Male Coaches in College Sofbtall

[GIMNEPIWO]

Two clever coaches noticing I left out the t in softball. They are sooooo smart, didn't want to add anything to the discussion, but these two scholars noticed my spelling. Thanks you two smart guys, I'm so stupid, not smart like you. I'm so lucky smart people like you two are around. Your language is so emphatic, I'll bet you never made a mistake like stupid, silly, brainless me. You two don't know how to be polite, your show-offs and self aggrandizing, and probably dumb as hell. Sam, your vulgar, America is only weaker because we have brainless wonders like you in our midst, that's if you are an American. You could be from the planet Horse's Ass.

Jonriv is correct! Lone Staarr, maybe too many hats for you.

Geez ... I just thought it was a funny typo ... I apologize if I wizzed on your Fruity Pebbles.

How are things at DeMarini ?

[GIMNEPIWO]

I think opportunity for employment should all be based on merit and not just because someone in that profession says "it's a total disaster in the making" or some exec says we have to hire this person to balance our numbers ... Although it is getting better; the problem not only did exist, but still does.

When should women (or men) stop standing up for themselves (or others) ? When the ERA is ratified or when society begins to act like it ?

"I think opportunity for employment should all be based on merit..."

Your comment was flawless and complete in those 11 words. Unfortunately, everything else you said was in direct conflict with it.

The reason that there are more women in law school than men now has nothing to do with merit, and everything to do with powerful interests pressing the scales in favor of women and against men. That is not what a merit system looks like.

So, the scales now are currently tipped in the favor of men and you're ok with that or just in denial ? I am not in favor of the scales being tipped either way. That is what I said ... What you said was more women enrolled in Law School than men was a "total disaster in the making"

The same is true with respect to the ERA. Do you actually believe that those advancing that ridiculous idea intend to use it to enforce a merit system?? No, they are power grabbers, preparing yet another opportunity to set themselves up as adjudicators in the social justice game, where they can move favors around as they see fit, with the government as their strongman, and take their big fat rake at every turn.

Equal rights for women is a ridiculous idea ? ... Holy cow ... Alrighty then, it is even more important because of that thinking ... Suppose woman had the right to free speech and men didn't or men's right to free speech was just State to State ? You'd be good with that right ? We wouldn't want Government to be their strongman.

Let's say you're applying for your dream job. Would you rather be a woman or be hideously ugly? Or have a wandering eye? Or have clinical depression? Or an IQ of 80? If you want to start mandating equality, you're going to have a big job ahead of you. The project isn't remotely possible, and the effort is nothing short of evil. Every time someone is given preference based on some arbitrary category to which they belong, there is a flip side to the equation--the person who is passed over because he or she didn't belong to the right arbitrary category. If you believe in merit--if you believe in GOOD--you can't believe in that.

You're saying women have an advantage when applying for a job because ???? I don't know, I lost your point ... Yes, we have lots of things that our constitution grants us .... You have to have rules to the game to make sure its played fairly.

[Skarp]

Yes-long time

I agree with your separation of logic and data. I also refrained from pummeling the post with data dumps supporting my point- including data from the American Bar Association

From your posts, I assume you are against quotas- I too am against quotas. I feel that allow well intentioned, most of these programs go on too long, promote less qualified people at the expense of the better qualified and then taint the qualified members of the group they intended to help.

I just feel in this instance you are allowing your anti-quota bias to influence your logic. From what most the data shows, based on merit women are actually under represented in law school-especially at the more prestigious law schools. Most data seems to indicate it is much more difficult for a woman to attend law school than a man with the the same qualifications(ie grades,LSAT)

You call it an anti-quota bias. I call it an anti-evil bias.

And again, you are conflating logic with data. If you accept my factual assumptions as true, the conclusions I draw from them are perfectly reasonable. You don't accept my facts. Fair enough, but that has nothing to do with logic.

Now as for your data, it is simply flawed. The best predictor of success in law school, and also of success in the subsequent practice of law, is the LSAT. The test measures aptitude for legal reasoning extremely well. For that reason, most law schools--and basically all of the top law schools--give more weight to LSAT scores than to an applicant's entire undergraduate record. And the simple fact is that men score higher on the LSAT than women. In the highest score ranges the gap between men and women is very significant. Not surprisingly, men also perform better in law school--where, by the way, grading is entirely blind (no identifying information on exams).

