Along the way I've heard the phrase "The soft prejudice of low expectations" many times, usually in political campaigns. I've always had a tendency to nod "yes," without much thought, thinking of it mostly as it applies to education.
On Saturday, in a conversation with a softball parent, I realized that I have been articulating the same principle for years, but just didn't put the principle and the phrase together.
I'm talking about girls rec league softball.
The softball folks in Summerfield and in the "NW League" have been complaining for years about how the girls don't have as much field time, how their fields aren't as nice, their budgets aren't as big and so forth as the boys. I don't know how much of that is true. What I do know is that they don't deserve equal treatment and equal facilities and equal opportunities - not yet. Why? Because they don't take the game seriously enough to deserve equal treatment.
What cred do I have? Well, I have had five daughters who have each played years of rec softball. Three of them have also played school softball, two have played travel ball, and one was an outstanding high school softball player who would have been an outstanding college softball player were it not for a career ending shoulder injury. She was amazingly good. And she played rec league baseball one year. I have coached several rec softball teams, and assisted on several others. I've also watched the boys practice and play - a lot.
OK, first, let me address you non sports fans. Some of you just don't like sports. Fine. Some of you were treated terribly by coaches or teams along the way. I am sorry. Some of you sucked at sports and you've had a chip on your shoulder all your life for being picked last at recess. I am very sorry for that, but don't take it out on me, OK?
The reason the girls rec teams don't deserve equal treatment is because neither they, their parents, nor their coaches expect them to excel. The girls are not really expected to know the game, to know or learn how to catch, throw, swing the bat, know what to do with the ball when they get it, know whether they need to tag or runner or touch the base, etc. They are not expected to pay close attention to the game while it's in progress.
Girls coaches are not really expected to know how to coach. They aren't really expected to teach the girls the fundamentals of the game. They aren't expected to know how to run a practice.
Nobody cares terribly much if at the end of the season any particular girl still cannot hit the ball, cannot catch the ball, cannot throw the ball, is clueless on the bases, has very little idea of what to do when the ball comes to her in the field. Well, deep down the girl cares, because it is no fun being no good.
Ah, the pathetic parent says, "it's not about winning, it's about having fun." Well, I never said anything about winning, and will get to that in a moment. But I can say with authority that it is no fun to suck. It is no fun to strike out over and over. It is no fun to miss simple pop flies. It is no fun not to be able to catch balls thrown to you. It is no fun not to know what to do with the ball. It is no fun to be in a panic because you're on base and you have no idea whether to run, and everyone is yelling. It is no fun when the pitcher walks every batter. It is no fun to lose because your team is pathetic.
I'll tell you what is fun. Swinging the bat with the right body motion and making solid contact with the ball is fun. Fielding a grounder and throwing a runner out is fun. Catching a fly ball is fun. Knowing that you have to tag that runner coming at you and doing so is fun. Dramatic competitive games played well are fun, no matter who wins.
I coached a girl one time who had no more business on a softball field than I would have fixing your car. Swinging a bat to her meant letting it drop from her shoulder. Throwing to her was little more than dropping the ball hard. Catching the ball? Are you kidding? We prayed no balls would be hit to her lest she be killed. We'll call her Mandy.
I ran a fast paced practice with the team divided into groups. I'm no genius - I read the equivalent of "Coaching Softball for Dummies." I patiently taught Mandy how to hold her glove with the ball coming toward her. Slowly she learned how to catch. Patiently we drilled her in how to stand and how to hold and swing the bat. Gradually she improved. She was a fast runner but we had to teach her when to run and when not to. Through very laborious drills taught to our team by a UNCG player, she learned bit by bit how to throw the ball.
Mandy was afraid of the softball. That is the kiss of death in baseball or softball. So I had made up a drill which the mothers hated and which proved to work wonders. I pick three girls at a time and place them about twenty feet away from each other right up against the backstop. I would get two other guys who could throw the ball hard. With me included we would have three throwers and three "catchers." I would say out loud, so that everyone would understand, that our goal was to hit each girl right on the nose, and that her goal was to keep us from doing that, NOT by moving her body or head, but by catching the ball. Some of the mothers objected. I explained that the reflexes in the head are amazingly quick and it would be almost impossible to actually hit anybody in the head from forty feet away. Then we would start. We would throw hard. At first, the girls would be jumpy, moving their bodies away, holding out their gloves. "No!" I would shout. Don't move your body. Your glove is your friend." I'm telling you, by the end of the season not one girl on my team would flinch at a ball coming at her head. Flip the glove up. Pop. Throw the ball back. Now that's fun.
