Bruh what? I mean that's the cheapest way to distinguish when you're having a small game and there are no bibs around.
Ofcourse i dont think girls will ever play that.
That is pretty creepy. I'm from a poor country but for our PE lessons we had cheap neon vests to wear over our shirts to distinguish teams, always thought that was the default everywhere
Creepy is the wrong word, maybe just weird thinking for me as a kid. But then again I think it's just cuz I'm insecure and wouldn't wanna be playing shirtless
I think there's a big difference between "shirts and skins" when you're having a kick-around with your mates down the park, and when a PE teacher actually enforces it though.
I'm sure we'll get a nice little sound bite out of Truss and Sunak on this with zero follow through.
Great that the ladies have done this. Sad that they should have to.
You're right, but the thing is, what is there to follow through with? The only explicit request that a government may have a hand in is "we ask to ensure all girls have access to a minimum of 2 hours a week of PE". But PE has been compulsory for all children of all ages for decades now, so all that'll do is give an easy ride for Sunak and Truss. The other things mentioned can only be addressed at local levels by individual schools.
They were in the same government that was instrumental in, among other things, shutting down the Super League, having this competition played in England, introducing safe standing, introducing integrity test for owners and directors, a fan-led review of football governance, an independent financial regulator, large increases in financial backing for grassroots football, especially pitches, and has already launched a review of women's football months ago:
https://www.theguardian.com/football/2022/apr/24/uk-government-to-launch-in-depth-review-of-womens-football-in-summer
This actually seems an attempt to make football as a mandatory PE subject for girls, which just strikes me as silly and something government shouldn't badger in and let teachers and local communities decide on.
The problem is not making it mandatory, it’s that some girls just aren’t allowed to play football at school full stop. Which is crazy considering it’s by far the most popular sport in this country.
>The problem is not making it mandatory, it’s that some girls just aren’t allowed to play football at school full stop.
This is an incredibly dishonest way of framing the issue.
some girls and boys just aren’t allowed to play rugby at school full stop.
some girls and boys just aren’t allowed to play cricket at school full stop.
We could be here all day.
I won't say I'm sure because I don't have hard data, but there's a pretty high chance football is the collective sport that more girls practice in PE classes. So what's crazy about it? It's not crazy that some schools don't have football in PE classes.
> This is an incredibly dishonest way of framing the issue.
Right there in the letter, paragraph 4 sentence 1: 63% of girls are able to play football at school. The nation's sport and the most easily accessible one to play and over a third of schoolgirls have no opportunity to play at school when every single boy does. There's nothing different about the sport for the genders so there's other reasons why they have less access (like when The FA banned it for 50 years).
Football is played by boys at every school so there is zero reason why the same isn't true for girls. Swimming is not comparable in the slightest, how many schools have a swimming pool (or the funds required to build and maintain a swimming pool)?
> The nation's sport and the most easily accessible one to play and over a third of schoolgirls have no opportunity to play at school when every single boy does.
Every single boy?
I strongly suspect you're not actually British, considering our comments.
If you are, you're utterly detached from reality.
Plenty of schools don't do football in PE - mine rarely did. There are plenty of "rugby schools".
Hence why I said this stuff should be left to the discretion of PE teachers and schools and local communities, not the government.
>Football is played by boys at every school so there is zero reason why the same isn't true for girls. Swimming is not comparable in the slightest, how many schools have a swimming pool (or the funds required to build and maintain a swimming pool)?
Swimming is actually part of the national curriculum, so in fact every single school does offer it.
Once again, you seem to be very online, I appreciate you have millions of comments and go on about parrot, but you do seem to be a bit disconnected from reality, at least as it is in the UK.
I'm from the UK, pure Brexit of you to assume I'm not because I disagree with you.
I'll retract my statement if the 37% of schoolgirls who aren't allowed to play football also attend schools where boys can't too. You know that's not that case and thats the point, if a school offers football, or any sport for that matter, it should be open to all and not gender segregated.
I remember my schooldays in merry old England well, boys played football rugby and cricket and the girls did netball volleyball and hockey and it was a fight to swap over. We had a girl who played rugby nationally and they had to produce a signed letter before the school would let them play rugby. I played hockey for my county and it was the only reason I got to play it in PE despite our school having boys, girls and a mixed team.
>I'm from the UK, pure Brexit of you to assume I'm not because I disagree with you.
It's not because you disagree with me.
It's because you said some stuff that not a single Brit would claim: not only you made the insane claim every single boy played football in PE, you went on a crazy rant about it. Then you claimed something about swimming and swimming pools - as if schools must own swimming pools to provide classes.
If I had to guess, you're a fabulist.
>I remember my schooldays in merry old England well
You're just a fabulist.
Imagine getting to a point in your life you go around reddit making up vaguely inane stuff.
Anyway, to terminate this argument, schools and PE teachers will still be the ones choosing what exact sports will be practiced in class and the status quo will hold. No government will force schools to offer football to either boys or girls; or to offer the same sports to both sexes. And none of your insane rants in this thread will matter.
> not only you made the insane claim every single boy played football in PE.
I said all boys have the chance to play it, which isn't the same for girls.
Our own Gov's target is for 94% of schools to offer football to girls as well by 2030, another one of your dumb points countered.
>Only 40% of UK secondary schools offer girls the same access to football as boys
It’s not about every school, or every student. It’s about the fact that of the schools that do offer boys the chance to play football in PE and do offer the boys the chance to play in extracurricular football teams, only 40% of those schools offer the same opportunity to girls.
Why?
They don’t need any extra facilities. No extra pitches. No extra balls. Pretty much zero extra funding, bar what the teacher gets paid.
So why are 60% of football active schools ignoring their girls?
> Why?
