Skip to comments.Arizona high school forfeits championship game rather than face girl opponent
Posted on 05/10/2012 1:11:45 PM PDT by servo1969
A state championship high school baseball game is over before tonight's first pitch, after one Arizona team forfeited rather than play an opponent with a girl in the lineup.
Our Lady of Sorrows refused to play Mesa Preparatory Academy in Thursdays scheduled Arizona Charter Athletic Association state championship game, because that team has Paige Sultzbach at second base. The 15-year-old agreed to sit out a pair of regular season victories over Our Lady of Sorrows, which is run by the Society of St. Pius X, an traditionalist church that broke away from Roman Catholic Church over Vatican reforms in 1970. But with everything on the line tonight, Sultzbach wasn't willing to stay glued to the bench even if it means no game at all.
In a statement to FoxNews.com, an Our Lady of Sorrows official said the school had no choice but to forfeit because it has a strict policy prohibiting participation in co-ed athletics and believes in "forming and educating boys and girls" separately.
Teaching our boys to treat ladies with deference, we choose not to place them in an athletic competition where proper boundaries can only be respected with difficulty, the statement read. "Our school aims to instill in our boys a profound respect for women and girls."
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Wimps. Scared of a girl. My son had play against a girl playing wide receiver in football. He knocked her down on a play. He asked if he did anything wrong. I told him “That’s why she’s out there”.
What are they, Muzzies?
We had girls on my Little League, they were good, too.
In other news, every future opponent of Our Lady of Sorrows high has added a female to their rosters....
A wimp would be someone who compromised their moral beliefs to suit the needs of the moment. They stuck to their guns, even though it was costing them the championship. If that is ‘wimpy’, I can only hope that far more people will be wimpy in the future.
She’s more man than they are. Play the game.
I dunno, Appy. It sounds more like the school doesn’t want to compromise one of its core principles and would rather forfeit the game (ie, give the win to the other team) than do so.
Personally, I think it is silly to give up a championship over it but kudos to them for putting their money where their mouth is.
Yeah, what’s the issue here again? Baseball is only very occasionally a contact sport.
At least they stick to their principles, you have to give them that.
It’s not like football, where you have to make special accommodations for a girl, I mean we’re not talking about “Quarterback Princess” here.
If the girls are good enough to make the team on their own merits, what’s the problem.
“A wimp would be someone who compromised their moral beliefs to suit the needs of the moment. They stuck to their guns, even though it was costing them the championship. If that is wimpy, I can only hope that far more people will be wimpy in the future.”
I understand that line of thinking, I just think there are better hills to die on.
That’s what I thought. Now the girls that want to be high school wrestlers is another matter...
But, baseball? There is very, little, physical contact and it would almost never be awkward, much less inappropriate.
Do they allow the boys to play chess or golf against girls?
It's baseball you idiots. Have you never played a co-ed softball or kickball game?
My wife and I play in a co-ed social sports volleyball league, and it's a blast. There's probably more contact in that than in high school baseball.
These are people taking pride in artificial virtue.
If the school already knows there is a chance of facing a girl in competition, why then put the team's chance in jeopardy by playing in a boy/girl conference?
This has nothing to do with excellence in women athletes. it is all about radical egalitarianism—Marxist ideology that is trying to destroy the Laws of Nature and the Constitution which is based on Objective Truth—that males and females have different natures and need to be admired and respected for their very natures. it dehumanizes both men and women and destroys respect and dignity of the sexes.
Women, by nature, are nurturers—designed by God to have babies and make them emotionally healthy so they will flourish. Men were designed to protect the family and provide for the woman so she could care for the babies. For thousands of years, women and children did not make it if there was no man to champion them.
Marx hates patriarchy and needs to eliminate men who protect their families. It destroys children. Children who grow up with no caring father end up in prison or in gangs. 95% of all prisoners in the 1980’s had abusive or no fathers while growing up.
Marx knew to destroy the family they have to pit man against women—just like class and race warfare—there is a sexes one too—as well as parents against children-—classic socialist use to destroy all trust in a people.
Whittaker Chambers explains the lack of Trust in Communism—in families.
Having men compete against women conditions them to hurt women—which used to be unmanly and evil until this Marxist push to make women into men and force them into the workplace so children’s minds can be shaped by the State and strangers. (70’s is when this sick idea took root. Marxists renamed Daycare to “preschool” to think children would be smarter being around other two year olds to learn speech and good manners. It is a joke and was the beginning of mass dumbing down although the socialist Dewey actually started in the 30’s with destroying morality and traditions.
When you are hurting women in sports—it is conditioning into a mindset that makes it acceptable. Christian Ethics can never condone men hurting women even in sports, because of the extreme difference in strength.
Marxists want women in combat to destroy the protective nature of men and destroy the nurturing aspect in women. Marx denied Natural Law Theory which is the basis of our legal system.