Even with all that, half way through the season and Mandy still had not caught a regular hit ball, hit a pitched ball, or thrown a ball straight to another player. She played right field or left depending on who was pitching.
One day she was up to bat in a close game with runners on. I was coaching third (and pacing, and maybe praying). The pitcher was good. Mandy was at least swinging level by now. Then it happened - bat met ball, a low liner just over the bag at first and down the right field line, a stand up triple. I was so happy for Mandy I think I cried. The whole season was worth that one moment. She was beaming. Now THAT was fun! I think we lost the game. Who cared.
The next game she was in right field. The batter hit a high fly to right. Mandy had to drift back, resisting the instinct to run up on the ball. She put up her glove. The sound of the ball sinking into her mitt was as beautiful as Beethoven's fifth. I was the happiest man alive. Mandy was beaming. Again, THAT was fun.
Sadly, such is not the norm. I got frustrated coaching rec teams because the travel teams stole the best players toward the end of the season and the teams disintegrated.
But all in all, expectations for girls, as compared to boys, are very very low. And this I believe to be a form of profound prejudice and a radical disservice to them. It's not the case in high school programs. My daughter Shannon's coach at North West had very high expectations. But younger, at the rec level, as compared to the boys, the expectations for girls are just not there, and that's not fair.
And now I think I understand better the real meaning of this principle in other more important areas of life.
Tuesday, June 10, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
12 comments:
Great analogy and sports story!! I wish you had been my coach! I caught one in the head when I was little and have been afraid to pitch ever since. It may also explain a lot...
I enjoyed your article and you made some wonderful points, but I disagree with the idea that facilities and opportunities in athletics do not have to be equal for girls and boys "Because they (girls) don't take the game seriously enough to deserve equal treatment."
The National Collegiate Athletic Association describes an environment "in which fair and equitable distribution of overall athletic opportunities, benefits, and resources is available to women and men and in which student-athletes, coaches, and athletics administrators are not subject to GENDER BASED DISCRIMINATION.
and Title IX - (for entities receiving federal assistance) which says "No person in the United States shall, ON THE BASIS OF SEX, be excluded from participation in, or denied the benefits of, ...
Although neither of these entities addresses recreational sports (unless there's federal funding), I think the same principle should apply. Neither of them say gender equitable IF THEY ARE SERIOUS. Just gender equitable.
It doesn't matter whether they're good or bad, serious or silly, talented or just wanting to have fun. If you provide an opportunity for boys on a recreational level, you should provide the same level of opportunity (fields, coaches, uniforms etc.) for girls on the recreational level.
Otherwise, what messages are you sending to the girls AND the boys?
Patty,
At one level I have to agree with you of course. There is a basic unfairness. But the whining and complaining (and the principle) is overshadowed by the inexcusably low expectations as I have described them. The girls deserve so much more, and the more they deserve is not so much better fields, but real coaching, expectations to take the game seriously and devote energy and time to learning it, etc. With the right coaching and the right attitudes they could come to excel in an empty field.
Another thought: I have a son who has played rec league soccer for 6 years. In soccer, boy fields and girl fields are alike and boys and girls can play together on rec teams. In fact, where we play, the rec teams play on the same fields as the challenge teams.
BUT, the thing is, it's rec league. The kids (those on my son's teams through the years) don't want to practice more than once a week, they don't want to travel to other towns to play. These are the kids who want to join a team and play some soccer. They don't want to live the sport, they just want to play it.
We've had quite a mix of coaches, some good, some not so much. Same with teams, some more dedicated than others. (It's like you said, no one wants to suck, and a good coach helps TREMENDOUSLY).
But what I'm trying to say is that I'm not so sure it's a girl/boy issue so much as a rec league/not rec league issue. At least in soccer, but maybe that's a different analogy altogether!
Joel, I agree and totally understand the dynamics of recreational sports. My kids, boy and girls, played recreational soccer for years, and although they were all three good enough - more than good enough - to play on classic and elite teams, we kept them at the rec level because we didn't want to play on Sunday as most of the traveling teams do. (We relented in high school for one of our daughters for one year after she made one of the 6 elite teams in our state.)
