Would you let your son play field hockey? (legal, boy, classes)

[watgirljl]

Originally Posted by Jaggy001

On a more serious note, which I was trying to allude to with my misplaced sense of humor, there comes a point in most sports where boys and girls should not be mixed.

I sort of see your point. Like wrestling maybe. I don't know. Maybe you are right. I see both sides. I mean if this is just one boy playing on a girls team I don't think he'd make that much difference to the competitive games anyway and if he is just looking to play then I don't see the harm. But if lots of boys started playing and teams won competitions because of that then I can see that this would be a big deal and if more girl teams just got boys in not based on skill but size then that would be wrong too. But then maybe if more boys played they would have their own team. I guess it's more complicated than I thought.

[Jaggy001]

Originally Posted by watgirljl

I sort of see your point. Like wrestling maybe. I don't know. Maybe you are right. I see both sides. I mean if this is just one boy playing on a girls team I don't think he'd make that much difference to the competitive games anyway and if he is just looking to play then I don't see the harm. But if lots of boys started playing and teams won competitions because of that then I can see that this would be a big deal and if more girl teams just got boys in not based on skill but size then that would be wrong too. But then maybe if more boys played they would have their own team. I guess it's more complicated than I thought.

As Pipsky pointed out, Mens field hockey, at least in Europe, is a "hard and rough" sport. So does a girls team really want to compete with that level of physicality?

The same is true for soccer. My son has played up to semi-professional level . From the age of 14 or 15 on, boys soccer becomes a very fast paced and physical contact sport. Girls simply cannot compete at that level with the boys. Same is true of rugby another very physical contact sport.

And lets not even talk about the fouls (in soccer) or the punches being thrown in rugby.

[watgirljl]

Originally Posted by Jaggy001

As Pipsky pointed out, Mens field hockey, at least in Europe, is a "hard and rough" sport. So does a girls team really want to compete with that level of physicality?

I doubt it. But would you just not let the boy join the team then?

I guess it is different if a girl joins a boy team. She won't have the same level of impact physically. But then maybe an argument could be made that boys would back off from her not wanting to hurt her. But then we are back to no co-ed sports which limits opportunities for girls right which is how this whole thing got started. Maybe at 9th grade it's not that big a difference but later it will be unless he is little.

[Jaggy001]

Originally Posted by watgirljl

I doubt it. But would you just not let the boy join the team then?

I guess it is different if a girl joins a boy team. She won't have the same level of impact physically. But then maybe an argument could be made that boys would back off from her not wanting to hurt her. But then we are back to no co-ed sports which limits opportunities for girls right which is how this whole thing got started. Maybe at 9th grade it's not that big a difference but later it will be unless he is little.

IMHO ... there is an age where co-ed can work in team sports. But when the kids hit their teens, I really don't think it does work and I think we need to be honest with ourselves in admitting this.

That is not to suggest that girls should not play sports. On the contrary, they should. My own daughter did Karate to the age of 12, played soccer and field hockey and now is heavily into rock climbing. I just do not believe that, after a certain age, we should be trying to force them to mix.

[bpcous]

Well, thanks for the responses. He is making the decision himself. In some ways maybe I am more upset by the idea than he is (or is letting on). He just wants to play, for the enjoyment/love of the game as someone said and didn't really want to have a big deal about it. But just because he is a boy it is a big deal.

He saw the coach yesterday and said that he is going to join. She suggested he wait until Monday to think it over and then if he is sure he can attend practice, meet the team then and she will sort out a uniform for him. He can then attend the next game with the team which is on Tues, on the bench.

I went with him to see the school play today from the stands. It really does look like a skirt to me, not a kilt and I am still unhappy with the idea that he has to do this myself just to be with the team. But it just seems to be the way things are, in PA anyway and I think MA too.

[Momma_bear]

Originally Posted by uptown_urbanist

I agree with momma_bear. Why not let him make the choice? It's one thing if you're talking about a little kid (and even then I think I'd be inclined to let him make the ultimate decision), but an older kid knows the pros and cons of joining. I'm not sure I understand the "not good enough to play international" argument, either. What about loving a sport and wanting to play? Most kids don't participate in sports at the world-class competitive level, but we as a society don't usually tell them that just because they're not likely to ever join the NBA it's not worth shooting a few hoops or joining the basketball team.

As far as the skirt think, I'm not familiar with the exact appearance of the uniform, but could this be an issue of terminology? Call it a kilt and be done with it. Men can and do wear kilts.

In any case, if this was my son I'd let him make the choice, and would support his decision.

A little OT but I agree that participation in sports shouldn't be determined by whether a child is going to be an elite athlete in that sport.

