AmericanPapist Comments
Didn't John Paul II issue the encyclical Ordinatio Referee?
"I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer referee status for women to have authority over boys basketball games."
I'm having a hard time figuring out how the rejection of a female referee translates into an attempt to respect the dignity of women.
There's a Dominican parish school (St. Pius V, coincidentally) that I drive by occasionally and I frequently see the sisters out at recess playing hoops with the kids.
Some of those Sisters got game, if you know what I mean.
AmP: "I don't think, however, you can read misogyny into the school's actions. More likely it is represents [sic] a misguided attempt to respect the diginity of women."
Come again?
The school did what it did for no other reason than that the ref was a woman.
Someone who fails to see that the school's actions were misogynist must be misogynist himself.
Misogyny is hatred or prejudice against women. These people seem to have acted out of RESPECT for women, which makes them (arguably) deluded, not misogynist. See the difference?
One might argue, and very well, I think, against the notion that that is "respect."
This is precisely the sort of thing that makes it difficult for real Catholics to re-embrace, if you will, traditional liturgy and devotion.
"respect", in this case, I'm using as a subjective description for their intention, *not* an objective assesment of how they actually treated the woman in question.
In advance, I apologize for the long post.
..........
According to the Merriam Webster dictionary, misogyny consists in the "hatred of women" whereas hatred is defined as "prejudiced hostility or animosity."
So, let's look at the facts.
(1) The ref was unwelcome at the sporting event. According to the Topeka Capital-Journal, Darian Putthoff (a male b-ball official who was present at the game in question) reported that "As soon as we walked through the door (during pregame warmup) we started getting stares and the cold shoulder ... I thought that was odd, because usually they're very hospitable there. It's actually a pretty good place to work." Putthoff is a man who received positive treatment at the school -- Campbell, the female ref, was denied that kind of treatment because she is a woman who was trying to do her job.
(2) Further, Putthoff was told that women were not allowed to referee sporting events at the school. Now, I find it interesting that he did not qualify his statement -- in other words, it would appear that women are not allowed to referee at all -- even while particular refs might come highly qualified and regarded (at least for the purpose of reffing).
(3) The so-called eyewitness to the event, a mouthpiece for the anti-Magisterial heretical sect that runs the school, indicated that "the school has a policy of not playing sports with women;" "women are naturally weaker than men;" "they should be protected and treated better than men;" and that "they believe that sports diminishes the respect (due to women by virtue of their femenine [sic] nature) in the eyes of the boys." It should be clear to the most casual observer that this group of heretics holds a more than derogatory view of women. In essence, this group seems to be upholding the old and tired Aristotelian understanding of women as "deficient males." I find this viewpoint more than prejudicial.
(4) Continuing this idea, I think it should be noted that Campbell was "A former player at K-State under coach Judy Akers in the mid 1970s, [and that she] recently retired from a 20-year law enforcement career in Albuquerque, N.M., where she worked her way up from street patrol to a position in the department's homicide unit." Something tells me that if she can play ball for K-State and work in a homicide unit she can withstand a bump or two from a high school-aged boy, unless of course that boys is a hardened tattoo-ladened bazooka-bearing criminal. The point is that Campbell has the credentials to be an official, demonstrated experience in basketball itself, and what would seem the guts to get through even the most grueling b-ball game ... nonetheless, in the face of all of this, the heretical school couldn't handle a woman reffing its precious little boys. Again, this smacks of more than prejudice.
From all of this I think it is more than clear that misogyny is at stake here. Some over eager Catholics might get confused and want to desc
St. Mary's has a long history of Jansenism, as does the SSPX in general.
Ahh, yes. I was wondering if this story would make an appearance here. I love Kansas so much that stories like these that emanate from my home state really pain me. Luckily, this is mild compared to Fred Phelps' hatred of gays or the state school board thinking that creationism should be taught in science classes...