Sticking to your guns is a really stupid thing to do if your guns are unloaded, or more appropriately, sticking to your principles makes no sense if your principles are stupid.
Help me out with which moral belief is being compromised by playing a baseball game against a team with a female 2nd baseman.
Our Little League is co-ed. By my son’s age, 10, there are only a couple of girls left, but they are welcome to play. It’s by their own choice that they migrate over to the Girls Softball League.
I’ve never seen anything during a game that would cause an indelicate problem.
It is if you play to win.
I am glad they stuck to their principles, nice to see someone will.
While I don't subscribe to the same beliefs, I certainly don't count their actually standing up for what they believe in to be wimpy.
It’s baseball. I can see this with the wrestling kid last year, or some other contact sport, but BASEBALL?! They’d probably never have touched her anyway. They need to get over it.
My wife and I play in co-ed leagues all the time.
What's disrespectful is telling her she shouldn't play volleyball against co-ed teams because she's "designed by God to have babies".
Maybe you're just a crappy athlete.
No it’s not any of that. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. It’s a mixed gender league, that apparently doesn’t actually have many teams with girls, nobody is trying to force any equality, there’s no mandatory girl quotient. If this school really doesn’t want to face girls they should switch to a league that isn’t mixed gender.
I'm quite sure they would do the same in a similar situation.
If separately educating boys and girls was that important to them then why did they join a league that’s co-ed? Really it shouldn’t be that tough.
You post the truth.
Some folks can’t handle the truth.
“What’s disrespectful is telling her she shouldn’t play volleyball against co-ed teams because she’s “designed by God to have babies”.
Maybe you’re just a crappy athlete. “
You ruined a good point and post by that last snarky comment
I highly doubt that.
I plan to teach my son(s) that women are to be treated with respect, unless they otherwise show they shouldn't be.
I also intend to let them know that if they're every playing a sport, and a girl is playing too, that qualifies as "otherwise show they shouldn't be" and feel free to charge, tackle, or whatever else you would otherwise do to a male player. If she gets hurt in the process, that's on her head, not theirs. If she wants to play little miss tough jock instead of acting like a lady, then it's her own fault when she gets mangled while playing with members of a gender which statistically is faster, stronger, and more aggressive than hers is.
All the same, if it is the conviction of the St. Pius team members not to play a girl, then that's their decision, and I don't fault them for it.
Good one. Now my co-workers are wonder what I was laughing about.
Co-ed Sports = Marxism.
The only thing I can think of is that the idea came from someone with absolutely no experience in intramural or social league sports, or probably athletics at all.
I suspect you have overanalyzed this situation. These are kids. It is baseball.
Good for them! For not giving in to the feminazi agenda.
Got any source for that. The story doesn’t say anything changed, it says the league is co-ed and the school knew about it. The only thing that changed according to the linked story is that at the beginning of the year this opponent didn’t have any girls but swapped one in during the season; she voluntarily sat out when they met in the regular season but for the championship wanted to be in. Everything in here indicates the school knew what they signed up for and did it anyway.
I shake my head at the absolute primitivism posted on this thread (6, 19, and 31 for example). Hard to tell you folks apart from the radical islamists.
The idea that men and women are interchangeable cogs is Marxist. That’s why she’s out there. I would refuse to participate in teaching my sons that.
My question to you is, who gets to decide which principles are stupid - the people that hold them or the mob?
If it were high school wrestling, I might agree with it but baseball???
We would put her in at low post whenever the opposing team made the mistake of going to a man-to-man defense. She had one move and we had one play for her. She would get the ball low with her back to the basket, the rest of us would head for the corners, taking the defenders away, she would fake one way while hooking the opposite leg behind the defender, go the other way, bounce the ball once heading to the basket and execute the most beautiful finger-roll spinning layup you have ever seen.
She was only good for about 3 buckets that way before the other team would figure out they needed to sink in to defend against her, but she provided the winning margin a number of times.
We all had a lot of respect for her and provided triple-damage to anybody who messed with her on or off the court.
They are taking a stand based upon their principles and accepting the consequences of their actions—taking it their forfeiture like men. Good for them.
Words mean things. How many boys play on the girls softball team?
I think if the girls think they are man enough to get into the ring to compete with the guys then the guys should go out of their way to hurt them enough during competition to discourage any further competition. Once the word is out among the girls that any competition with the boys will only be met with being taught a lesson the girls will absolutely refuse to compete with them.
What does the school principle think of the team’s principals?
I never used the word wimpy, for the record, that was another poster.
I read that in the article as well, and I am left with the same question - what moral belief is being compromised?
A belief in forming and educating boys and girls separately doesn’t rise (IMHO) to the level of a moral belief. And playing a game against a team with a female 2nd basemen just doesn’t seem to negatively impact one’s profound respect for women and girls.