This is all very well documented. Here's an easy-to-digest discussion of the subject: http://faculty.baruch.cuny.edu/naturalscience/biology/darwin/faculty/guyot/index.html

Now if it actually was true that women are disadvantaged in law school admissions, then there would be far fewer women than men admitted and attending law school, especially at the more selective schools where the LSAT gender differential is larger. But that's not happening. Women are not underrepresented in law schools of any tier. For example, Yale is the most selective law school in the country. It's most recent entering class is 53% female (and 48% minority). https://law.yale.edu/admissions/profiles-statistics/entering-class-profile So women are actually given preferential treatment in the admission process (as are blacks, Hispanics, etc.). Then, after graduating, they receive additional preferential treatment in hiring (as do blacks, Hispanics, etc.).

All of this is so indisputably true that neither the schools nor the employers even bother to deny it. Schools use diversity quotas in the guise of "holistic" admission evaluations, where they basically add points for almost everything besides being a white or Asian man. Check law school rankings, which are very important to law schools, and "diversity" is one of the factors assessed. Law firms also have diversity quotas (and diversity committees) in hiring, and they routinely elevate less-qualified applicants who can check the right diversity boxes. Check out law firm rankings, which are very important to law firms, and diversity is one of the factors assessed there as well.

I try to avoid personal anecdotes, but it's worth an exception here. I took the LSAT. I went to a top law school. I practiced law at a top law firm. I participated in the recruiting process at that firm, including applicant evaluations and interviews. I saw resumes. I saw schools. I saw grades. I was privy not only to the background and qualifications of the applicants the firm hired, but also of the applicants they rejected. And I saw stuff that would blow your mind. On this subject I know exactly what I'm talking about.

BTW, check out the Yale stats above. They admitted someone with a 156 LSAT score. That's at the 67th percentile of all test takers and roughly 2 full standard deviations below the median admitted score! I guarantee they passed over some super-achiever with a 4.0 gpa and a 179 LSAT score in order to check a f'ing diversity box with that decision--and in the process they dropped this poor sucker into one of the most rigorous academic environments on the planet, where he/she has no chance of keeping up, let alone excelling, without all sorts of special interventions/"retention efforts" (e.g., cheating) by the school.

Evil.

[Skarp]

You're saying women have an advantage when applying for a job because ???? I don't know, I lost your point ... Yes, we have lots of things that our constitution grants us .... You have to have rules to the game to make sure its played fairly.

Where did I say that equal rights for women is a bad idea? I said the ERA is a bad idea, because there isn't a problem to remedy. In what way do women not have equal rights? What are they being prevented from doing? I mean if my woman were to wear a vagina on her head and wander about in public braying utter stupidities I would show her the door...but nobody's preventing her from doing it.

Yes, women have an advantage in the job market. How could they not, when people with your worldview constantly scream "oppression!" whenever women aren't perfectly represented in every worldly endeavor? Just one example: the volume of resources poured into "correcting" the fact that women generally aren't interested in robots or computers is nothing short of staggering. Cuz..."there's an injustice to correct here, people!" And how is it ultimately corrected? With quotas. Favoritism in college admissions, favoritism in scholarships, and favoritism in employment.

Men almost exclusively perform ALL of the worst jobs. Dirty jobs. Dangerous jobs. Where are the cries for equality? ERA! ERA!

Women aren't oppressed. The whole thing is pure nonsense.

[jonriv]

Yes-long time

I agree with your separation of logic and data. I also refrained from pummeling the post with data dumps supporting my point- including data from the American Bar Association

From your posts, I assume you are against quotas- I too am against quotas. I feel that allow well intentioned, most of these programs go on too long, promote less qualified people at the expense of the better qualified and then taint the qualified members of the group they intended to help.

I just feel in this instance you are allowing your anti-quota bias to influence your logic. From what most the data shows, based on merit women are actually under represented in law school-especially at the more prestigious law schools. Most data seems to indicate it is much more difficult for a woman to attend law school than a man with the the same qualifications(ie grades,LSAT)

You call it an anti-quota bias. I call it an anti-evil bias.

