Can a college have a team but not provide scholarships or only limited scholarships?
I’m surprised more women drivers haven’t made it in motorsport. Their generally smaller physique should be a benefit given that weight matters - less weight means more power.
We’ll be hearing about her for a while since she’s only 16 or 17 and Winning in her 3rd race and doing better than Patrick was her whole career
They are, but it is in the NHRA. And they win!
The defending Top Fuel champion driver is a woman (Brittany Force). Angelle Sampey is a three time Pro Stock motorcycle champion, Erica Enders is a two time Pro Stock champ. And there are several active woman drivers who are competitive, and not just running around like Danica - they win individual races.
No one is not taking them seriously in drag racing. As it should be. Racing is the only sport (that I can think of) where there is no handicap or separate division for women. it’s all head-to-head, full on equality.
Yes, 55-year old Bobby Riggs lost to 29-year-old Billie Jean King. But a few months previous, he had beaten Margaret Court, the #1 women’s tennis player in the world. How does this have bearing on a tall teenage boy on the basketball team going against a much smaller girl about his age?
Again, why does it have to be either/or? I agree that it would be really lame to show a boy playing a girl in basketball and dominating. Why do they have to be shown playing at all?
Look, I love tennis. I watch not only men’s and women’s tennis, but junior boys and girls championships, mixed doubles, and wheelchair tennis (did you know there are two different types, based on the degree of disability?), plus the Legends matchups featuring big stars of decades gone by. I can enjoy and appreciate all of these divisions of tennis without seeing one go against the other. It would be ridiculous to have John McEnroe against Novak Djokovic, or Diede de Groot against Naomi Osaka. Does de Groot have to beat Osaka for her to feel good about her US Open wheelchair championship trophy? I seriously don’t get it.
I don’t know what it was called. I thought maybe it was a series, but it doesn’t appear to be any of their current shows based on Wikipedia’s list and Googling the casts.
I don’t know why you say I am “much more intimately aware of the entire details of the plot”, or that what you quoted me saying contradicts my saying I was just watching out of the corner of my eye until “a certain scene came up”. That scene was the one-on-one basketball contest, and I started paying closer attention as soon as I saw that she had challenged him. Therefore I watched the whole thing closely, and can fairly characterize it as having been a blowout on her part. What’s the contradiction there?
Why shouldn’t they? As other posters have noted, it’s just a variation on the ever-popular underdog motif. If lots of people enjoy it and most people don’t have any objection to it, why on earth wouldn’t the entertainment industry use it?
It’s not as though that’s the only kind of sports situation portrayed in popular entertainment. Far from it. So what’s the problem with it?
If your sole objection is that it’s intrinsically unrealistic, I’ve got several dozen superhero action movies demonstrating that lack of realism is not actually that much of a drawback in popular entertainment. (Not to mention a raft of other not-particularly-realistic movies including various romantic comedies and “inspiring” sports movies without any mixed-gender competition.)
Indeed!
As I was reading the OP, I was wondering if this was the same author & complaint as the one about women as the hero/key-to-the-victory in recent movies.
He (or they) seem to be telling us they dislike this new-fangled* trend of women becoming empowered and self-sufficient and having modern media encourage such insubordination is not the least bit helpful to the situation. :mad:
—G!
*It’s only been happening in reality since – what? WWII’s Rosie the Riveter posters? Women’s suffrage in the 1920’s?
…hmmm. Are you sure this series exists? Can you check the TV Guide?
So this statement wasn’t indicative of the movie or a series: but of a single scene? That seems to be an extraordinary thing to get worked up about don’t you think? How long was this scene? Two minutes? Five minutes? You are arguing about “the best way to go” based on a few minutes of airtime of a scene you cannot even place in context?
Did you actually continue to read the entire OP, or did you dash off this plaint in media res?
:dubious:
And no, I don’t know what other thread you’re referencing, but that wasn’t me.
I would add that I’m a stay-at-home-dad (and part time tutor and Uber driver, but my wife is the main breadwinner). My wife has kept her “maiden” name with my full support, and our kids have taken her last name rather than mine (my older two kids from my first marriage have my last name, so it seemed fair). So this whole supposition is risible.
I agree. I saw this play out twice with my wife, starting with when we were dating and then engaged. First, she was in a sociology Ph.D. program. I did some research and found that there was a huge glut of newly minted Ph.D.’s in that and many other fields. Very few of them were getting tenure-track university positions, and those that were often had to move to an area of the country they found undesirable.