To the topic at hand, though, when my Dad was a superintendent, he worked on the KSHSAA Executive Board and is good friends with Gary Musselman, the executive director of the KSHSAA, and holds him in the highest esteem. I've gotten to know him, as well, and really respect him, too. This high school is certainly going to get a fair shake before the activities association, but unless there's more to the story, I see them getting the boot from the association. No athletics or activities or anything that falls under the jurisdiction of the KSHSAA. The sad thing is that the apparent principles of the administration might really screw over the kids at the school. Sure, there are several schools that aren't members of the KSHSAA, but not enough to fill an athletic schedule or actually get the enjoyment of participating in forensics or debate or scholars' bowl against numerous schools. Whatever Musselman and the Executive Board decides, though, it's going to be a fair decision and I'm with them 100%.
Besides the kids possibly taking it on the chin, the image of the Church is again taking a hit even when we're not involved. Plenty of non-Catholics fail to realize there's a schism between these traditionalists and the rest of us. For just one example, on one of the KU message boards I frequent, Catholic bashing began in earnest until several of the board's Catholics had to point out that these people aren't associated with us. Even then, the bashing didn't necessarily stop. Thanks for nothing, SSPXers.
I have no idea what really motivated this school's action, but I do know quite a bit about high school basketball. Let me just say that if one ever heard the invective launched at refs during boys high school basketball games one would not automatically render as implausible the school's explanation regarding respecting the dignity of women.
This is not a Catholic group, so, I don't see there's much we can do about it, even if, etc....
The SSPX released a press release on this very story:
http://www.sspx.org/whatsnew.htm
ST. MARY'S ACADEMY (in St. Mary’s, KS) policy is to have only men in their sports program for boys.
Sports for boys are seen as training for the battlefield of life where the boys will need to fight at times through great difficulties. As such, it is more appropriate that it be men who train and direct the boys in these sports programs for only men can teach the boys to be men, just as only women can truly teach girls to be women.
It is not a question of women having no authority over boys as the quote in the paper (if it was accurate) seem to indicate. It is a question in athletics of men training boys to be men.
The press release above does not smack of misogyny. While one may certainly question its prudential judgment (I do), it is not outside reason or obviously grounded in hatred of women.
Andrew: Thanks for the quotation. The damage done to a boy's psyche by the absence of a father, or by a narcissistic or inadequate father, occurs long before high school. The notion that a boy needs a male/father to teach him how to be a man is sound. But the notion that having a female sports coach or a female ref in high school will somehow undo or impede that process is crackpottery.
"It would be nice if the SSPX folks would post a note somewhere explaining their decision."
There's a press release from the SSPX with follow up comments HERE.
Father Joe, I don't think they're saying that it undoes that process at all as you assert. I think their position is actually right, even though I've never in my life gone to a SSPX chapel. Sports is a manly kind of thing. Having a female coach is one thing; a female ref, however, should not have been that big of a deal I think.
After having read the press release I am led to ask a question: Are the women teachers, administrators, and monitors cited by Horvat going to be fired come Monday morning? Or, is the school going to make another statement indicating that it does not believe education to be part of a boy's formation and maturation into manhood?
The case keeps falling apart, folks. There can be no excuse for what happened.
Horvat tried to take the case that she made in defense of the school's football stance and transpose it onto this new situation, but that didn't work. Then, the school issued a press statement, which I am not buying (in fact, I think you could drive a Mack truck sideways through the loop holes in the school's argument). Last, I still hold that this is a clear case of misogyny. If it was a matter of misguided respect, then why did the school give Campbell the cold shoulder and ugly stares -- a school normally known for its hospitality? Also, why didn't the school make an exception in Campbell's case -- she worked for a homicide unit, for Pete's sake? Given her work in law enforcement I think she can handle a couple of high school boys who probably come from families that don't tolerate any monkey business. The only reason Campbell was turned away is because she is a woman ... period ... there is no getting around that point, folks.