And again, you are conflating logic with data. If you accept my factual assumptions as true, the conclusions I draw from them are perfectly reasonable. You don't accept my facts. Fair enough, but that has nothing to do with logic.

Now as for your data, it is simply flawed. The best predictor of success in law school, and also of success in the subsequent practice of law, is the LSAT. The test measures aptitude for legal reasoning extremely well. For that reason, most law schools--and basically all of the top law schools--give more weight to LSAT scores than to an applicant's entire undergraduate record. And the simple fact is that men score higher on the LSAT than women. In the highest score ranges the gap between men and women is very significant. Not surprisingly, men also perform better in law school--where, by the way, grading is entirely blind (no identifying information on exams).

This is all very well documented. Here's an easy-to-digest discussion of the subject: http://faculty.baruch.cuny.edu/naturalscience/biology/darwin/faculty/guyot/index.html

Now if it actually was true that women are disadvantaged in law school admissions, then there would be far fewer women than men admitted and attending law school, especially at the more selective schools where the LSAT gender differential is larger. But that's not happening. Women are not underrepresented in law schools of any tier. For example, Yale is the most selective law school in the country. It's most recent entering class is 53% female (and 48% minority). https://law.yale.edu/admissions/profiles-statistics/entering-class-profile So women are actually given preferential treatment in the admission process (as are blacks, Hispanics, etc.). Then, after graduating, they receive additional preferential treatment in hiring (as do blacks, Hispanics, etc.).

All of this is so indisputably true that neither the schools nor the employers even bother to deny it. Schools use diversity quotas in the guise of "holistic" admission evaluations, where they basically add points for almost everything besides being a white or Asian man. Check law school rankings, which are very important to law schools, and "diversity" is one of the factors assessed. Law firms also have diversity quotas (and diversity committees) in hiring, and they routinely elevate less-qualified applicants who can check the right diversity boxes. Check out law firm rankings, which are very important to law firms, and diversity is one of the factors assessed there as well.

I try to avoid personal anecdotes, but it's worth an exception here. I took the LSAT. I went to a top law school. I practiced law at a top law firm. I participated in the recruiting process at that firm, including applicant evaluations and interviews. I saw resumes. I saw schools. I saw grades. I was privy not only to the background and qualifications of the applicants the firm hired, but also of the applicants they rejected. And I saw stuff that would blow your mind. On this subject I know exactly what I'm talking about.

BTW, check out the Yale stats above. They admitted someone with a 156 LSAT score. That's at the 67th percentile of all test takers and roughly 2 full standard deviations below the median admitted score! I guarantee they passed over some super-achiever with a 4.0 gpa and a 179 LSAT score in order to check a f'ing diversity box with that decision--and in the process they dropped this poor sucker into one of the most rigorous academic environments on the planet, where he/she has no chance of keeping up, let alone excelling, without all sorts of special interventions/"retention efforts" (e.g., cheating) by the school.

Evil.

Again I do not plan into getting into a data dump "pissing contest" with you. I also think it is dangerous to tag something as "evil" because you think its wrong. I do not agree with quotas and I think that attempts at diversity miss in both method and execution- however, I feel that these are both done with good intentions. They can be wrong without being evil.

I also have issues with much of the hyperbole of the Me Too movement because I think that it minimizes the real issues there. There are real victims out their and some real pigs(ie Harvey Weinstein) that should singled out.

Do women rule the roost, certainly the case in my house, but that is not the case everywhere. There are still too many abusive men out there that seem to get away with it and far too often we blame the victim. When I first entered the professional workplace in 1987- the sexism and sexual harassment going on was shameful. The remarks and comments that was allowed was embarrassing.

Also I do questions your facts and logic since you seem to leave out information that does not suit your argument. You do not seem to accept that there is any problem. Things are certainly much better for women than it was, but there certainly is a wage gap. I understand when you focus on the type of career, but there is no excuse when it is in the same position: https://www.cnbc.com/2016/12/05/men-sti ... -jobs.html

Look Skarp, all of us here on Heybucket are feminists-(wait for the GASP!!) no in the Gloria Steinem, bra-burning sense, but certainly in raising strong, assertive, and confident young women who have thrived in a traditionally non-female world of sports. We have taught them to achieve goals, be self-reliant and not to take crap from anyone. Also, we have presented them with positive male role models(ourselves ) that treat them with respect and dignity!

