Should I have been offended?

[sandlot]

"Is there something wrong with what he said?") was more a reaction to how our society thinks as a whole. We all are responsible for that.

It just aggrevates me to no end when people make comments that are stereotypical in nature and when they have to do with traditional gender roles and women being seen as not being able to do certain things. I can think of so many examples, not just with baseball but also with the coed roller hockey league I play in and in other situations.

So, for me, I will think before reacting in those situations, and I will do all I can to help educate people and open their minds.

I have no idea how "society" as a whole (or in part) thinks about anything, really, and I honestly don't see the notion of "society" as a useful tool for operating in one's daily life -- although it's easy and attractive shorthand. "Society" is also useful as a punching bag or straw man (straw person?). IMHO, discussion of "society" is fine for theoreticians, anthropologists, ideologues, politicians, columnists and other folks who like to expound or write books, but every day you can meet individuals who'll explode any stereotype you want to mention -- just as you can meet people who'll confirm any generalization in the books. I totally agree that I am responsible for myself, but am I also reponsible for some amorphous, notional collective called "society"? With respect, I think not. But, if I have core beliefs with which I view the institutions of society to be at odds, then I have choices to make and one of the options is to seek to change the institutions. I remember hearing the civil rights leader and comedian Dick Gregory speaking to an audience at the University of Alabama, and saying "You have the right to be a racist. What you do not have is the right to institutionalize that racism." This, to me, is the same with sexism. You want to be a sexist -- whether anti-female or anti-male? Fine by me. Just don't try to turn your personal prejudice into laws, rules, regulations, dress codes, lending practices, admissions policies or so-called "norms" -- an even vaguer notion than "society."

When you say that you'll "think before reacting in those situations," I'm behind you all the way. But when you go on to say you'll try to "help educate people and open their minds," I get uneasy. That sounds like code for trying to change people, and that's a dangerous and slippery slope. As I wrote in another post, people don't change unless they have incentive. They also might not want to have their minds "opened" and would greatly resist it. It suggests that one party is enlghtened and the other is not; but enlightenment is a rather condescending notion, and no one likes being looked down upon, even (especially?) when wrong. In the right circumstances, however, a person might begin to look at things differently and to alter him- or herself. We can each help to create such circumstances through awareness of our own automatic responses and the by conscious guiding our reactions. The old soft-drink slogan "the pause that refreshes" is not a bad place to start. And a little good humor often can go a long, long way. (When the company using that slogan first came to China, they translated it on billboards using characters that could also be interpreted as: "Brings dead ancestors back to life!" Sales went through the roof. )

[NotAboutEgo]

I have no idea how "society" as a whole (or in part) thinks about anything, really, and I honestly don't see the notion of "society" as a useful tool for operating in one's daily life -- although it's easy and attractive shorthand. "Society" is also useful as a punching bag or straw man (straw person?). IMHO, discussion of "society" is fine for theoreticians, anthropologists, ideologues, politicians, columnists and other folks who like to expound or write books, but every day you can meet individuals who'll explode any stereotype you want to mention -- just as you can meet people who'll confirm any generalization in the books. I totally agree that I am responsible for myself, but am I also reponsible for some amorphous, notional collective called "society"? With respect, I think not. But, if I have core beliefs with which I view the institutions of society to be at odds, then I have choices to make and one of the options is to seek to change the institutions. I remember hearing the civil rights leader and comedian Dick Gregory speaking to an audience at the University of Alabama, and saying "You have the right to be a racist. What you do not have is the right to institutionalize that racism." This, to me, is the same with sexism. You want to be a sexist -- whether anti-female or anti-male? Fine by me. Just don't try to turn your personal prejudice into laws, rules, regulations, dress codes, lending practices, admissions policies or so-called "norms" -- an even vaguer notion than "society."

When you say that you'll "think before reacting in those situations," I'm behind you all the way. But when you go on to say you'll try to "help educate people and open their minds," I get uneasy. That sounds like code for trying to change people, and that's a dangerous and slippery slope. As I wrote in another post, people don't change unless they have incentive. They also might not want to have their minds "opened" and would greatly resist it. It suggests that one party is enlghtened and the other is not; but enlightenment is a rather condescending notion, and no one likes being looked down upon, even (especially?) when wrong. In the right circumstances, however, a person might begin to look at things differently and to alter him- or herself. We can each help to create such circumstances through awareness of our own automatic responses and the by conscious guiding our reactions. The old soft-drink slogan "the pause that refreshes" is not a bad place to start. And a little good humor often can go a long, long way. (When the company using that slogan first came to China, they translated it on billboards using characters that could also be interpreted as: "Brings dead ancestors back to life!" Sales went through the roof. )

I do believe you, as much as everyone other person on this planet, are responsible for society, because we all are a part of what is our society. So, if we grow and learn and take responsibility for ourselves, then we are contributing to our society in some way. If one says they are not responsible for how our society is, then it is the same as saying they are not a part of it in any way, shape, or form, and that, to me, is quite impossible.

You stated, "In the right circumstances, however, a person might begin to look at things differently and to alter him- or herself. We can each help to create such circumstances through awareness of our own automatic responses and the by conscious guiding our reactions." Don't you think this will change the way a group of people thinks, when one takes it upon themself to look at things differently?