So she got a terminal master’s instead, and began to work on a second master’s in education, specifically secondary social studies certification. But although she got her degree from one of the best teacher’s programs in the region, she found it very difficult to even get an interview for such a position, much less a job. It became increasingly clear that if you didn’t coach a sport, and didn’t have an “in” (a connection, the old “it’s not what you know, but who you know”) with a school district, there was again a huge glut of would-be high school social studies teachers and far too few jobs.
So again I researched and determined that special education was conversely a “need” area. She went back and got certified in “SpEd” and instantly got hired. She then found it fairly easy to get another job when we relocated to another state.
My point in all this is that both graduate schools failed to provide a reality check about the prospects for students who get degrees in these respective departments. As you say, it was helpful for their own job security to have as many students in their programs as possible, never mind the glut of degrees they were helping create.
If people want to pursue careers in art, acting, music, or teaching in areas with a glut of candidates despite understanding the odds are against them, that’s up to them. But reinforcing a notion of “you can be anything you want to be” is not good, when it’s a violation of basic math, supply and demand.
Women do not have the same upper body strength as men. That’s not sexism; it’s biology. Among other things, that’s why there are so few female city firefighters, and so many women who do forest firefighting because that’s not as important.
My city has a huge 7-mile race every summer, and we have junior races the day before for kids 12 and under. Babies and toddlers have 7 yards (under age 3, they just kind of crawl or run around in the area) and as the children get older, they have 70 yards or 7/10th of a mile at age 11 and 12. They are not gender-segregated, and one year, the 7/10 race was won by a girl, as in she crossed the finish line first. Unlike most kids that age, who sprint until they get winded and walk the rest of the way, she knew how to run a longer distance, and was able to maintain that pace and beat everyone else.
I came in to cite the Andy Griffith Show, too, but a different episode.
Andy is showing off his skeet shooting skills to a woman who, unknown to him, is some sort of skeet champion. Needless to say, his jaw dropped several inches when she readyaimfired.
mmm
Let’s see if I can limit myself to three eyerolls in responding to the following. It will be a challenge!
:rolleyes: Am I sure I’m not lying, you mean? Yes, quite sure. Am I sure I didn’t hallucinate the whole thing during a psychotic break? Also pretty sure, but maybe we’re all in the Matrix, right? :rolleyes:
I’m not however sure it was a series. I’m 99 percent sure it was on the Disney Channel, so I assumed it was a series; however, it might have been a TV-movie. Can I check the TV Guide? I haven’t had one of those for years for a number of reasons, including the fact that I don’t subscribe to cable or satellite. If you mean an online source, I’m pretty sure those don’t go in reverse for listings before the current hour. But if I’m wrong, please point me to a source. It almost certainly had to be between six and ten p.m. this past Saturday (certainly between five and eleven).
Yes, and I’m quite sure that was clear in my OP. Did you really have this much trouble following it?
In a broader sense, though, this was not about anything even as limited as this particular show. You seem not to have parsed a lot of what I wrote, so I’ll again point out for you that as soon as the challenge was issued, I sarcastically offered my wife the opportunity to bet on the boy’s chances at 100-to-1 against. That should clue you into the fact that this did not come out of the blue, like “wait, they show the girl winning?!? I’m shocked!” I was already well aware of this trope before the one-on-one game got underway, even if I can’t cite other specific examples.
:rolleyes: Funny how I’m getting “worked up”, but you’re presumably just shooting the shit. FYI, if I get “worked up” about something on TV, I’ll complain to the network; if I just find it interesting or amusing to comment on, I’ll do that here. See how that works? Is that okay with you? (Drat, I’ve used up my own quota.)
:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:
…no need to make it a challenge. Eyerolll as much as you like!
Nope.
Nah. It most certainly would be easier for you to find out what programme you were watching than it would be for me to find out what it was. Can’t you just ask your daughter what it was she was watching?
I didn’t quote from your OP. I was quoting from something you said later on which didn’t quite match what you said in the OP.
Yes: tropes exist. Well done, you successfully identified a trope!
But it isn’t a problematic trope. Its just a trope.
I didn’t write this:
If I find your opinion problematic, if I think your opinion is emblematic of a far bigger societal attitude against progressive ideas that I feel I need to comment, I’ll comment on it here. Do you see how that works?
Of course it is. You don’t need to ask my permission to post an opinion. Post away.