My son was fortunate enough to still find quality coaching at the rec level and was, therefore, still prepared for the high school season. My girls, however, suffered in terms of coaching during their rec seasons. I spent many a rec season wanting to beam a coach over the head for slacking off during practices/games (talking on their cell phone) and not taking the game seriously.
Ultimately the girls' rec experience (organization, seriousness, skills) improved when I moved them to a co-ed rec league where expectations were different simply because THERE WERE BOYS ON THE TEAM.
So I agree with all you've said.
But still, if you want girl at the rec level to have some serious intent about the time spent on the playing field, the adults have to treat the game just as they would a "real" game. Proper fields, proper uniforms, proper training and expectations for coaches, etc.
If the adults don't treat it like it's serious, how can we expect the girls to?
Alice,
Even if you play once a week and practice once a week you can still learn the game, and it's still more fun if you know how to play, but travel soccer has almost totally taken over that sport, much to the delight of orthopedic surgeons. But in that case it's not a boy-girl thing. They have plucked the kids from the rec leagues who show promise, or whose families have the time and money to do "challenge" and "travel" soccer, and rec consists of the boys and girls who are left. I think the system stinks because year round sports are very bad for children's bodies, but, there's money to be made...
Patty, if I could retract one thing I implied is that the girls don't deserve better fields and such. Of course they do. It's the whiny parents and coaches girls rec league leaders who don't deserve it because they don't take the sport seriously and they have such low expectations. Again, the girls would be better off with good coaches and an approach that honors and respects the game even if they played in a parking lot, than what they would have in a shiny field with spiffy uniforms (hmmm, similar thing could be said about schools...).
We turned down five offers for travel ball for any we accepted for the same reasons. I hate travel ball. There is the Sunday issue which was serious for us. There is the cost issue. There is the what to do with the other children issue. But mostly there is the fact that such intense long (often year round) seasons are just bad for the players - for arms in baseball/softball, shoulders in volleyball, knees in soccer, etc. It's almost a guarantee of a short career.
Much better was it in our day when you played each sport in season, and thus used different muscles, different skills, and became more well rounded, and when rec sports were taken seriously, in the sense that sports are the most fun and rewarding when done well.
Now we're on the same page! Hope you resolve your Greensboro angst.
I probably should have said, "Now we're on the same field....."
Have a great Sabbath
Joel,
I played on Summerfield softball Rec League and I read your blog from a fellow player I use to play with who sent me the link. I really find it upsetting that you feel the girls don't take the game seriously. Me personally, I always took the game seriously. I had played Rec Softball for 10 years but aged out this year so I couldn't participate. I was one of the older girls on the team last year and had some more experience due to me being older and playing for more years but the girls did try. I agree, some did goof off and were a little too crazy during games but that was their definition of having fun. Even if they didn't catch a pop fly or didn't land a good hit, they still were having fun. It was improvement and like a practice for them. I think it's hard to practice sometimes with your own players because you get use to a certain pitching style or your teammates throwing style and than when a game comes along, you have to adjust to the other pitcher on the opposite team. So some girls did consider games like practices. It gave them an opportunity to see what was out there and help them improve. It still was fun even if they weren't making the plays because they knew they were trying.
Believe me, I should know. I did play on Summerfield Rec Girls Softball.
I understand you are a coach and have done some good drills that have helped your girls improve but honestly, until you can put yourself in a 16 year old's shoes who hasn't ever played before, you can't really understand their definition of "having fun". Yours maybe be totally different because you may have more skills and have played longer. And your girls may be a little better than the new 16 yr old. I've been there before, granted I was 9 but there was a girl who played travel ball at 9 who was better than me and her mom would get discouraged because I wasn't good. It was my first year ever playing but I improved thru out that year and it made her so proud and I did have fun!
I don't think it's right that you down Summerfield especially because maybe their girls might be a little more vocal about having fun. So what if you don't like what they are doing? That doesn't mean they don't deserve new fields. They obviously do show up for games and practices and do play their positions even if it isn't as serious as some of the other girls on the same team or opposite teams.
I don't think that is very fair for to pick out Summerfield and say we don't deserve new facilities...