It is apparent to me when a collective society feels and thinks a certain way about a particular topic such as women's baseball. I'm not using it as a useful punching bag; rather, I'm point out what I have experienced in conjunction with being a female and playing baseball. The sum of the parts equals the whole, and each part affects the whole.

If 80% of the people in society each decide to start taking responsibility for thier actions and stop hurting others, stop taking advantage of others, etc. (and themselves), that will shift society and things will change. If every single person on the planet decides to stay just as they are, then nothing changes. We are our society. Why does one culture have certain "beliefs, traditions, modes"?

When I speak of helping to educate people and open their minds, I am speaking of giving people info of what I have experienced when they are open it receiving the info. I'm not at all speaking of controlling one and forcing info down their throats. When there is an opportunity to educate others about women's baseball, I will take advantage of it. That is what I'm speaking of.

I'm not speaking of trying to change everyone and force things upon them. I disagree that people don't change unless they have incentive. There are plenty of people who change just because they want to.

[sandlot]

We are not so far apart. If each invidual assumes responsibility for her- or himself, it will indeed affect society. That is laudable and to be hoped for. It's in fact what I was suggesting. But social change is an effect, not a duty. If enough people do assume responsibility for themselves, in positive ways, a critical mass might eventually be achieved and change could occur on a larger level. But what happens too often when seeking to take responsibility for the amorphous mass, is that individuals themselves become changed in the process, and rarely for the better. As frustrations compound and aggravation mounts, hostility arises. This is largely unconscious. Radicalization also occurs (not a bad thing, in limited doses, as it brings things to the surface); also, as mentioned earlier, human nature strongly inclines us to turn us into what we hate. (Stalin was a Marxist, helped overthrow the imperial family, and became an imperial dictator of almost unrivaled proportion. A similar story with Mao, etc.) When people decide to change because they want to, they want to for a reason. That reason, whatever it may be, is the incentive. Sometimes people just get tired of dragging certain things around, or fighting the same battles; sometimes they discover, like Walt Kelly's Pogo character, that "we have met the enemy, and he is us." Sometimes people change with age -- that's decision, just slow decision. I am not arguing for doing nothing, nor am I suggesting irresponsibility. I am saying that I can't and won't be responsible for what other people think, even if there's millions of them insisting on the same thing. What I can do, as I wrote, is to resist the institionalization of what I find unacceptable. As regards baseball, the decision to bar women from the MLB needs to be explained and justified (which, of course, it can't be), and pressure should be brought on the Office of the Commissioner to do just that, because it is the institutionalization of gender discrimination. What Bud Selig personally thinks about women in baseball is entirely irrelevant to me, and I could not possibly care less -- so as long as any prejudicial sentiments were not concretized and enforced. He inherited the bar against women, but he is under no duty nor obligation to continue it. And if he were to eliminate it simply because it made him personally uncomfortable, that's reason enough. He needn't consider for an second the effect on society of that decision; it might have considerable effect, and probably would, but that's just effect, and should not be confused with cause or motivation. I believe that if we spend time analyzing our own motivations honestly, and act accordingly and consciously, the effects will take care of themselves.

[NotAboutEgo]

We are not so far apart. If each invidual assumes responsibility for her- or himself, it will indeed affect society. That is laudable and to be hoped for. It's in fact what I was suggesting. But social change is an effect, not a duty. If enough people do assume responsibility for themselves, in positive ways, a critical mass might eventually be achieved and change could occur on a larger level. But what happens too often when seeking to take responsibility for the amorphous mass, is that individuals themselves become changed in the process, and rarely for the better. As frustrations compound and aggravation mounts, hostility arises. This is largely unconscious. Radicalization also occurs (not a bad thing, in limited doses, as it brings things to the surface); also, as mentioned earlier, human nature strongly inclines us to turn us into what we hate. (Stalin was a Marxist, helped overthrow the imperial family, and became an imperial dictator of almost unrivaled proportion. A similar story with Mao, etc.) When people decide to change because they want to, they want to for a reason. That reason, whatever it may be, is the incentive. Sometimes people just get tired of dragging certain things around, or fighting the same battles; sometimes they discover, like Walt Kelly's Pogo character, that "we have met the enemy, and he is us." Sometimes people change with age -- that's decision, just slow decision. I am not arguing for doing nothing, nor am I suggesting irresponsibility. I am saying that I can't and won't be responsible for what other people think, even if there's millions of them insisting on the same thing. What I can do, as I wrote, is to resist the institionalization of what I find unacceptable. As regards baseball, the decision to bar women from the MLB needs to be explained and justified (which, of course, it can't be), and pressure should be brought on the Office of the Commissioner to do just that, because it is the institutionalization of gender discrimination. What Bud Selig personally thinks about women in baseball is entirely irrelevant to me, and I could not possibly care less -- so as long as any prejudicial sentiments were not concretized and enforced. He inherited the bar against women, but he is under no duty nor obligation to continue it. And if he were to eliminate it simply because it made him personally uncomfortable, that's reason enough. He needn't consider for an second the effect on society of that decision; it might have considerable effect, and probably would, but that's just effect, and should not be confused with cause or motivation. I believe that if we spend time analyzing our own motivations honestly, and act accordingly and consciously, the effects will take care of themselves.