So, are you going to tell me that a Wall Street exec who refuses to hire a black woman with a Harvard MBA because Wall Street's culture is too white and male-oriented and he is afraid of hurting the woman is simply exhibiting misguided respect and not out right sexism and racism?
At a certain point, those who would label themselves conservative "Catholics" have to learn what battles to fight ... otherwise they just look foolish.
Mike Petrik: "Let me just say that if one ever heard the invective[s] launched at refs during boys [sic] high school basketball games one would not automatically render as implausible the school's explanation regarding respecting the dignity of women."
What kind of invectives are going to be launched at an SSPX HS b-ball game? "Groan, groan! Dethrone Pope Joan"? I'm not getting the picture, here. Wouldn't a school concerned about women and the respect they receive want to invite as many female officials it could just to show them how nicely women should be treated and to set a good example?
More likely it is represents a misguided attempt to respect the diginity of women. And that intention is a good one.
Pro-choicers could (and do) say the same thing about respecting the "dignity" of women to have autonomy over their own bodies. And, yet, they are no more truly respectful of women than the worst misogynist. Subjective intention does not equal respect. Self-proclaimations do not convert contempt to respect.
The Kansas State High School Activities Association needs to "excommunicate" this school from the league.
When one becomes a Magisterium to one self, it can produce all sort of silly effects.
WAC
Why is it so difficult for some to grasp the idea that some men are uncomfortable with women referees? Why should an old-style private school be forced to accept what undeniably constitutes a very recent and questionable practice? And SHE KNEW -so she says- that SOONER OR LATER IT WOULD BECOME AN ISSUE. And then she says she was dumbfounded! It was a set-up, folks, and she is having so much fun with all this...
"Why is it so difficult for some to grasp the idea that some men are uncomfortable with women referees? Why should an old-style private school be forced to accept what undeniably constitutes a very recent and questionable practice?"
Those "some men" are idiots, then. There's no ground for them to be uncomfortable. Refs blow a whistle and make calls. They aren't there on the low block banging against the post player or out at the top of the key rubbing against a player when trapping him. Refs, be they male or female, are just there to blow the whistle and make the best call they can, and no matter how visceral the crowd, a good ref ignores everyone but the ten players on the court and the two coaches on the sideline. It certainly isn't a questionable practice to use a female ref for games.
The school doesn't have to accept a female ref. But they also don't have to be a member of the KSHSAA if they're going to refuse to comply with the association's stipulations. If that's the risk they want to take, so be it. They can't blame anyone else for the consequences that follow.
The actual discussion, if it is to be fruitful, should focus on what seems like the more plausible explanation of their motivations.
I thought that everyone was, more or less, taking the school at it's word, rather than relying on the media's take on the matter, and STILL finding the school's actions and explanations to be in the wrong.
As for the idea that only men can teach boys to be men, it seems to me that one of the greatest influences on Jesus being a man, and on any other men being men, is a woman -- Mary.
Bender: my comments were more intended for the people coming across this story from the internet, and through some linking feminist blogs. Mostly, though, they seem scared of the AmP combox. :)
"What kind of invectives are going to be launched at an SSPX HS b-ball game?"
Well, I dunno, MM. But the ones I have in mind would not be fit for this forum. Perhaps you run in circles where such things don't occur. How nice for you.
My dad, my three older brothers, and I all reffed basketball games. Two of my brothers once did a game between two Catholic schools in Nebraska. They said they were the worst fans they've ever encountered. Of course, you get bad apples in the fanbases of public schools, too. I don't recall anything horrific being said to me while I was wearing stripes, but I do remember I'd just smile about the taunts made at me as I was waiting to hand the ball to the player making the inbounds pass. It's insane how serious adults take the games of their children. But again, every ref deals with it no matter what the sport and no matter where they're calling a game. A woman can deal with it just as easy as a man can.