Sarah,
Generally the girls are not taught the game, are not expected to learn and grow in the fundamentals, and don't pay attention during games etc. I don't blame the girls for this. I think source of the problem is the low expectations the league has, the low expectations of the coaches, and even the low expectations of the parents. It is just the case that the expectations are hugely lower than with boys, and that general inability to learn the fundamentals is tolerated and even encouraged out of neglect. This is not fair, and is a kind of sexism and gender prejudice. I understand the differences between girls and boys, and even the different ways they must be coached. Nevertheless, until the league, the coaches, and the parents demand that the fundamentals of the game be taught, the girls cannot be expected to treat the game with the respect it deserves, and to become competent, all of which will and does make playing the game more fun. Of course there is the opposite - hyper demanding parents, coaches who invest their own esteem in their teams, coaches who bully and berate - I am not talking about anything like that.
Coming in as a 16 year old relative newbie may be a different situation. I am not sure how I would handle a rec league of inexperienced 16 year olds, but I do know that I would focus on teaching the fundamentals of the game, and knowledge of the game.
It is possible to have fun while at the same time leaving room for growth and teaching the game. But generally, I don't care how old the kids are, it is way more fun to be competent and to know the game.
I get what you are saying. About fundamentals and skills but it isn't always about that.
This is Rec Softball not travel not high school not professional. We dont have scouts out here looking for college-bound players. This suppose to be a fun, kind of laid back league. Similar to little league. When your daughters played t-ball, it wasn't about fundamentals, it was about hitting the ball off the tee and seeing the smiles on their faces when they do. They were having fun.
Boys usually always take sports more seriously anyway. This is getting sexist now. But that still doesn't mean girls should have to compromise their fields because their coaches don't hold practices or "don't teach them fundamentals"
Did you use to coach for Summerfield or who did you coach for?
Just wondering..
Dear Sarah,
In my conversations with patty before you on this comment chain I conceded that it was not appropriate for me to suggest that the GIRLS didn't deserve better fields and such. My point is really directed at the coaches and parents and girls rec leaders who are complaining the loudest about supposed inequality.
I am the father of five daughters - of course I believe that the girls deserve equal treatment. I have been a head coach two or three times, an assistant several times, and a "helper" many time. I am not trying to put myself forward as some great coach. As I said, I learned to run a decent practice simply by reading what amounted to a "Coaching Softball for Dummies" book. Before I had children I coached girls at a school where I taught and learned a lot from that.
Sarah, when I was a kid almost every family on my street had 3-4 kids, and kids then had more free running around time than now. We played kickball, baseball (hard ball and whiffle ball), basketball, football, and made up all kinds of wild and crazy games. Kickball was always coed and baseball often was. By the time a kid was in first grade he or she already knew the rules and the basics of almost every sport. Rec sports started at an older age. Also rec sports really were the only option - there were no competing leagues until way older, until middle or high school for most sports. There were no travel teams other than American Legion baseball.
Today with kids feeding into rec ball even less able to play the game than when I was a kid, it is even more important that rec ball be seen as an entry point into the sport, and that the fundamentals be taught. From the pool of the better rec players the travel teams will take their players.
There is this idea that rec league sports are for fun, as compared to the other leagues which I guess are not. But Sarah, it is no fun not to be competent. Not every kid in rec sports will have the innate ability to excel, but every kid can be and can get better. You have to accept each player from where she is when she starts, and you have a duty as a coach to help her improve in every part of her game. It is simply more fun to be able to catch a ball as compared to not being able to. It is more fun being able to hit a ball as compared to not being able to. It is more fun being able to throw the ball straight and hard than not being able to. It is more fun to have a clue than not to have a clue.
I am not reading my feelings into this. I have observed a lot more girl's sports than most people, and I know what brings joy to players on a team and what frustrates them.
I really could care less about winning per se. But games are played to be won - that's what gives them drama and meaning - what is important in the end is not whether you win but whether you can play a competitive and hopefully close and hard fought game. Those are more fun for the players and everyone watching. That's sports, Sarah.
I contend, and really I think the point is beyond dispute, that girls are given the short end of the stick because as a rule little is expected of them. Why? Sarah the answer is clear. It's because they are girls.
I don't think that's fair. No, I don't expect girls to be boys. Girls softball will always have a different flavor than boys baseball. But rec or not, every girl who signs up ought to have an expectation that she will be taught the game and learn to get better at it, no matter what the starting ability level.
Until the girl's league is serious about that, then it's leaders and coaches and parents have little room to complain about fields and uniforms and such.
That's my view, and, as you may have guessed, I think I'm right. :-)
Post a Comment