[Skarp]

Again I do not plan into getting into a data dump "pissing contest" with you. I also think it is dangerous to tag something as "evil" because you think its wrong. I do not agree with quotas and I think that attempts at diversity miss in both method and execution- however, I feel that these are both done with good intentions. They can be wrong without being evil.

I also have issues with much of the hyperbole of the Me Too movement because I think that it minimizes the real issues there. There are real victims out their and some real pigs(ie Harvey Weinstein) that should singled out.

Do women rule the roost, certainly the case in my house, but that is not the case everywhere. There are still too many abusive men out there that seem to get away with it and far too often we blame the victim. When I first entered the professional workplace in 1987- the sexism and sexual harassment going on was shameful. The remarks and comments that was allowed was embarrassing.

Also I do questions your facts and logic since you seem to leave out information that does not suit your argument. You do not seem to accept that there is any problem. Things are certainly much better for women than it was, but there certainly is a wage gap. I understand when you focus on the type of career, but there is no excuse when it is in the same position: https://www.cnbc.com/2016/12/05/men-sti ... -jobs.html

Look Skarp, all of us here on Heybucket are feminists-(wait for the GASP!!) no in the Gloria Steinem, bra-burning sense, but certainly in raising strong, assertive, and confident young women who have thrived in a traditionally non-female world of sports. We have taught them to achieve goals, be self-reliant and not to take crap from anyone. Also, we have presented them with positive male role models(ourselves ) that treat them with respect and dignity!

The road to hell is paved with good intentions. It is evil to treat people better or worse simply because they belong to some group or another. Period.

The wage gap is a total lie. A political sales pitch. No serious economist believes or defends it. https://www.forbes.com/sites/karinagness/2016/04/12/dont-buy-into-the-gender-pay-gap-myth/#406dea142596

I'm not a feminist, and I didn't raise one. A feminist isn't a strong, self-reliant woman. A feminist is someone with a victim-mentality constantly demanding protection from all of the big bad meanies in the world. A feminist is someone who doesn't believe she is capable of competing with men, so she demands special treatment. Feminists are pathetic.

I didn't teach my daughter not to take crap from anyone. I paid her the "respect and dignity" of teaching her exactly what I taught my boys: that much of life is a giant crap sandwich filled with all sorts of trials and tribulations, and if you want to be successful you have to be willing to endure the bad as well as the good. I told her the truth. Nobody else gives a flying F about your wants, your dreams, your goals...or your issues. They care about their own. When you understand that, you can use it. If all you can do is cry about it, you are a stone cold loser.

[Skarp]

Have a red pill: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aMcjxSThD54

[Skarp]

Skarp- You political message and confusing language isn't intelligent. I can't believe you would get on a women's travel ball web sight and spout such ignorance. The ERA is the reason that women are accepted into law school? I guess you would also believe we're too stupid to play softball without the help of men. Guys like you have made it hard for women to succeed at many levels, your antiquated ideas are really quite disgusting.

I disgust you, eh? Well that's hardly a shocker. Your moral compass consists of a never-ending series of emotional responses. Plus you're a shrill, hectoring harpy. I'm kryptonite to people like you.

[C77fastpitch]

Skarp- I don't want to hear from you again.

[Skarp]

Skarp- Your nothing but a misogynist, and that manifesto of ignorance you wrote is too stupid to discuss. The poster is correct, this should be about softball, not Skarp's anti-women, anti-ERA horse manure.
Moral Compass- What are you talking about bean brain, Title 9 is really part of the ERA movement, and it's what made college softball possible. Adolf, do you write for the Fascist Gazette?

Sticks and stones, ogre. Sticks and stones.

But I guess I stand corrected. Before today I never knew that the litmus test for good vs. evil is "what makes college softball possible." If only Augustine and Aquinas were alive today to benefit from your tutelage. Oh the heights they might have reached...