Reading the statement issued by the school, "It is a question in athletics of men training boys to be men," yeah, that's all fine and good, but that should only apply to coaches and teachers. For 32 minutes, refs are simply arbiters of how well the coach is doing training his boys. The school's justification holds no water whatsoever.
Nathan, I agree with you about the ridiculous ways some parents and fans can behave. Regarding the school, I'm inclined to cut them more slack. I disagree with their reasoning, but just don't think that it necessarily smacks of misogyny. It holds some water -- just not enough. I do agree that they should abide by league rules and not expect the league to accomodate their idiosyncrasies no matter how well-intended.
Yeah, I've seen women refs handle hostile fans as well as men. But I admit to feeling uneasy at the abuse they take. Even more so than when directed at a man. That doesn't make me a misogynist though.
I don't think the school's policy is necessarily misogynistic, either. Just, as AP said, misguided. My concern now is for the kids who may not get to participate in the KSHSAA next year. Nothing is more exciting for a small school in a basketball crazy state to have the chance to play for a state championship, and these boys will likely not get the opportunity to do so unless the school changes its policy. I hope this gets resolved in a manner acceptable to all.
Nathan, the KSHSAA has nothing in its statutes about female referees. They were introduced three years ago, and they are only a few. Having this in mind, your argument does not make much sense: "But they also don't have to be a member of the KSHSAA if they're going to refuse to comply with the association's stipulations."
So no one has come out and said what I immediately thought, even if you take a very charitable view that this is not an issue of misogyny. AmP's suggested charitable criticism is that this is a WELL INTENDED, but misguided attempt at respect for women. Not to join the "all-cliche" team here, but what exactly is the road to hell paved with, I ask you? I don't see that it practically matters what kind of bad judgment this is, just that it is a misappropriation of how men ought to act around women.
Sorry, I seem to be assuming that bad actions reveal bad motivations/practical judgment and it really doesn't matter how we interpret the motivations because there's no way of really pinning anything down unless they (St. Mary's admin.) do or say more.
Ray, what about my statement didn't make sense? The school doesn't have to let female refs call the games, of course, but the KSHSAA can ban them from competing against KSHSAA members because of their discrimination. It doesn't get much simpler than that. As Musselman says in the AP article, "Discrimination against our officials is something we can't be party to."
Let me make this quite clear. Misogyny is simply one manifestation of the overwhelming injustice that is sexism.
To believe that women need to be resepcted more than men, trained differently than men, have a different place in the society as men, etc., is all sexism, and is fully as damaging to our culture as a man who believes all women should be sex slaves.
There is nothing in this post that excuses the school. There is nothing in this post that mitigates the horrific attitude that this school promotes.
This school, and those who agree with its message, should be embarassed, berated and shunned. They are entitled to their beliefs, of course, but we are equally entitled to call them what they are, namely, a bunch of unscientific, illogical, fear-based, hidebound nonsense. It holds no water, other than that which is poisoned and stale.
And as for the completely non-sensical comment about pro-choicers. Ah, yes. The horror of respecting women enough to allow them to make their own decisions about their medical care, body, and lives.
"The horror of respecting women enough to allow them to make their own decisions about their medical care, body, and lives."
Jenna: You are exactly right. And, while we're at it, Why don't we respect men enough to let them make their own decisions about when and whom to rape. If rape is illegal, experience shows that it just moves to back alleys and other dangerous locations. A man has the right to make decisions about his own body, and laws against rape are just an attempt by the state to take control of men's bodies. Perhaps because many people are uncomfortable with men's need to rape, they try to keep a lid on it, or take a punitive, suppressive attitude about it, rather than finding out what measures might reduce the need for rape.
No one is really "pro-rape." Rape is always a delicate, difficult choice. Sure those who anti-rape should be willing to work together to reduce te NEED for rapeUnreasoning, Victorian prudery about male sexuality is certainly not a sound basis for public policy. This is the Twenty-First Century!
