I found this post to be obscenely offensive...

[YCN]

and I would like commentary here. I would note that I took immediate and strong offensive to the statements presented by this poster.

Unfortunately, I cannot link to that board here, but in spite of copyright laws I feel entitled to cut-and-paste this nonsense here for people to view and react to.


-------------------
Re: Any system rating college athletics that gives
-------------------

What you have heard about Stanford's women's program is correct. The crowd at any women's basketball game appears to me to be at least 90% lesbian.

I hope no one is so naive that they think it is limited to Stanford however. The fact that women't sports at the college and pro level are dominated by lesbian coaches and players the dirty little secret of the NCAA. I can only imagine the pressures that Sherry Coale has faced as a hetrosexual and a good looking woman who dresses like a woman.

Jim Rome calls Title IX the Lesbian Full Employment Act and he is correct. At many schools, including Stanford and Mills College, there is a great deal of descrimination against hetrosexual women who want to play sports. I have won lawsuits (they settled actually because they didn't want facts to come out, but that still counts as a win) concerning just that against both schools.

In 1998 we found that there were exactly 3 women coaches in Div I women's basketball who were married and had children. My guess is that Oklahoma is still the only state where both major schools have hetrosexual women's BB coaches.

By the way, when did men's gymnastics become such a major sport? All the stories I saw said there are only 12 schools that still offer it. I'll take track and field over softball and baseball any day of the week. Football is king, but all the rest are minor to me.

-----------------
This post pissed me off so badly it was hard to think. It offends every right-thinking American that I know. Does anyone think that this is a majority opinion?

[35TangoTango]

Originally posted by YCN:
and I would like commentary here. I would note that I took immediate and strong offensive to the statements presented by this poster.

Please don't misconstrue my question as representing any opinion (I'll add that later), but are you offended because (1) you don't believe it is true, or (2) because even though it is true, don't believe it should be a subject for public debate?

[YCN]

I'll answer briefly, and 1 - it isn't true; and 2 - it is a subject for public debate.

How you stand on this issue is entirely up to you, but I don't think that winning friends and influencing enemies has a lot to do with agreeing with this tripe.

You are entirely welcome to voice your opinion, but you must expect that some people will take exception to your stand if you believe that the original poster is correct.

[35TangoTango]

Originally posted by YCN:
...You are entirely welcome to voice your opinion, but you must expect that some people will take exception to your stand if you believe that the original poster is correct.

Whoa, YCN, cool down! You are saying it is OK to discuss this, but only if we totally agree with you! That's hardly fair.

What the poster has done, has been to take a small kernel of truth, and blow it completely out of proportion.

Wouldn't you like to challenge that poster and see some record of these supposed lawsuits she (I assume it's a she) has won? I do know that the crowds at WBB games I have seen certainly aren't 90% lesbian. In fact the biggest difference I see in the crowds (as opposed to those at men's games) is that there are more retired people and couples with small children!

Are there some female coaches that go overboard in dressing manishly? Yes. (I have had the thought that Geno and Tara both are proof that a man can suceed in coaching women's basketball).

Do I notice a few manish-looking pairs of females at games (saw it more at the tournament in KC)? Yes.

Do I care? No.

Actually, the biggest thing I've noticed about the emergence of women's sports is not at the NCAA level, but at high school and below. A girl can now be a very good athlete and still be considered "feminine". That is why one in three high school girls now compete in sports.

As for Coach Coale, I have no idea what kinds of pressures she faces in this regard. Being the irreverent male that I am, I'm looking forward next year to see if she has an answer for Kim Mulkey-Robertson's leather pants!

(Was that irreverent, or irrelevant?)



[This message has been edited by soonerman (edited 06-29-2002).]

[OhMandy]

Before commenting I would like to see the whole post on whatever board you found it on. Why can't you privide a link? Just cut and past the URL. Even if we have to cut and paste the URL from your post.

[YCN]

OhMandy, I can paste the URL but it wouldn't help anyone, since the message board is a password-protected, invitation-only board.

And while I will readily admit that at some schools the fact that a scholarship athlete might not be gay could be a detriment, I hardly feel that this is the predominant situation in women's college sports.

And for the poster to bluntly state that there are only 3 coaches in women's Division I basketball that are married and have children is patently ridiculous. I don't even care about the personal lives of sports coaches, but the only 2 women whose personal lives I know ANYTHING about in college basketball are both married moms: Sherri Coale and Pat Summit.

[Cycurl714]

Maybe I'm just being naive but why would a person assume, especially someone who is a lawyer (I'm also assuming that they are female)that because a female coach chooses to focus on their career rather than a family that they are a lesbian. Nobody jumps when male coaches aren't married or have families. They are considered dedicated.

Why does it matter? People are afraid of what they don't understand.

[35TangoTango]

Originally posted by YCN:
...I will readily admit that at some schools the fact that a scholarship athlete might not be gay could be a detriment...

Is this true??

[DblT81]

Originally posted by Cycurl714:
Nobody jumps when male coaches aren't married or have families. They are considered dedicated.

Why does it matter? People are afraid of what they don't understand.

I agree with Cycurl.

