Dirty New Mexico soccer

They are the same thing, and they are still correct.

They aren't based on any objective basis. What objective basis would even be possible? That's nonsensical.

Apparently you do, or you wouldn't be using it to decide what I am and am not comfortable with.

Okay, so why did you then say that we don't get worked up over male athletes' misbehavior? Apparently you were making that up, because apparently you weren't paying attention to how the rest of us reacted when there was a similar issue with a male athlete earlier this year.

In other words, please kindly STFU about what other people do and don't care about, since you don't seem to have any clue about it.

 

Anybody want some?

 

So at least we agree that we apply different standards for different sport, none of which were developed objectively. Good. That's a start.

Re: your insistence that a certain amount of discussion -- OUTRAGE! even -- about the Blount incident somehow mitigates the out-of-proportion reaction to this young woman's misconduct: I covered collegiate football for about 10 years. I worked for the NFL for several years before that. More egregious acts of aggressive misconduct occurred in practically every game I watched over that period than the acts for which you believe this young woman should be permanently banned. The general public quite clearly has a lower threshold of tolerance of aggressive misconduct in womens sports than in mens. No amount of insipid justifications and rationalizations will change that.

And please stop thinking I'm speaking specifically about you whenever I say "we" in a universal manner. That's incredibly self-indulgent.

 

Yes, there are different levels of acceptable violence for each sport. I'm shocked that you're shocked about this development. If you engage in a sport where hard tackles and cross-checks are acceptable and encouraged, then a tug of the hair that brings someone to the ground is a relatively minor thing (regardless the gender of the participants). In soccer, where that acceptable violence level is lower, it becomes a bigger thing. Again, regardless of gender. And if you jumped over the net during a tennis match to yank your opponent to the ground in a tennis match, then it's a big fucking deal. Once again, regardless of gender.

Why do you keep calling her a "young woman"? Sounds awfully patronizing to me.

And it's clear that you won't acknowledge the difference in sports, only the difference in gender. What's OK in men's football should be OK in women's soccer or in synchronized swimming. Hell, have her break out a sabre for the season opener next year. Men get to use them in fencing and nobody complains! Damned sexism!

 

Of course there are obvious differences between sports, particularly between contact and non-contact sports, and I never suggested there wasn't. Best I can tell, however, is that the kind of gross misconduct in which she engaged is outside the rules of any mainstream sport.

The central issue remains: That the over-the-top humiliation of this young woman demonstrates once again that the general public quite clearly has a lower threshold of tolerance of aggressive misconduct in womens sports than in mens.

Of course, you may think the central issue is whether her subsequent apology -- in the aftermath of her actual punishment and national humiliation -- was sufficiently sincere or contrite to satisfy your sensibilites. Which, of course, only serves to further illustrate my contention.

FYI, I refer to her as "young woman" because that's what she is, and I won't keep repeating her name because she's already been humiliated nationally and repeatedly, far out of proportion to that which anyone could reasonably expect for committing acts of gross misconduct on a soccer field.

 

Again, Blount. Or Albert Haynesworth. Or anyone involved in that brawl at the Pacers game in Indianapolis a couple years back. Hell, Robbie Alomar spitting on an umpire sparked an assload of hue and cry and was even referenced in the '96 vice presidential debate. Just because a woman happens to be the center of negative attention doesn't mean it's borne of sexism or sexual inconsistency.

 

All the isolated incidents you can think of would not mitigate the over-the-top level of humiliation this young woman has suffered. She was participating in an intercollegiate sporting event in a non-revenue generating sport before an audience that could be counted in dozens.

Technology had much to do with it, too. Let's face it, if this video doesn't get circulated, we're not even talking about it. However, the existence of the exact same video would not have generated one-tenth of the "negative attention" if a male athlete was involved rather than a female. Her behavior was deemed "unladylike" in the court of public opinion.

 

Semi-outing alert: cranberry covered this league:

 

Hey, I was only a high school sophomore when The Longest Yard hit the big screen.

 

Just be glad I didn't associate you with Sandler.

 

Sorry, but it's so far out of the norm for the college version of her sport, male or female, and there were so many incidents of dirty play beyond the pony-tail pull, that it deserves every bit of negative attention it has drawn.

Her conduct, and deliberte attempts to injure another athlete, are inexcusable.

Had a male player done the same things to another male player, and had it been captured on video, he too would have been subject to such approbation.

And as far as this getting so much attention because she's female; If the infamous foot-stomping incident at the Minnesota basketball game about 30 years ago happened today there would be an absolute, universal shitstorm that would make the New Mexico soccer stuff look like a tea party by comparison.