Rape is a fundamental Constitutional right, protected by the emanations and penumbras of the Fourteenth Amendment. Those who want to use state power to control men's bodies are really attacking our Constitution.
Besides, the Catholic Church teaches that men have Free Will--so laws that take away a man's Free Choice to rape fly in the face of Catholic teaching.
Jenna, I was pretty much with you until the last paragraph. Pretty much, because while I would agree that men and women should have equal access to education, jobs, etc, you seem to be denying that men and women have fundamental differences. That is clearly false. From a purely scientific point of view, we differ physically and biologically at the very least.
You and I completely part ways on the issue of choice. I absolutely agree that a woman has the right of choice over her own body, but reject your position that an unborn child is part of that body. I frankly don't even see this as germane to this discussion, which was about whether St Mary's could be justified in their actions.
I have considered this from every side and cannot think of one rational argument for St Mary's position. There should be no need for physical contact between the referee and the players, and there is no reason that the players cannot treat a female referee with the respect which any official should be given. I suggest that if the issue of how the players would react to a female official is a concern, St Mary's has far bigger problems than just this one incident.
""What kind of invectives are going to be launched at an SSPX HS b-ball game?"
"Well, I dunno, MM. But the ones I have in mind would not be fit for this forum. Perhaps you run in circles where such things don't occur. How nice for you."
Ummm .... you mean like an SSPX High School, for example? Uh ... yeah ... let's try to stay focused, here.
Also, do you really think that she would be hearing anything worse than what she heard when she worked in law enforcement on street patrol and in a homicide unit?
Seriously.
Bender: "The actual discussion, if it is to be fruitful, should focus on what seems like the more plausible explanation of their motivations.
"I thought that everyone was, more or less, taking the school at it's word, rather than relying on the media's take on the matter, and STILL finding the school's actions and explanations to be in the wrong."
Well, the school's actions were wrong-headed either way one reads the story. But, why should we be giving credence to the school over and above the media? Now, I don't know the media in Kansas, but if it is like the media elsewhere in the country, then it at least double checks sources, verifies its information, and talks to more than one person. Please don't go Fox-News-Uber-Conservative-Catholic-Baltimore-
Catechism-Reading on me.
Jenna your comments very helpful. Thank you for adding them to this discussion. They reminded me of some things that Pope John Paul II and St. Edith Stein said in their writings.
The problem is that a lot of the people on this blog / combox are uber-conversative "Catholics." And so, they tend to jump to conclusions and take unfair stances on things.
You're eight to point out that it is horrible when women cannot make their own decisions regarding their health care, bodies, and lives. However, I do agree with some other people here that those decisions should not violate the fundamental rights of other people. One should not be allowed to make a choice that denies the health/bodily integrity/life of another person (even if that person is a fetus in the womb of a woman).
Mihingo,
Have you ever had any actual experience with the media? Or the Baltimore Catechism? I have on both counts. First, as an attorney and civic leader who has intersected with the media many times, there is only one time that they got it right -- and that was a stringer for the small-time Marietta Daily Journal. Every other time they either mangled the facts or twisted them to suit their spin. If they do this with the stories that involved facts with which I was familiar, I'm pretty sure they do it with other stories as well. And yes, that would include Fox.
And as far as the Baltimore Catechism is concerned, if you have not read it, I commend it to you. It is truly an excellent catechism. There is absolutely nothing in it that does not accurately represent Church teaching.
"To believe that women need to be resepcted more than men, trained differently than men, have a different place in the society as men, etc., is all sexism, and is fully as damaging to our culture as a man who believes all women should be sex slaves."
Now that is just flat out ridiculous. Have you even thought about what you wrote?
Each time I return to this topic I think, "Temptest in a teapot."
Mihingo Minihas,
You wrote, "Please don't go Fox-News-Uber-Conservative-Catholic-Baltimore- Catechism-Reading on me."
Please cease decrying sterotypes and prejudices, and then proceeding to immediately employ sterotypes and prejudices.