The original poster loses all credibility when they say that 90% of the crowd at any wcbb game is lesbian. Anything said by someone after making that statement is worthless in my book.

Sherry Coale faces many pressures as a Div I successful wcbb coach. I seriously doubt any of them have anything to do with her sexuality. How ridiculous.

I assumed the poster in question is a male. There are many men who don't believe women belong in sport, absorbing some of the precious budget dollars that should be *their* devine right alone. And it is my experience on the Tech bbs that when there is a heated discussion about women's basketball and its influence at Texas Tech, it is more likely young male college students (and few old guys too) who use the "lesbian" charge to make their arguments against wcbb. To repeat what Cycurl said-People are afraid of what they don't understand.

[swok34]

anyone that listens and further perpetuates ANYTHING Jim Rome say.......well, that alone should tell you the mindset of the individual that posted.

I have heard of at least one college coach that will NOT recruit lesbians, and I think it's pretty well known.....I don't know what her tactics are for determining whether or not a player may be gay or not.

Are there lesbian coaches? probably.......lesbian players? probably.......lesbian fans? probably though I kind of doubt that they are the majority.
And I suspect something one does not pronounce to the world....
who cares, what does it have to do with basketball as far as I'm concerned.

I'm primarily a women's basketball fan and I agree with soonerman that I see a whole lot of families with young children
at games. Seems I read a survey a couple of years ago that college level women's sports need to be marketed to families with children.....business women......those are the primary target groups that attend women's sports........

This is actually a very old argument that if you are an athletic female, you must also be a lesbian. I think Title IX has actually gone a whole lot further than folks realize in "banishing" this attitude. Prior to Title IX, you really had to not only LOVE the sport you played, but be willing to accept the criticism voodoo hex that if you played sports, you must be gay.

I may be mistaken, but I would suspect that folks on the West Coast....large cities, New York (example only)....are much more open-minded than those attitudes that you find in the "bible-belt" south.

[This message has been edited by swok34 (edited 06-29-2002).]

[OhMandy]

I know this is a WBB board but I have to comment on parts of this post.

"At many schools, including Stanford and Mills College, there is a great deal of descrimination against hetrosexual women who want to play sports."

Really? Why is it that there are many straight woman on Stanford's teams ranging from basketball to soccer to volleyball to field hockey to swimming and diving and they don't seem to have a problem with getting a scholarship or playing time. I have met/seen the boyfriends of many Stanford female athletes after games.


"The crowd at any women's basketball game appears to me to be at least 90% lesbian."

Really? How the hell does she know if a 10 year girl is a lesbian? Most of the people at Stanford games are young girls coming to the games with there parents. Or older couples, a man and a woman couple. I go to Stanford games and I've went out on a couple dates with woman I met at the games. Hmm guess she wasn't part of the 10% straight crowd. I've been turned down for dates by a few woman at the games but not because they were lesbian but for whatever reason they couldn't see what a great guy I am. http://hoopscoop.net/ubb/smile.gif

Anyway another stupid comment trying to bring down woman's basketball. I remember reading somewhere a player was asked what's one thing she would like to see in WBB. Her answer. MORE RESPECT

[YCN]

Thanks for the post, OhMandy. We need more posters like you on this board.

My original post was of course about falsehood, and I'll stand with that.

Sexual orientation is not an appropriate topic for discussion when the subject is athletic competition.

It's all about athletes, and not sexual personas.

Thanks!

[cyfanatic]

This post is reminescent of the WNBA article that was discussed earlier. Unfortunately, there are many people out there that still equate female athletes with lesbianism, and it's truly sad that people are that shallow. These are the same people that harbor unpleasant thoughts against people of color and think women in general should be barefoot and pregnant. Maybe it's a residual effect from past generations, maybe it's just small-mindedness, but it's unacceptable. The best action I know how to take is to treat people the way I want to be treated, regardless of age, sex, race or sexual orientation. For me, the bottom line is that these people are at the games supporting my team, and the sport of women's basketball, and that seems to make me feel a common bond with them. I don't care if they are from another planet, I am glad they are there. Everyone deserves the right to go wherever they want with whomever they want, and not be judged for their appearances. I am thankful no one has been stupid enough to post something like that on this website. It is none of my business what someone's sexual preference is on OR off the court, and I will always support them in any way I can, and I will do the same for the people who attend the games.

[OhMandy]

Originally posted by YCN:
Thanks for the post, OhMandy. We need more posters like you on this board.


Is there sarcasm in the air? http://hoopscoop.net/ubb/smile.gif

[35TangoTango]

Originally posted by OhMandy:

Is there sarcasm in the air? http://hoopscoop.net/ubb/smile.gif

Oh, Mandy, I don't think so. Since your views seemed to pretty much cooincide with YCN, I imagine the compliment was quite sincere.



[This message has been edited by soonerman (edited 07-04-2002).]

[YCN]

Soonerman, I'm not quite sure that I understand what is bothering you. If I didn't think the topic was worth discussing I wouldn't have started this thread. It's the attitude that somehow women's basketball is a sport dominated by lesbian athletes and primarily attended by lesbian women that isn't appropriate. The poster on that private board was encouraged by the board owner to withdraw from further interaction on his board, and did so voluntarily. The topic as stated was not considered appropriate to that board either. I merely posted it here in order to illustrate that some attitudes in this country really need to change. That's about all it meant.