That’s exactly what happens. They don’t show them playing–except when it would not be lame. There’s no reason to show a girl and guy playing together unless the point is that the girl is so much better. In entertainment, it is the exceptions to the norm that make for interesting viewing.
I also note that, while it’s true in professional sports that the top men beat the top women, that’s because they are all the best of the best. It’s not so much true of, say, high school.
I would suspect that the purpose of having this girl beat this guy who looks like he should be better is just to establish that she’s really, really good. She just completely outclasses this guy, like someone in the WNBA would likely do to a high school player.
You’re right that it’s only really the underdog trope if they’re shown losing and then happening to pull it off. If they’re just showing her beat this guy without having lost before (or having been losing up until the last moment), then it’s probably something closer to the Worf Effect, which is named for how often TNG would have the threat of the week beat up Worf–a big, strong alien–to show how strong they are.
As for the effect it has on anyone: it’s just a simple power fantasy. No one but the youngest of kids would think that seeing someone on TV do something means they can, and the show wasn’t preschool fodder.
And the movie: are there two girls? Because I remember Disney Channel movie with two basketball playing twins. It’s call “Double Teamed,” and it’s based on a true story. I don’t remember if either of them ever plays a boy, but it’s the only movie I’m finding with girls playing basketball.
If it’s a TV show, then I can’t help too much, other than to point out that it may have been magic or something–some Disney shows do that.
BigT, you seriously think a high school girls basketball team would have a chance against the same school’s boys team? I’d be willing to bet that this would not be true at any high school in the country, or certainly no more than one in a thousand at most.
Then why did you ask if I was sure the program really existed? :dubious:
I did, and she doesn’t know. (She has autism, before you start snarking about how she should be able to answer such questions.)
I actually spent quite a bit of time just now trying to find past listings. One site had them for Saturday, but didn’t include the Disney Channel (though they even had obscure ones like OWN). Another (Zap2it) has “yesterday”, but doesn’t go back further than that.
I did write that, and I don’t understand how you’d think it’s evidence I got “worked up” in the OP. I’m a little worked up now, TBH, mostly because of the insinuations you are making; but I was not, I assure you, worked up when I quite cheerfully and offhandedly threw together that OP.
Missed edit window. Wanted to add that at the end of the scene, the girl uses her easy victory as a springboard for her campaign to establish a girls basketball team at the school. Which makes so little sense. In the era of Title IX, why wouldn’t the school already have one? And how does her victory argue for such a team, as opposed to letting her play on the team the school already has?
…it was just a question.
Why would I snark on your daughter?
You “cheerfully” and “offhandedly” dismissed tropes in your OP that are of little importance to you because you are not the target audience. You don’t have to worry. Girls won’t get “crushingly disappointed” because they try and copy what they saw on the Disney channel: they will get crushingly disappointed when they realize they live in a society where a man credibly accused of sexual assault gets a life-time appointment on the highest court in the land. There are plenty of things that will crush the life and the hopes of young people in your country. A game of basketball won by an “ever-so-slightly nonwhite” (whatever the fuck that means) girl on the Disney channel is simply not one of them.
That’s not what I said. I said that, at the high school level, it’s not guaranteed that the best male basketball player in the school will be better than the best female one. All it takes is one woman who is better than high school level, and no guys who are.
You can do the same for any situation where men usually dominate. Or in reverse where women usually dominate. All it takes is one prodigy.
And, if we take off the “best” requirements, I’ve seen girl basketball players beat guys one-on-one. The girls in my school were state level.
Just because something is true in the aggregate doesn’t mean it’s true for any two individuals.
Not sure what you’re reading, but no it doesn’t. He said he was watching out of the corner of his until until this particular scene, which he watched. The line you quoted has nothing to do with plot, much less demonstrate intimate knowledge of the plot. It is only a description of that how that one scene played out.
Saturday, September 29th primetime listings from last week’s TV guide: (All times Eastern)
Disney
7:00pm Bunk’d
7:30pm Bunk’d
8:00pm Cinderella '87 (1984)
10:05pm Raven’s Home
10:30pm Raven’s Home
Nickelodeon
7:00pm Henry Danger
7:30pm Henry Danger
8:00pm Henry Danger
8:30pm Kid Danger
9:00pm Full House
9:30pm Full House
10:00pm Full House
10:30pm Full House
The week before was the same, except the movie on Disney was Brave (2012) instead of Cinderella '87. Nickelodeon was the same 8 sitcoms.
Pretty sure there are other similar channels (Disney Kids, maybe? I dunno.) but they aren’t listed in TV Guide.