I'm pleased that the name-calling has stopped (at least in this board) and that we're actually discussing issues.
Weltall wrote:Fit Man wrote:It's PEOPLE who are the assholes. You can't blame the sport for that. People will always find a way to try to make themselves look better, no matter which activity.
Do you honestly prefer sports to not exist? Sports make millions and millions of people happy. I find it extremely selfish of yourself if that's how you truly feel. I suggest you guys instead focus on people, rather than the game itself. There's nothing wrong with sports in their purest form.
My thoughts exactly, as I stated in another thread, this forum should be more of a "anti-bullying" instead of going after sports, since all the posts (except some) seem to be that way.
Hi, Weltall. I see your point of view. (Incidentally, I'm pleased to see that there are a number of websites that do deal with all kinds of bullying. There was a time when victims of bullying had no voice, which means they had no forum from which to be heard. Some people in the United States have no problem with bullying in the schools. From my limited knowledge, the problem in Great Britain may be even greater. I really don't know how bad it is in that country, compared to the U.S.)
The reason I don't have a problem with this forum not being devoted more to questions of all kinds of bullying (although such issues can be brought up here freely) is because there has been a connection between the sports culture and some kinds of bullying.
At the risk of being offensive, in the United States (and in other countries as well, I'm sure), masculinity has been defined in terms of physical strength, especially in connection with sports. Decades ago there was a New York college sociology professor who published a hateful book in which she expressed her concern that boys and men in the U.S. were being "feminized." (I'm not going to say who this woman is or say what the title of her book is because I don't want any of you buying it. I don't want to help put any money into this woman's pockets -- oops! I mean purse.)
Now, what was the leading criterion of masculinity in her mind? What was a leading characteristic of "feminized" males? Yep, you guessed it ... no interest in sports. Now, Fit Man won't appreciate the following comment she made; and that is, some sports are more "manly" than others. She considered tennis to be a sport that was likely to be taken up by "feminized" males.
This woman is a bigot and an idiot. She bemoans the fact that a lot of boys and men haven't been all that strong physically for decades now (actually, more than half a century). It's because this country has gone from being mostly agrarian to being hi-tech. In other words, most of us haven't grown up on a farm. Don't get me wrong. I actually wish I
had grown up on a farm and done a lot of physical labor. That way, I wouldn't have had to join a health club at the age of 57.
She went on to say that many "feminized" males posed a potential threat to society, a ridiculous assertion. She claimed that the assassins of President John F. Kennedy in 1964 and Senator Robert Kennedy in 1968 were "feminized" men who were driven by a jealous rage against the "manly" Kennedy brothers.

That's drivel. Oswald had Communist sympathies, and Sirhan was a Palestinian who hated Senator Kennedy for being a strong supporter of Israel. Their problem was neither of them valued human life, not that they were somehow "feminized."
Edit: Oh, how could I forget to add this: In 1968 during the Democratic National Convention in Chicago, there was a chaotic interaction between mostly young anti-Vietnam War demonstrators and the local police. This woman claims the reason the demonstrators were disrupting the city is that they were driven ... (yep, you guessed it) by a jealous rage against the virile cops. I think most, if not all, of the cops themselves would have said that they simply didn't respect authority or they were Communists or something like that. It is to laugh.
Also what is notable is her scathing description of nonathletic male professors. One wonders,
if she hates nonathletic intellectuals so much, why in tarnation did she choose to making a living as a college professor, an occupation that only put her in close proximity with men she hates? I mean,
why didn't she do something like drive a truck instead? (Not that there's anything demeaning about doing that kind of work.)
When I had occasion to skim through a paperback copy of her wretched book, I learned how a Jew feels while examining anti-Semitic literature or a black person feels while reading white supremacist hate literature. I felt that I was personally attacked by someone who had never met me, and I didn't care to have someone make a stereotype that I would be subjected to simply because I fell into a particular category (i.e., nonathletic guys) -- a stereotype that described certain attributes to me that I, in fact, did not possess.
The "feminized" male stereotype ascribed to nonathletic kids is also accompanied by a fair amount of anti-intellectualism, which has been a component of American culture since Colonial times. This particular stereotype depicts men of intellect (as well as nonathletic boys who excel academically, which doesn't mean that there are no athletes who excel academically as well) as effete wimps or cowards. Never mind that opponents of dictators have often been intellectuals and scientists (yes, along with individual athletes as well).
Sorry I got off track.
I'm afraid even if this website were clearly represented as being against only the negative aspects of the culture associated with popular school sports, and
not against simply participating in athletic activies, that it would still elicit a strongly negative reaction from a lot of people.
I certainly don't agree with every single statement expressed by supporters of this website (especially the hateful ones) and even a few items on the home page and elsewhere in this website. I can see why some football players would be offended. (Hey, tough guys have feelings, too.)
But there's a fact that needs to be remembered; and that is, there's a website for every opinion anyone has. This website is not a threat to anyone. It doesn't represent any sort of a mass social movement. This forum is little more than just a rant board. If anyone wants to gripe about sports (and even make outrageous comments about them), they have that right.
I'm a big
Twilight Zone fan. When the series was telecast, I went from the third grade through the seventh grade. Rod Serling was like a father figure to me, albeit his presence was limited to the boob tube. If I learned there were an anti-Rod Serling website dedicated to bashing him and telling lies about him, I wouldn't be the least bit motivated to visit that website. I'd consider doing so a waste of my time.
I mean, I don't have a great problem with sports fans visiting this website. But what do they expect to find here? Why do they visit a website that they know is likely to offend them? (Of course, in the case of Samdaman

, I bet he was looking for somone to bully.

)
Do you know what? I talk too much.