I'm sorry if I've offended you, so I will "withdraw" from further posts on this subject.

[35TangoTango]

Me too, YCN. I deleted the highly inappropriate stuff I wrote in the previous post. Please accept my apologies. I don't know why you set me off on this subject, since on the whole I agree with you!

There is a tiny element of truth in all the lies the poster told,(1% rather than 90%), and I guess part of me wants to see how others feel about that, and I rankle at any suggestion that we can't discuss it.

Then the other part of me says why? I see it (very occasionally), but I can't say it offends me.

I think the original poster wanted to yank our chains, and I guess to a degree he has.

I also agree with you that this is enough. Now on to the important stuff, like showing TexTom that next year is not going to be the payback he thinks it is.

[vickie1ok]

YCN, was this Golfer John's board? He has a few posters radical enough to say something like that and he is diplomatic enough to ask them not to post anymore trash.

I suspect this poster was male, and is threatened by women's sports. A few observations:

--If Stanford is "descriminating" (sic) against heterosexual women, than why are their women's sports programs so dominant? It seems to me this bubba is making a case against himself that lesbians must be better athletes, by his BS (lack of) logic. So, by his scenario of the world where lesbians are the majority of athletes at Stanford, is he advocating a quota system based upon sexual preference? He must be since, by his thought process, only lesbians are good enough to be athletes in the best women's sports program in the country.

--Humm...how does Bubba know who is lesbian or not? (when judging athletes, coaches and fans) Does he have gaydar? If he does, he must be a closet homosexual who really hates himself.

--As others have aptly pointed out, the crowd at women's games are more family and more older. The fact teenage boys don't attend in droves is neither a surprise nor a hindrance. Soonerman, if I read in between your lines right, you are saying some attendees are lesbian, maybe 1% instead of 90%? Well, whoopty, freaking doo! I'd say at least 1% or greater of male attendees to football games are gay men. I know of 4 season ticket holders to OU football games who are gay men. And that's just me. I used to work with a gay man who, god rest his soul, had his ashes spread on Owen Field when he died; that's what a huge OU football fan he was.

--Looks can be deceiving. When I was in primary and secondary schools, we had no girls team sports other than tennis in high school. My only opportunity for sports in junior high was PE class, which spent 1 week doing square dancing. I'm NOT kidding. In high school, I was fortunate that our PE teacher, Pat Rainey, started a gymnastics program which was a club sport, but something I could do other than square dancing. This woman spent an enormous amount of time and her own money to support this program. She had a short haircut, wore pantsuits and was more masculine than feminine in features. In other words, a lesbian by Bubba's standards. However, she was married to a state legislator and had several children.

I think the bottom line is some men are not just threatened by women's sports but the growing popularity of it. Like the post I made on the OU Fans board, some guys (including sportswriters) don't know what to do when they see women's sports on TV and tens of thousands of people attending events. They never complained when women's teams were small and played before little crowds. So what do they do in reaction? They belittle the participants and the fans. Oh, well. They can rag on and on, but the genie is out of the bottle for good...women's sports are here to stay.

[YCN]

Vickie, I'll answer your questions one at a time, and comment on your post after.

1. The board upon which this was posted will not be revealed by me. My respect of that board is too deep to betray it that way.

2. Regarding the radical nature of the poster, I went chasing and found a board where this particular poster is a regular contributor, and I didn't find one single post from that person on that particular board that I didn't believe to be considered and intelligent. I regret that this thread brought out this kind of response from that person, and I am in fact considering asking that person to reconsider their withdrawal from the other board, provided that this person respects the nature of the board to which that person was invited. I'm not interested in the details of people's responses to individual situations, and I don't think that this person necessarily needs rehabilitation, just an ability to understand when you have to cut your tongue.

3. I emphatically believe that Stanford does not discriminate against heterosexual athletes in general. I'm not as convinced about particular individual sports at that school, and at some others schools.

4. Perhaps this person actually has "lesbian radar". I wouldn't know about that, although I've been told by gay friends that their radar is better than that of hetero folks. I won't get into that here, but I strongly suspect that this statement is completely false.

5. I don't think that the question regarding the sexuality of the attendees of women's sports is relevant. I also don't believe in the slightest that gay individuals make up any more or less than a slightly greater or smaller percentage of those audiences.

6. I most definitely know from experience that if you think looks can tell you who is heterosexual and who is not, you are an idiot.

7. It's not just men that are disturbed by the burgeoning popularity of women's competitive sports, it is women as well. In our 20th century society, particulary as we look back toward the 60's, the 50's, beyond those years; there was a certain very strong societal expectation of what a woman's (and a man's) role ought to be. There were Barbie dolls and GI Joe. There were role-playing games and dominance games. Hopefully, the farther we separate ourselves from those times of predetermined expectations as to who we are as people, we will come to understand more and more about what is truly the bulk of what humanity really means.

Of course others will attack that advancement as the real reason society has gone to hell in a handbasket.

So be it.