I agree that social change is an effect and not a duty. No one should feel that they have a huge burden on their shoulders to change things on a huge scale; rather, they should take responsibility for themselves and when the opportunity arises to give knowledge and info to another (when the other is open to it), then they should take advantage of that. I agree that no one is responsible for another's thoughts, actions, ideas, etc. I wasn't suggesting that but was suggesting that everyone contributes to the whole of society. Of course, as you stated, if 80% of the population is doing something a certain way, and the other 20% is doing it differently, the 80% way will be reflected in society more. I agree with your statements in this post. Good post.

[DownUnderDodger]

I firmly believe that each of our own actions has an effect on society, maybe not directly, but thru flow on effects. Take the guy who commented to NotAboutEgo about her knowledge of baseball. Perhaps he had stereotyed all women as not knowing anything about baseball, and NotAboutEgo has changed that perception in his mind. He may now lose his sterotypical idea of women's knowledge of baseball and he may even try to pass that on to others. Whatever flow-on effect that has is a step to changing society, albeit in a very small way.

Society in a way is huge bunch of followers lead by a few leaders. Society is easily misled, so anyone who wants to lead, with positive and sensible actions, regardless how small those actions are, is doing something to change society positively. Unfortunately there are too many negatives which influence the followers in society......totally negative news reporting, concentrating on all the bad things, TV shows such as Big Brother, heck even in sport the bad things are given the most publicity. I could go on. We could all help change society if we react positively and deflect the negatives (hard I know). For every one person we can influence, there could be countless others influenced by the flow-on effect.

[digglahhh]

Ohh, I finally found the place for the sociological musings that I get lambasted for engaging in on the other threads. I won't tell if you won't..


Here's a problem that I'm sure NotAboutEgo can attest to. Her "battle," though sandlot and others might not agree with the war analogy, is uphill. It's like building a sand castle; a day's work can be erased in the blink of an eye. The demographics of many of the baseball settings that I have been in, work or otherwise, have been dispropontionately male. In one respect that is a problem; it is unequal. But, you also must be careful what you wish for. The inclusion of one new female in the circle who acts in a manner that perpetuates the stereotypes about women in sports serves to undermine all the progress and acceptance that the other knowledgable professional women have worked so hard to achieve. While inclusion is a goal, careful selection is a somewhat conflicting priority as well. The sports arena (no pun intended) exacerbates the gender roles even further through the pre-existing dynamic that the women in turn attempt to alter.

Such an imbalance can indulge or engender so many unhealthy outcomes. The women can be co-opted by the male dominated mindset, similar to the way that many critics view the evolution of black students at traditionally white, elite universities and thus become disdainful of their fellow woman who chooses to remain clueless about sports, once again fueling divisiveness. The women can just become the objects of scorn, ridicule a resentment. The woman can embrace the sexual attention she inevitably will gather when the ratio of men to women is like twenty to one, perpetuating several stereotypes at once. But what if the just wants to have a serious relationship with a fellow sports fanatic?... Virtually all of these possiblities are possible "traps" for the woman to fall into. The men on the other hand don't have to tread so carefully, considering the ramifications on the greater dynamic of every, even seemingly mundane, action.

It is a minefield out there. What makes change so difficult is that the attitudes and expressions are so implicit that so many of the indiscretions are not even recognized as such by the perpetrators. Sometimes I feel that my girlfriend makes much ado about nothing regarding some of the experiences she has, but I can't blame her for interpretting the instances the way she does. Of course, I also feel, frequently, that her gender-based interpretations of specific interactions are rather valid.

[PopTop]

Wow, took me a while to read through the thread. Very interesting and well-posted discussion.

It comes down, in my opinion, to what is the norm for different people. Being something of an old fart, it wasn't 'normal' 40 years ago to find ladies so knowledgeable about baseball as right now. At least it wasn't as prevalent. Certainly there were women who knew the game back then, but it was a different time and their numbers were vastly smaller. I was lucky --- Didn't always feel that way back in the 50s and 60s --- to live in a house with a bunch of sisters, two of which really did understand the game. So that was 'normal' for me.

It's only in the last 10 years or so, and forums like this have really brought it out, that more and more women have been able to truly show off their knowledge of baseball and other previous 'manly sports.' If there had been an internet or some of these humongous 300-screen sports bars 40 years ago, you wouldn't have seen as many women on-line or in the bars watching the Yanks-Sox or Michigan-Ohio St football games as you do now. Thankfully, the 'barriers,' for lack of better word, that existed then no longer are around. That doesn't mean there aren't any sexist morons out there still; just fewer people who put up with it or find that attitude to be the norm any longer.

Take that from a guy who was routinely picked behind one of his sisters for sandlot sports

[NotAboutEgo]

I firmly believe that each of our own actions has an effect on society, maybe not directly, but thru flow on effects. Take the guy who commented to NotAboutEgo about her knowledge of baseball. Perhaps he had stereotyed all women as not knowing anything about baseball, and NotAboutEgo has changed that perception in his mind. He may now lose his sterotypical idea of women's knowledge of baseball and he may even try to pass that on to others. Whatever flow-on effect that has is a step to changing society, albeit in a very small way.