 

Soccer hair-pulling fuels debate over sport sexism
DAVID CRARY,AP National Writer


NEW YORK (AP) — The vicious hair-pulling of an opponent was inexcusable. But prominent advocates of women's sports say that so, too, has been much of the commentary generated by the popular video of college soccer player Elizabeth Lambert's combative tactics in a recent game.

"Catfight" has been a term commonly used in cyberspace reactions to the video clip now seen by millions of people around the world. One Web site ran a poll: "Do you find violent women sexy?" Some bloggers — lapsing into old stereotypes — suggested Lambert's menstrual cycle was a factor.

"It's clearly sexist," said Terry O'Neill, president of the National Organization for Women, as she assessed the overall reaction to Lambert's rough play in a Nov. 5 game between her New Mexico team and Brigham Young.

"It's obvious there are still some people in this country who just can't accept that women want to play sports, and sometime sports get rough."

Lambert, a junior defender who was suspended indefinitely, issued an apology through the university, saying, "I let my emotions get the best of me in a heated situation."

She was involved in several incidents of hard-nosed play during the Mountain West Conference tournament semifinal, mostly notably when she grabbed BYU's Kassidy Shumway by her ponytail and yanked her backward to the ground.

Laura Pappano, co-author of a book about gender in sports and a writer-in-residence at Wellesley College, has written a couple of blogs assessing reactions to the Lambert video.

"The image of female athletes as more than skilled players — as good, wholesome people — is a centerpiece of women's sports and a staple of marketing, promotion, and ticket-selling," Pappano wrote. "This has been both a benefit and a limitation that has helped shape women's sports as 'gentler' fare."

This feeds into a situation in which male athletes often get a pass for bad behavior, while women draw criticism, she argued.

"We forgive Michael Vick, and gasp when Serena Williams screams at a line judge's late call at the U.S. Open," Pappano wrote. "No one likes dirty play. But if Elizabeth Lambert just made people see that women's sports are highly intense, competitive, and exciting, well, good for her."

Lambert herself, according to the New Mexico athletic department, is not giving further interviews at this stage beyond one she gave Tuesday to The New York Times in which she did suggest there is a double standard for women's sports.

"I definitely feel because I am a female it did bring about a lot more attention than if a male were to do it," Lambert told the Times. "It's more expected for men to go out there and be rough. The female, we're still looked at as, 'Oh, we kick the ball around and score a goal.'"

Blogger and author Michael Tunison, in a blog for sportingnews.com, was among the male commentators who didn't fully buy that argument, saying Lambert brought the attention on herself because her conduct "was so brazenly outlandish."

"Most of us have long accepted the fact that women's sports aren't dainty, aimless affairs," Tunison wrote. "To suggest the reaction to her dirty play is merely the result of condescension is a weak attempt to deflect criticism."

Other men pointed out that plenty of male athletes had incurred disciplinary action and public criticism for acts of unsportsmanlike violence — such as Oregon running back LeGarrette Blount for punching a Boise State player, and Florida linebacker Brandon Spikes for seemingly trying to gouge the eyes of a Georgia opponent.

However, Carl Cannon, deputy editor of PoliticsDaily.com, suggested the intense public reaction to the Lambert incident was different from cases involving male athletes.

"It's as though we expect women to play fiercely competitive sports — like men — and yet retain some of the traditional notions of femininity," he wrote.

Alexis McCombs, Los Angeles-based host of talk show "Instant She-Play" on AOL Sports, said there was no doubt that Lambert and other female athletes are held to an unfair double standard.

She recalled the vehement reaction to Serena Williams after her outburst of profanity at the U.S. Open.

"Think of Andre Agassi — people would relish his bad behavior, while Serena got blasted," McCombs said. "For some of the men, it almost benefits them — they're able to cash in on their bad behavior."

McCombs also suggested that sexual factors were part of the reason the Lambert video became such an Internet sensation.

"The bottom line is it's the female being sexualized," she said. "Some people like the fact that two women are fighting."

NOW's O'Neill said she was dismayed by some of the misogynistic sentiments directed at Lambert, who told the New York Times of one message suggesting she deserved to be imprisoned and raped.

"The only thing we can do is stand in solidarity with women athletes," O'Neill said in a telephone interview. "Obviously what Elizabeth Lambert did was wrong. But you have a right to try to be winners — being tough, being aggressive, wanting to win. That's what women athletes everywhere should be striving to do."