There is nothing inherently wrong with watching fox news, being conservative (or uber-conservative), being Catholic, reading the Baltimore Catechism, or combining them in any way. You are using labels and insults as a substitute for critical thinking.
LCB,
I would recommend taking a crash course in critical thinking before you accuse people of failing to exhibit it.
To my knowledge, I have employed neither stereotypes nor prejudices. In some posts I called SSPX heretical. I suppose the better designator would have been schismatic, but heretic does just fine for me ... especially if one considers the fact that SSPX rejects the Second Vatican Council (an ecumenical council), papal authority, and so forth. Also, the term "Fox-News-Uber-Conservative-Catholic-Baltimore- Catechism-Reading" might be a generalization, but it is neither prejudicial nor stereotypical. Studies and audience polls show that conservative Catholics of an older provenance (i.e., the gilded age of the Baltimore Catechism) watch Fox News more than other groups of Catholics. Further, people who watch Fox News tend to watch it because they believe that it presents the news in a conservative (and therefore more palpable fashion) for them ... not because they believe that it is objective.
Last of all, as a number of theologians and Church officials have pointed out ... there is something wrong with being conservative, since conservativism, just like liberalism, is a distortion of the authentic faith of the Apostles. Let's try to be Catholic and leave it at that.
Once again, let's not jump to conclusions and make insulting interpolations ... let's try to keep it real, as the kids say.
Thanks!
Fine. I second his accusdation, as your initial post was a name-calling immature diatribe.
Details, details. What was that you said about rational thinking again?
As a former seminarian in the SSPX seminary in Winona, I shall now repudiate the false charges. The SSPX does not reject the Second Vatican Council, they only ascribe the authority the Council itself claimed: "Taking conciliar custom into consideration and also the pastoral purpose of the present Council, the sacred Council defines as binding on the Church only those things in matters of faith and morals which it shall openly declare to be binding. The rest of the things which the sacred Council sets forth, inasmuch as they are the teaching of the Church's supreme magisterium, ought. to be accepted and embraced by each and every one of Christ's faithful according to the mind of the sacred Council." (Notification from the Acts of the Council, 11/16/1964). Thus while the texts of the Council should be treated with due reverence as a pastoral document, it does not enjoy infallibility. Thus, one can say there are flaws
False. Again, the SSPX is singled out because they refuse to excessively submit. As St. Paul said, "obedience comes from faith" and not the other way around (Rom. 1:5). Now, all traditional Catholics are saying is that certain matters of Faith - such as religious liberty, a false equal basis in ecumenical diologue, and collegial use of apostolic authority - are a break from the past. If even the Pope tells us to change our Faith, he must be refused. It was St. Paul who told us that (Gal. 1:9).
Whatever. I'm 38 years old, love the Baltimore Catechism (and will use that to teach my own children) and hate Fox News like the plague. What's your point?
Exactly. X was true and the teaching of the Church before the Second Vatican Council because it was revealed by God. Therefore it's true now.
"I would recommend taking a crash course in critical thinking before you accuse people of failing to exhibit it."
Fine. I'll second his accusdation, as your initial post was a name-calling immature diatribe.
"I suppose the better designator would have been schismatic, but heretic does just fine for me"
Details, details. What was that you said about critical thinking again?
"especially if one considers the fact..."
As a former seminarian in the SSPX seminary in Winona, I shall now repudiate the false charges.
"that SSPX rejects the Second Vatican Council (an ecumenical council)"
The SSPX does not reject the Second Vatican Council, they only ascribe only the authority the Council itself claimed: "Taking conciliar custom into consideration and also the pastoral purpose of the present Council, the sacred Council defines as binding on the Church only those things in matters of faith and morals which it shall openly declare to be binding. The rest of the things which the sacred Council sets forth, inasmuch as they are the teaching of the Church's supreme magisterium, ought to be accepted and embraced by each and every one of Christ's faithful according to the mind of the sacred Council." (Notification from the Acts of the Council, 11/16/1964). Thus while the texts of the Council should be treated with due reverence as a pastoral document, it does not enjoy infallibility. Thus, one can say there may be flaws without prejudice.