Society in a way is huge bunch of followers lead by a few leaders. Society is easily misled, so anyone who wants to lead, with positive and sensible actions, regardless how small those actions are, is doing something to change society positively. Unfortunately there are too many negatives which influence the followers in society......totally negative news reporting, concentrating on all the bad things, TV shows such as Big Brother, heck even in sport the bad things are given the most publicity. I could go on. We could all help change society if we react positively and deflect the negatives (hard I know). For every one person we can influence, there could be countless others influenced by the flow-on effect.

BINGO!!! Exactly! That is a great way to put it, DownUnder. We just need more positive leaders than negative, egotistical leaders like you stated. Somehow the negatives got all the power, but there needs to be a shift.

[NotAboutEgo]

Wow, took me a while to read through the thread. Very interesting and well-posted discussion.

It comes down, in my opinion, to what is the norm for different people. Being something of an old fart, it wasn't 'normal' 40 years ago to find ladies so knowledgeable about baseball as right now. At least it wasn't as prevalent. Certainly there were women who knew the game back then, but it was a different time and their numbers were vastly smaller. I was lucky --- Didn't always feel that way back in the 50s and 60s --- to live in a house with a bunch of sisters, two of which really did understand the game. So that was 'normal' for me.

It's only in the last 10 years or so, and forums like this have really brought it out, that more and more women have been able to truly show off their knowledge of baseball and other previous 'manly sports.' If there had been an internet or some of these humongous 300-screen sports bars 40 years ago, you wouldn't have seen as many women on-line or in the bars watching the Yanks-Sox or Michigan-Ohio St football games as you do now. Thankfully, the 'barriers,' for lack of better word, that existed then no longer are around. That doesn't mean there aren't any sexist morons out there still; just fewer people who put up with it or find that attitude to be the norm any longer.

Take that from a guy who was routinely picked behind one of his sisters for sandlot sports

Thanks for your "humble" perspective, PopTop! I'm glad you mentioned, along with mentioning that 40 years ago there weren't as many women into sports as there are now, that there were more barriers back then affecting this. So many people are quick to point out that women weren't so much into sports in the past and that's why they haven't had many opportunities, but they fail to think about or mention WHY they weren't, or didn't "seem" to be, into sports. I think it's part perception, part bias, and part women beinng quiet about it if they did like sports because of the biases.

I saw a program on HBO a while back about this same topic. I don't remember what it's called, but it is about how women "back then" were afraid to express and voice their interest in sports, because they were labled as dikes and lesbians if they did. Because of the stereotypes of the time, their actions were influenced. The ones who spoke out about it and played sports anyway were few... and, some of them were in fact lesbians. So, that is probably where those bigots who still exist today get the idea that all females who play sports and like sports are lesbians.

I have a personal account of how one woman didn't play sports in school because of the lack of opportunity provided to her and because of the stereotypes of the time. She said she would've tried sports if they were offered, because she likes them, but women were told they couldn't play. That woman is my mom. She enjoys most sports... watching them... and she would have loved to play some. Women in her days of growing up had to fight just to wear blue jeans and pants. She played on some company softball teams a few times, and for someone who has never played sports, she did great. She has good raw mechanics and could be very good if given the proper time to gain experience and to be shown how to improve and polish her skills. What do I see there? Someone who was denied a chance to enjoy something she likes, and, someone denied an opportunity to do something bigger in her life... if that's what she would have chosen.

I have worked with other women around my mom's age (she's 60) who have similar stories. Some fought the status quo and played anyway, but most didn't because of the crap they had to put up with.

[NotAboutEgo]

Ohh, I finally found the place for the sociological musings that I get lambasted for engaging in on the other threads. I won't tell if you won't..


Here's a problem that I'm sure NotAboutEgo can attest to. Her "battle," though sandlot and others might not agree with the war analogy, is uphill. It's like building a sand castle; a day's work can be erased in the blink of an eye. The demographics of many of the baseball settings that I have been in, work or otherwise, have been dispropontionately male. In one respect that is a problem; it is unequal. But, you also must be careful what you wish for. The inclusion of one new female in the circle who acts in a manner that perpetuates the stereotypes about women in sports serves to undermine all the progress and acceptance that the other knowledgable professional women have worked so hard to achieve. While inclusion is a goal, careful selection is a somewhat conflicting priority as well. The sports arena (no pun intended) exacerbates the gender roles even further through the pre-existing dynamic that the women in turn attempt to alter.

Such an imbalance can indulge or engender so many unhealthy outcomes. The women can be co-opted by the male dominated mindset, similar to the way that many critics view the evolution of black students at traditionally white, elite universities and thus become disdainful of their fellow woman who chooses to remain clueless about sports, once again fueling divisiveness. The women can just become the objects of scorn, ridicule a resentment. The woman can embrace the sexual attention she inevitably will gather when the ratio of men to women is like twenty to one, perpetuating several stereotypes at once. But what if the just wants to have a serious relationship with a fellow sports fanatic?... Virtually all of these possiblities are possible "traps" for the woman to fall into. The men on the other hand don't have to tread so carefully, considering the ramifications on the greater dynamic of every, even seemingly mundane, action.

