agree, there is enough overlap that co-ed teams are not a problem. At competitive levels, however, the difference is quite marked.

I am a very strong woman. I'm not nearly as strong as a very strong man. Head to head, I may have more skill, but that skill doesn't matter if he can run faster, kick harder, and (legally) knock me off of the ball without breaking a sweat.

But I'm annoyingly average when it comes to "good" players. I never had the talent or the abilities of the young woman in this post. She's really special and should be treated that way, I think.

So, I agree with you. Let her play with the boys if that's what she wants.

Ellestar:
“Increased strength will result in better conditioning, the ability to run for longer periods, bursts of speed used in sprinting, the ability to kick further and harder, and the ability to withstand contact and maintain ball control.�

Having played competitive football (why must Americans and Australians call it soccer!) when I was younger, and having watched our women’s team compete, I also noticed that the men had two more advantages. Most of the men were on average taller than most of the women, therefore, they are able to use more aerial attacks (hence why you see the Germans employ a lot of aerial attacks compared to other teams!). Also, I hope I’m not being sexist here, but this is anecdotal experience, so take it well-salted anyway, but I did also notice that the women’s team did have more injuries than the men’s team. I am not an expert in anatomy/biology, but perhaps this might show that men can take more a physical beating than women (which would be related to strength again..)

Unfortunately, I never had the chance to play in a co-ed team (in our culture any men involved in a such a thing would be considered barbarous and ungentlemanly), so I’ve never had the opportunity to play with or against women. If women want to play with men, why not?. The more the merrier. Sports is for everyone.

How about goalkeeping? I played mostly as a goalkeeper (which, as anyone who plays or watches football knows, are hugely underappreciated and whose name only appear when they fumble the ball or let in a goal! Hmph!). Any thoughts on whether a female goalkeeper would face less of a strength issue ?

Anyone involved in martial arts/fighting here? Would like to compare notes regarding this issue as well.

That is really too bad about your schools. My PE classes were coed. We did all things together. The only exceptions were:

- Separate changing and shower rooms
- Running timed trials by gender (there was overlap in performance)
- Girls being given five pound weights to hold over their heads while doing laps* (allegedly for conditioning) instead of ten pounds for the boys (I was told to use five pounds because of my low upper body strength - hey, I was 5'2", 92 lbs in 9th grade, and without body hair till 18 (sophomore in college), with some female classmates explicitly wishing they had bodies like mine, particularly my legs - not complimentary for a male in 1982)
- Girls doing flexed arm hang in lieu of pull-ups*
- Girls doing pushups on their knees*

*Weird when I'm sure there were classmates who could do it "like" the boys - I need to specifically train to reach or exceed 20 pushups, and my record for one arm pushups is one, IIRC. Being lightweight is OTOH, extremely beneficial for pull-ups.

Otherwise, we did all things including playing flag football together, even if that meant playing with the members of the varsity team in our class. I do not recall sexist attitudes among students regarding sports performance or desire to avoid causing injury to girls. e.g., people were fine giving the ball to girls. Dodgeball was particularly hazardous, as students enjoyed slamming the ball off the rear wall in the gym or anyone in the way. I recall at least one student (girl) taking it in the face and being led away. Not cool. Also one of the popular clique.

The issue here in terms of Nadera is skill. What she is is essentially a ringer. She has a personal coach, she's a half-foot taller than the closest competition, and is distinctly more skilled (the video I've seen shows some pretty advanced handles for someone twelve years old). Sexism definitely factors into why parents want her out of the league, but it's not the only factor. If Nadera were a foot shorter and a mediocre player this wouldn't be an issue.

The fact is, at her size and skill level she's playing essentially a different game than the other kids. People say thirty points isn't a ton, and it isn't by NBA standards, but rec leagues for kids have SIGNIFICANTLY lower scores. I've seen games with final scores at 28-22. So she's clearly overwhelmingly dominant. Parents are embarrassed by this dominance, and especially because it's coming from a girl.

However, don't rule out embarrassment as a factor. As a guy who lives a minute's walk away from a great Little League stadium trust me, many leagues have what's known as a "mercy rule" for these cases. In LL most everybody puts a seven run cap per inning, to avoid teams getting absolutely shellacked. This league appears to have no such rule, and probably never needed it before Nadera. Parents are exploiting a loophole to get a dominant player, specifically a girl (and this does compound the shame factor among the parents, clearly demonstrating sexism) out of the league.

I remember a few years back Danny Almonte was pitching for some Brooklyn LL team. He was a killer, because he was actually two years older than his birth certificate said. He went out there and blew away these kids, throwing no-hitters and just destroying people who weren't on the same physical level as him.

Most people agree that many sports leagues need provisions to ensure some fair degree of competitiveness in the league, which is why there are age, gender, and weight restricted leagues. Boxing and wrestling are huge about this. I disagree with them using a loophole to get Nadera out of the league, and I vehemently oppose the sexism that's partially behind it, but I don't oppose the sentiment of league standards to ensure fair competition.

Many leagues, including women's leagues, are preserved by these standards. It's why some crummy PGA golfer can't come in and dominate the LPGA, or why boxing is separated into weight divisions.

The best thing for Nadera, as a basketball player, isn't to dominate people she's clearly on a different level than. She'd be better served in her aspirations to move up a level into an older boys or girls league. There she'll face stiffer competition and become a better player. With her size and skill I expect to see her in the WNBA in a decade, and she'll be even better in college if she plays tougher competition now.

I just hope she decides to play for Rutgers.

timothynakayama:

Also may be anecdotal evidence... but after playing years of soccer (ouch, I'm sorry). I've come to the conclusion - along with other girls I've played with - that more injuries occur in women's soccer because they play more viciously. But, like you said, probably something to be taken well-salted.

Check out www.thehoop.com for the private sports club that kicked Nared off the team. They have posted a statement about how they are looking into forming a co-ed team.

There's contact information on their website as well, in case you feel the need to let them know what you think of their decision.

Oh boo-hoo!! So you lost to a team with a female in it. Gender shouldn’t be counted when playing a game. And in case they didn’t know, their sons don’t have to play ‘rough’ in the game. A fair and well played game doesn’t involve violence of any sort. That’s why they call fouls when they see one.
I think they’re just afraid a girls just as good as any other boy. PATHETIC people who think girls should play with dolls and guys should be on the courts!