"papal authority"
False. Again, the SSPX is singled out because they refuse to excessively submit. As St. Paul said, "obedience comes from faith" and not the other way around (Rom. 1:5). Now, all traditional Catholics are saying is that certain matters of Faith - such as religious liberty, a false equal basis in ecumenical diologue, and collegial use of apostolic authority - are a break from the past. If even the Pope tells us to change our Faith, he must be refused. It was St. Paul who told us that (Gal. 1:9).
"Studies and audience polls show that conservative Catholics of an older provenance (i.e., the gilded age of the Baltimore Catechism) watch Fox News more than other groups of Catholics."
Whatever. I'm 38 years old, love the Baltimore Catechism (and will use that to teach my own children) and hate Fox News like the plague. What's your point?
"Last of all, as a number of theologians and Church officials have pointed out ... there is something wrong with being conservative, since conservativism, just like liberalism, is a distortion of the authentic faith of the Apostles. Let's try to be Catholic and leave it at that."
Exactly. What was true and the teaching of the Church before the Second Vatican Council was so because it was revealed by God. Therefore it's true now.
Thomas,
Congrats!
Somehow, you got SSPXers AND the pro-aborts together in this combox! The only thing missing is Jack Chick!
Mihingo Minihas,
If men and women are both equally athletic, why are they separated in the Olympic Games? Also, if you look up the record-breakers for the Games, the male record-breakers always outpace the female. It'd be unfair to female olympians to pretend to place them in a pitched competition. I'm not here to defend this silly decision, but men ARE stronger than women. The facts show us that.
Meant to say: "It'd be unfair to female Olympians to place them in a pitched competition."
Thanks, David B. If you can't attack the argument, attack the person. Great job.
jdobbs,
Thanks, David B. If you can't attack the argument, attack the person. Great job.
SSPXers are on one end of the idealogical spectrum, pro-aborts are on the other. It's rare to see both in the same combox.
Jack Chick is anti-Catholic, and so wouldn't be friend with SSPXers, and (I think) he's also prolife, which would neatly place him between these two groups.
I didn't ATTACK anyone. I haven't even engaged in the conversation until now, and therefore I haven't been unable to "attack the argument.
No one (besides you) has responded to my 2 posts, so don't attempt to profile my 1st post as somehow desperate. My 2nd post answered ONE point by ONE person.
Thanks for the charitable reading, though. (tongue-in-cheek)
The school issues a statement:
http://www.kansas.com/sports/upd...ory/
317021.html
Father Vicente A. Greigo stated: “Our school aims to instill in our boys the proper respect for women and girls. Teaching our boys to treat ladies with deference, we cannot place them in an aggressive athletic competition where they are forced to play inhibited by their concern about running into a female referee.”
Every thing was fine until the last 25 or so words, which were a big crock of dung. The people who made this decision have apparently never played organized sports. Concern about running into a ref, no matter the gender, is something that is never contemplated when on a court. If it is, it's for a split second and then gone so you can think about where you need to go to run the play. And by the way, Father, refs are trained to stand where they're out of the way. Again, the explanation isn't holding water.
"And extending a prohibition against male-female contact sports to prohibiting female refs is both silly and offensive.
I don't think, however, you can read misogyny into the school's actions. More likely it is represents a misguided attempt to respect the diginity of women."
I find it hard to reconcile the first sentence and the second sentence.
Further, I find it a poor arguement that women should not be exposed to the potty-mouths that attend a SSPX school. Maybe rather than banning women, they should teach the boys to clean up their act.
Lastly, it seems I am the rare woman here. Maybe I'm next to be asked to leave.
Commenting by HaloScan