It is a minefield out there. What makes change so difficult is that the attitudes and expressions are so implicit that so many of the indiscretions are not even recognized as such by the perpetrators. Sometimes I feel that my girlfriend makes much ado about nothing regarding some of the experiences she has, but I can't blame her for interpretting the instances the way she does. Of course, I also feel, frequently, that her gender-based interpretations of specific interactions are rather valid.

I agree with you, digglahhh, if I have understood you correctly. I agree that a ton of work can be broken down in just one day. I have seen a lot of women who play into the stereotypes of women, and, they make them even greater. The ones I am talking about are the girls who go to pro (and otherwise) baseball games, not for the sport, but because they are so insecure with themselves that they seek the attention of pro male athletes and are not shy about broadcasting what they are after. Yes, they are the ones who stand by the dugouts in their scant outfits and pretty much advertise who they are. My friends and I sit there and laugh at them because it's like a freak show, and it's disgusting. I don't understand that mindset at all.

And then there are those females who hang out with guys just because they get attention from them, in the wrong way, and they think they are getting somewhere from that. They seek this kind of attention because it makes them feel that they are the best thing that ever happened and that they are on top of the world.

But, I know there are a lot of guys who do similar things, but those things usually aren't brought into things like guys being told they can't do something. I agree with your points... some females do play into the stereotypes... but it should have nothing to do with women trying to play baseball and people not seeing that there are plenty of women who love sports and who are very knowledgeablwe about them.

Somehow, women who are disrespectful to themselves are usually brought into discussions about women who are fighting for something, but I haven't really experienced the same thing happening for males. Also, a lot of males play into this as much as the disrespectful women do. Why do males go after such sleezy women, when that is how they see them, and then dog the women? To me, the guys are just as guilty.

[digglahhh]

NAE,

I don't disagree with what you said. Your point about women who disprespect themselves often being brought into discussions about women fighting for inclusion and equality patriarchial institutions is incredibly salient. Most don't even notice this phenomenon and it is very frustrating to somebody coming from a feminist viewpoint.

Perception is powerful though. When a group is under-represented each one of their actions becomes more powerful in terms of other people's tendency to make generalizations about them. If somebody from one of the teams deals with a woman in my office who is incompetent there is a real possibility that if he has to deal with my girlfriend in the future, he will assume that she too is incompetent. That is much more likely than the same guy assuming I'm incompetent because he spoke to an incompetent male member of the staff in the past.

A funny little anecdote is that my girlfriend's favorite player for a long time was Mike Piazza. She would go to the games and wear his jersey, but she would always say to me that she hates the fact that there are probably many people at the game who just assume she liked Mike because he was good looking and well known. I told her that she could always rectify that by adopting Ezuquiel Astacio as her new favorite player. But seriously, many men have virtually no understanding of how far down this stuff trickles.

I think she is trying to convince herself to like Reyes better than Wright right now. But it is hard not to love David Wright if you are a Met fan.

[SoxSon]

I'm not going to pretend that I don't love the discussion, guys...I really do.
However, you all do need to bring this back to focus on baseball and baseball-only, ok? The thread's currently hanging on to that premise by a hair. Them's the rules.

digglahhh...I know you saw this coming.

[Wade8813]

A really nice guy was sitting in front of us, and he overheard us talking about the game throughout the day. We were analyzing plays, players, the team, etc. He eventually turned around and said he was impressed with our indepth knowledge of baseball. He was a complete gentleman and was in no way trying to patronize us. However, I wasn't sure how to feel about it. The reason I wasn't sure how to feel about it was because I get sick and tired of a case being made everytime someone hears a female talking about baseball and knowing what she is talking about.

I like to think I know a fair amount about baseball, and I'm still impressed with some people's indepth knowledge about the game (and often, on this forum, I don't even know if they're male of female).

Now imagine that someone who's just a casual baseball fan hears someone talking about VORP, or opportunities created ratios, or league quality adjustments, and imagine how impressed they'd be. They've never heard of anything of that depth in almost any endeavor, much less baseball.

Did he try to engage you in conversation about baseball? If he really were interested that you do know about the sport, he would have done so. I wouldn't be offended, but there's not much you can do to change a stereotype when people won't look past it.

Not necessarily. Someone in the situation I described above might feel way out of their league, and feel that it would be too awkward and time consuming to try to learn while watching a game.

Exactly!

Personal story: At our local minor league team's game, a few years ago, I was with one of my friends who just wanted to get out and do something. NOT a big baseball fan...in fact, she knows about as much of the sport as a dog does. LOL But she agreed to go with me. After the 10 millionth time of her asking "What does 'that' mean?" and my answering her, the guy in front of us commented on "People shouldn't come if they don't know the game." At least he did say people and not women...so I didn't take too much offense then.