My son is 5'5", 130 lb and plays HS football. He is unlikely to be large enough to play in college or in the pros but he loves football and really wants to play. I can't imagine telling him that since he isn't ever going to play in the NFL then football is just a waste of time for him.

I sing (I am a music teacher) and I continue to take voice lessons even though I am not ever going to be an international opera star. It's something that makes me happy. Sometimes the activity itself is what is important.

[Pandamonium]

Originally Posted by uptown_urbanist

I agree with momma_bear. Why not let him make the choice? It's one thing if you're talking about a little kid (and even then I think I'd be inclined to let him make the ultimate decision), but an older kid knows the pros and cons of joining. I'm not sure I understand the "not good enough to play international" argument, either. What about loving a sport and wanting to play? Most kids don't participate in sports at the world-class competitive level, but we as a society don't usually tell them that just because they're not likely to ever join the NBA it's not worth shooting a few hoops or joining the basketball team.

The really cool thing about playing sports that are played internationally is the fact that it is played internationally. You don't have to wait for the Olympics. Its not about making the "national" team. There comes a point and time when one is playing sports where you realize that you are participating in something that is much larger than what you see around you. Most of the people I played soccer with, recognized it. Somehow, I think my son would miss that connection playing on a high school girls team. He isn't even going to get a vizual. I'm not sure that I can make that much clearer for you. I know it exists.

Its not about the love of the game. Its not about tradition, its not about money for a uniform.Its about this right here:

The US Women's team ranks 9th in the World. Allowing more boys into girl's field hockey only reduces opportunity for other girls.

That is the bottom line. Its political.


Further, if kids were able to play because of the love of a sport you would see schools that had enough kids for 3 football teams have 3 teams. The last time we saw something played for and accepted as "for the love of the game" was 1980 Lake Placid. After that it got real political and has managed to work itself all the way down.

As far as the skirt think, I'm not familiar with the exact appearance of the uniform, but could this be an issue of terminology? Call it a kilt and be done with it. Men can and do wear kilts.

No, your an adult and its a kilt. Now, walk into the boys locker room at high school. What is it called? A skirt. I'd like to buy the world a coke but there it is. For some reason you guys think that if you repeat the word kilt enough, I will stop calling it a skirt. Sorry to disappoint you, but I'm not the one that is going to need that. I am well aware of what a kilt is.

In any case, if this was my son I'd let him make the choice, and would support his decision.

My stance still remains the same. And my response is not just to you. I was trying to cover as many bases as possible without going into a major multi quote 20 response thread. Further, I can't tell if I am coming off in a brunt manner, which is not my intention, or if I have drank entirely too much coffee.

[uptown_urbanist]

I understand (I competed internationally in a sport and it was an amazing experience); it's just that I wouldn't not play a specific sport just because it doesn't offer an international-quality experience. Or, perhaps more accurately, even if I felt that way, I wouldn't deny my child the experience to play that sport if it was something he wanted to do.

I think you should give high school students more credit than you are. Any kid who plays wearing a skirt or kilt knows that there's a possibilty that he'll be teased; field hockey isn't a sport for the timid and the weak, so I'd assume that any guy willing to play on the team despite that risk is someone who is confident and up to the challenge. I wouldn't him for choosing not to play for that reason, but I still don't see why a parent would step in and take away the opportunity just because of a skirt and the fact that the school team is not competing at a world level.

I agree, though, that sports are highly political. Still, most players aren't expecting to compete internationally or even internationally, and I assume that most that are aren't playing in their high school league, anyway. (although I suppose that depends on the sport)

Although I did love competing nationally and internationally, my sport in high school was not school-based, and while I wouldn't change a thing I do sometimes wonder what it would have been like to have been a part of a school-based team. That's an experience, too, and can also be valuable.

I do agree with the posters that it seems a little unfair or unwise to have high school boys and girls on the same teams, but feel that as long as the rules allow it (and don't offer any alternative, at least for now) boys might as well play where they can.

[mimimomx3]

I thhink that if girls are allowed to play high school football then boys should be allowed to play high school field hockey.

[REA88]

That might be somewhat uncomfortable. I don't know how contact a sport that is, but he might feel like can't he play 100% or he might hurt them. There is a reason guys/girls have gender specific sports. Males are soo much stronger than girls when they get to about 14/15 and when they start lifting weights. I played four seasons of football in High School and it is incredible how hard the hitting was. It could literly have been lethal. And as a side note, there is nooooo way I am letting my sons play football after playing myself (and I don't want to make a habit of telling them NO about things). They can play basketball or golf if they want though