I think that what that man said is a far worse statement to make. It's rude, arrogant, and self-defeating (one of the best way to learn about the game is to go to games). And if your friend was starting to enjoy the baseball game, and heard a comment like that could easily ruin the entire experience, and she might not want to go to any games any more.

the guy in front of me looked at his son (probably around 8 or 9...maybe 10 years old) and said "Ignore people who don't know what they're talking about. The ball went up the middle, it's a fair ball in any ball game and someone's gonna get on base, maybe even a double out of it." At that point, the ump turned around and signaled that it was, indeed, a foul ball. At that point, the man's son turned to me, "How do you know so much about baseball?" I knew it was the "female thing"...but kids are more brutally honest than adults, and the boy obviously noticed that not many girls/women play...may not have known ANY who did...so I can be a bit more..."relaxed", I guess...with children.

Again, I don't think this statement is necessarily a "female thing". I guarantee that when I was 10 years old, if someone had said the same thing to me, I'd have been impressed (and surprised).

The really grating thing is that most of the people who are impressed by your knowledge of the game, are ironically, probably not even as knowledgable as you are.

I don't understand why that's grating. If I know as much as you do, why would I be impressed? It's impressive when someone exceeds what you think possible.

Regardless of how I mean it, it would be too easy to take another way, and it may also be part of the problem, on some level.

EXACTLY. We need to be careful about saying things that can be misconstrued. On the flip side, we should try to not jump to conclusions that people are saying things to be hurtful.

[CuriousBoston]

I'm not going to pretend that I don't love the discussion, guys...I really do.
However, you all do need to bring this back to focus on baseball and baseball-only, ok? The thread's currently hanging on to that premise by a hair. Them's the rules.

digglahhh...I know you saw this coming.

Given: Baseball is a religion. Baseball is also a slice of culture on this planet. We are discussing how to make the future better for the 12 year old girl that started this thread.

We are discussing the past, present, and future of women in baseball, given the present and past.

With the increased number of females at baseball fever, discussions similar to this between males and females IN THIS FORUM are likely, and should be accepted.

I feel strongly that discussions like this will benefit the 12 year old that started this thread. And her younger brother.

I think it would be appropriate to discuss this here, as the participants, well, this is GREAT discussion. I hope to see at last a female ump on day, I feel this discussion, with six degrees, will lead to that.

[SoxSon]

Given: Baseball is a religion. Baseball is also a slice of culture on this planet. We are discussing how to make the future better for the 12 year old girl that started this thread.

We are discussing the past, present, and future of women in baseball, given the present and past.

With the increased number of females at baseball fever, discussions similar to this between males and females IN THIS FORUM are likely, and should be accepted.

I feel strongly that discussions like this will benefit the 12 year old that started this thread. And her younger brother.

I think it would be appropriate to discuss this here, as the participants, well, this is GREAT discussion. I hope to see at last a female ump on day, I feel this discussion, with six degrees, will lead to that.

I can completely see and understand where you're coming from, CB. Like I said, I've really enjoyed the discussion myself.

However, when it has moved away from baseball itself, an ongoing discussion about society's expectations for gender is pushing the boundaries of Baseball Fever. All I'm asking is that everyone keep the discussion firmly rooted in its premise, that of gender roles/expectations in and around baseball itself.

That still leaves room for good discussion. Thanks.

[digglahhh]

With all due respect these are personal experiences about myself and me girlfriend and our experiences working within the game of baseball. The greater context, filtered through baseball, lead to the experiences, ideas and phenomena being discussed.

I think this thread has done remarkably well at staying within bounds. Whether or not a knowledgable female fan feels misunderstood for wearing the jersey of a player widely regarded as attractive is a social thing, you are correct. But, specifically it is the manifestation of social forces through baseball as a fan, employee or whatever the case.

We can't isolate who were are. Nobody is just a fan. I am a baseball fan. I am a man. I am in my mid 20's. I am a Marxist... All of these filtration systems work at once, not in isolation but in unison. A women interpretting baseball is going to interpret those events through the eyes of a woman.

Additionally the inverse of most of the perspectives here are articulated ad naseum, and present via implication even when absent in explicit terms. When speaking of a hypothetical player the writer basically just uses the pronoun "he" without hesitation. That is a comment about gender issues in sports, but it is the status quo, so it is not treated as such by those who focus on the explicit discussion of these issues. These issues are in tons and tons of posts here; it's obvious in the subtext.

[NotAboutEgo]

With all due respect these are personal experiences about myself and me girlfriend and our experiences working within the game of baseball. The greater context, filtered through baseball, lead to the experiences, ideas and phenomena being discussed.

I think this thread has done remarkably well at staying within bounds. Whether or not a knowledgable female fan feels misunderstood for wearing the jersey of a player widely regarded as attractive is a social thing, you are correct. But, specifically it is the manifestation of social forces through baseball as a fan, employee or whatever the case.

We can't isolate who were are. Nobody is just a fan. I am a baseball fan. I am a man. I am in my mid 20's. I am a Marxist... All of these filtration systems work at once, not in isolation but in unison. A women interpretting baseball is going to interpret those events through the eyes of a woman.

Additionally the inverse of most of the perspectives here are articulated ad naseum, and present via implication even when absent in explicit terms. When speaking of a hypothetical player the writer basically just uses the pronoun "he" without hesitation. That is a comment about gender issues in sports, but it is the status quo, so it is not treated as such by those who focus on the explicit discussion of these issues. These issues are in tons and tons of posts here; it's obvious in the subtext.

Picking up on your comment about how "people" think that a female wears an attractive player's jersey only because of the attraction (if there even is one) is just as sexist and closed minded as "people" thinking women know nothing about baseball. I'm sure a lot of people think I go to games just to see the guys in tight uniforms and to get noticed, but they are SO wrong. Yeah, sure, I think some of the guys are attractive and look good and it doesn't hurt my eyes to look at them, but that's not why I go to games. I go because I love the game of baseball, being there in person is the best way to enjoy a game, and I have friends with season tickets, and we have a blast at the games and hanging out afterward. It's the fact that I love baseball and that it's a good social activity for me that keeps me going back. Also, I have been into baseball most of my life, so it's a part of me.

[CuriousBoston]

With all due respect these are personal experiences about myself and me girlfriend and our experiences working within the game of baseball. The greater context, filtered through baseball, lead to the experiences, ideas and phenomena being discussed.

I think this thread has done remarkably well at staying within bounds. Whether or not a knowledgable female fan feels misunderstood for wearing the jersey of a player widely regarded as attractive is a social thing, you are correct. But, specifically it is the manifestation of social forces through baseball as a fan, employee or whatever the case.

We can't isolate who were are. Nobody is just a fan. I am a baseball fan. I am a man. I am in my mid 20's. I am a Marxist... All of these filtration systems work at once, not in isolation but in unison. A women interpretting baseball is going to interpret those events through the eyes of a woman.

Additionally the inverse of most of the perspectives here are articulated ad naseum, and present via implication even when absent in explicit terms. When speaking of a hypothetical player the writer basically just uses the pronoun "he" without hesitation. That is a comment about gender issues in sports, but it is the status quo, so it is not treated as such by those who focus on the explicit discussion of these issues. These issues are in tons and tons of posts here; it's obvious in the subtext.

This is not a thread for "What he/she said." But, I'd like to point out I proposed Marriage to Digglahhh in a different forum; it was not ruled off topic. In yet another forum I am discussing what kind of biscuit yankeebisscuitfan is.

In yet another forum (!another) poll has started, asking if the Hank Aaron Award should have it's name changed.

Our discussion here will lead to the day when a female will step onto a MLB field, as a player, as an umpire, as a trainer, as a coach, as an owner. Baseball-fever is a critical mass; a group of males and females, very interested in baseball, very knowledgeable about baseball, with every demographic any media could want. Respected by a larger and larger group of people.

15K members? How many more as guests? We have reached critical mass. Imagine for three days each member wore a T-shirt that said baseball-fever.com? Plus any message that BF supports?

Or, "Female for baseball-fever.com."? Or ???

ps-he turned me down, gently..

[CuriousBoston]

I can completely see and understand where you're coming from, CB. Like I said, I've really enjoyed the discussion myself.

However, when it has moved away from baseball itself, an ongoing discussion about society's expectations for gender is pushing the boundaries of Baseball Fever. All I'm asking is that everyone keep the discussion firmly rooted in its premise, that of gender roles/expectations in and around baseball itself.

That still leaves room for good discussion. Thanks.

I like you. You're a good guy. You are fair, with an even temperment.

You've been a guy since you have been on the planet. Your brain, my brain have been scientifically proven to process information differently. Twins, one male, one female, same house, schools, are growing up in different cultures.

This influences how we think about baseball. Possible for the moderators to discuss a female moderator for this forum? (I am NOT moderator material, am NOT volunteering.)

[SoxSon]

Possible for the moderators to discuss a female moderator for this forum? (I am NOT moderator material, am NOT volunteering.)

I think that's a great idea, CB, and will mention it in the mod forum. However, you understand, I hope, that any female mod here will also be expected to reign in off-baseball talk?

For a perfect example of how to discuss this topic while sticking to baseball, see NotAboutEgo's post #67. Excellent.

[Mattingly]

Our discussion here will lead to the day when a female will step onto a MLB field, as a player, as an umpire, as a trainer, as a coach, as an owner. Baseball-fever is a critical mass; a group of males and females, very interested in baseball, very knowledgeable about baseball, with every demographic any media could want. Respected by a larger and larger group of people.

By "[o]ur discussion here", do you mean this specific thread or the entire AAGPBL/Women's forum?

I can see this forum on BBF being used to discuss the potential for a woman player, ump, trainer, but I don't see how it could actually lead to this. Since BBF isn't involved in creating news, but rather discussing baseball news and opinions on this, I don't see the discussion here leading directly to anything about women's advancement in baseball.

If you're so interested in a woman playing in MLB, or being an ump, a trainer, etc, you may wish to post about this.

Effa Manley (1900-1981) is now the only woman in the HoF, as she was an owner of the Newark Eagles in NJ.

http://www.aaregistry.com/african_am..._Negro_Leagues

If you have anything to add about her, you may wish to post this into another thread under this forum or the Negro Leagues forum, as I believe they would be relevant in either place. In fact, Thursday would've been her 106th birthday.

If you feel like researching other women's influence on the game of baseball, feel free to share your findings with us.

[Mattingly]

Picking up on your comment about how "people" think that a female wears an attractive player's jersey only because of the attraction (if there even is one) is just as sexist and closed minded as "people" thinking women know nothing about baseball. I'm sure a lot of people think I go to games just to see the guys in tight uniforms and to get noticed, but they are SO wrong. Yeah, sure, I think some of the guys are attractive and look good and it doesn't hurt my eyes to look at them, but that's not why I go to games. I go because I love the game of baseball, being there in person is the best way to enjoy a game, and I have friends with season tickets, and we have a blast at the games and hanging out afterward. It's the fact that I love baseball and that it's a good social activity for me that keeps me going back. Also, I have been into baseball most of my life, so it's a part of me.

It's strange how a female Yankee fan sometimes gets criticized for wearing something like a Jeter #2 jersey, but her husband gets no criticism for wearing the same. It's unfortunate, since both could simply enjoy the way he plays the game, rather than worrying about his looks.

Hopefully, people won't have to explain their feelings so much upon why they wear a certain player's jersey, and moreso how they feel about their team and why. Preferably an interest conversation can begin at the ballpark, regardless of one's gender.

[NotAboutEgo]

It's strange how a female Yankee fan sometimes gets criticized for wearing something like a Jeter #2 jersey, but her husband gets no criticism for wearing the same. It's unfortunate, since both could simply enjoy the way he plays the game, rather than worrying about his looks.

Hopefully, people won't have to explain their feelings so much upon why they wear a certain player's jersey, and moreso how they feel about their team and why. Preferably an interest conversation can begin at the ballpark, regardless of one's gender.

Exactly! That's why I've refrained from wearing any player's jersey... simply because people will think I'm only there to watch them in the wrong way and that I'm a groupie. Now, if I went to a Detroit Shock game and wore a player's jersey, would I be labeled as a lesbian? Most likely... just as bad... because it's not the truth and is stereotypical. Do guys get labeled as being perverts and as watching girls play only for one reason if they wear a player's jersey... probably. But, I don't see guys getting called gay because they wear a male player's jersey. It's seen as very manly and expresses the "brotherhood" of men (in the eyes of most people).

[5LilPlayers]

I can see this forum on BBF being used to discuss the potential for a woman player, ump, trainer, but I don't see how it could actually lead to this.

I can, to a degree.
Being here...this forum (not necessarily "just" this thread)...talking about women in baseball...being offended by a male's comment on their knowledge of the game, the women's leagues and teams that have and are starting around the country, a 12 yr. old whose father won't let her play....I can see this leading to women in MLB. Not overnight, of course.

But the more females who truly love the game (want to play) that sign up for BBF, the bigger this section (AAGPL/Women's Baseball) has the potentional to become.

The more of "us" (females) there are...the more these girls and women see other girls and women who love the game, the more they will know that they're not alone in that love.

If that young girl who asked how to get her dad to let her play does...eventually...talk to her dad and he allows it. If there are other young girls reading, but not necessarily posting...it might inspire them to play. If there are women reading whose daughters/nieces/granddaughters want to play (like my daughters do) it might inspire them to create a girls' league in another part of the country (as I am trying to do). If girls/women are looking at this particular thread, they will know the labels, rude comments (said intentionally or not) and stereotypes and may rise above them...knowing what to expect from the close-minded individuals can help shoot down the negativity and stereotypes. Females will also see, upon looking through the threads and various posts, what they might not have known - that there are girls'/womens' leagues forming, some colleges have, or are starting, women's teams, etc.

With the proper skills, discussions on subjects about training techniques(Baseball 101 forum), and everything else on BBF, in a SMALL way...a little girl just may be inspired enough to break through all the negative stuff women have to deal with, improve her game, and make the big leagues some day.

Does any of that make sense? It did when I was thinking about it....

[NotAboutEgo]

I can, to a degree.
Being here...this forum (not necessarily "just" this thread)...talking about women in baseball...being offended by a male's comment on their knowledge of the game, the women's leagues and teams that have and are starting around the country, a 12 yr. old whose father won't let her play....I can see this leading to women in MLB. Not overnight, of course.

But the more females who truly love the game (want to play) that sign up for BBF, the bigger this section (AAGPL/Women's Baseball) has the potentional to become.

The more of "us" (females) there are...the more these girls and women see other girls and women who love the game, the more they will know that they're not alone in that love.

If that young girl who asked how to get her dad to let her play does...eventually...talk to her dad and he allows it. If there are other young girls reading, but not necessarily posting...it might inspire them to play. If there are women reading whose daughters/nieces/granddaughters want to play (like my daughters do) it might inspire them to create a girls' league in another part of the country (as I am trying to do). If girls/women are looking at this particular thread, they will know the labels, rude comments (said intentionally or not) and stereotypes and may rise above them...knowing what to expect from the close-minded individuals can help shoot down the negativity and stereotypes. Females will also see, upon looking through the threads and various posts, what they might not have known - that there are girls'/womens' leagues forming, some colleges have, or are starting, women's teams, etc.

With the proper skills, discussions on subjects about training techniques(Baseball 101 forum), and everything else on BBF, in a SMALL way...a little girl just may be inspired enough to break through all the negative stuff women have to deal with, improve her game, and make the big leagues some day.

Does any of that make sense? It did when I was thinking about it....

Yes it does, and I agree with you completely.