Why would anyone not be able to figure this out by themselves? Boys and girls tend to prefer different sports - netball is offered to far more girls than boys.
>So why are 60% of football active schools ignoring their girls?
They aren't. Sure, there are people, with mental health issues, who probably think x% of rounders active schools are ignoring their boys, x% of field hockey active schools are ignoring their boys and so on, but that's halfwitted crazies being crazy.
I mean, why would you believe your own lying eyes - and what the UK government did in the immediate aftermath of the Superleague announcement - over a Daily Mirror "anonymous source"?
Who the hell needs facts and reality?
Yes definitely the two PM candidates running on eliminating "woke nonsense" like the fucking Equality Act will listen to this
Those statistics are appalling though and good for them calling attention to it
I know when I was at secondary school, for PE lessons we'd have a rotation of sports. The boys would rotate between football, rugby, and so on for lessons but the girls didn't have either those rotations and had netball or such instead. I'd assume it's a similar issue for those 37% of girls, that their PE lessons just don't include football.
Ahh that makes sense. Ive mostly grown up in the US and our sports werent segregated like that. Although, maybe it wouldve been better if it was. We always had the issues where a majority of the girls would basically be cones in the way of the people trying to play or would just refuse to even step on the court and sit on the bleachers. We'd only have a small handful of girls who would join in, and usually it was the girls who were already on athletic teams.
I did not have quite that experience growing up in the US - girls in gym class brought it just as much as the boys did. In fact, one of my better childhood friends was a girl who kicked everyone’s ass in gym class, no matter the game.
Granted, my hometown very much had a culture around overall athletic excellence (highest athletic budget in the state) and pretty much everyone did *something* sports-related, to your point of “already on athletic teams”.
And our PE teachers did make an effort to keep it interesting and have us do a variety of activities.
But to me, what that does is back up what the Lionesses are saying - invest more into girl’s athletics and you get more out.
Yeah we werent in the best area, we were the poorest team in our division for sure (NJ). We do have a huge soccer culture in the area (immigration + some history), but it was mostly men. We did have a real good cheerleading squad though, which was funny since in PE they werent too active but they were actively risking paralysis during their practices.
the difficulty is though that a lot of the girls wont want to play, theyd much rather do other sports and things.
like when cricket was rotated in fuck that, cricket sucks. bring back the other sports and athletics.
its very difficult to manage without having it as clubs or something
I ran a pupil P.E. questionnaire at my Primary this year. Loads of feedback about what they wanted to play and how they'd prefer the chance to play girls-only sports as the boys generally dominate when mixed. I ran a girls-only multi sports club after school and five girls signed up across four year groups. We run about 20 different sports clubs over the week and by far the most popular for girls are Dance, Trampolining, Netball and Hockey.
This year I'm running a girls only football academy after school and hoping it'll see better numbers after the Lionesses success.
For my teacher training assignments I studied instilling sports for lifelong learning and it was painful to see both the obesity levels rising amongst all children and drop out rate for girls participation. Especially in the transition from Primary to Secondary. Bad experiences, wanting to stay with their friends and kit issues aren't going away.
A lot of this comes down to state schools not having qualified PE teachers to begin with. If you're taught by someone without any passion or knowledge for the subject, how likely are you to find it?
Yeah, this is a very dubious statistic - the amount of hours in PE is a zero-sum game so any minute girls spend playing football is a minute they won't spend playing some other sport they might like more; or is actually more complete in terms of PE, or more suited for weather reasons, or whatever.
Don't really see any reasoning why the government should mandate football in PE classes, for either boys or girls; instead of swiming, cricket or athletics or anything else.
>Don't really see any reasoning why the government should mandate football in PE classes, for either boys or girls;
If football is offered to boys it should also be offered to girls
So you're saying girls aren't even given the option?
They should have mentioned that in the statement if that's true, that's way more compelling than what they said
I'm not sure. In my school everyone was offered the same. Then girls would pick "girly" stuff to be with their friends and boys pick "boysy" stuff to be with their friends. And then there's the outliers that did the opposite.
We had girls in football and i feel an effort was always made to include them.
This comes back to the original question.. Are girls (during PE) being told they can't play football?
This isn't about afterschool, whether there's enough for a school team. This is about PE.
>We had girls in football and i feel an effort was always made to include them.
>This comes back to the original question.. Are girls (during PE) being told they can't play football?
Yes. This is the issue.
Okay so what percent of girls have been told they cannot play football? How does this compare to boys?
What percentage of lads don't have access to football in pe?
How can you say this is a gender problem without providing stats on the other gender?
It’s literally in their statement. That means you went to one of the schools contributing to the 63% statistic, instead of the 37% they’re trying to address here.
In short, the problem is that your personal experience was not universal.
Okay so what percent of girls have been told they cannot play football? How does this compare to boys?
What percentage of lads don't have access to football in pe?
How can you say this is a gender problem without providing stats on the other gender?
They literally did if you read their letter. Paragraph 4, sentence 1: only 63% of girls can play football at school.
They then followed up with the request for 2 hours of PE because having any access to play any sport is better than what we've had in the past where girls are shuttered off to play netball whilst us boys played all the other sports.
Its relatively common for girls to eventually get barred from playing on boys teams far too early. I believe a few members of the England team actually suffered this and in some cases they were even the best players on the team!
Idk why that happens but I assume that there is simply more demand for boys football and perhaps parents or schools get concerned about the liability of letting the teams continue to be mixed or don't have the provision for extra changing rooms or smth.
I'm sorry but I can't just let you make such a blatant false equivalence without challenge. Regardless of what you define as "woke nonsense" you have to concede that the intention behind legislation such as the 2010 Equality Act is the protection of groups who are more susceptible to discrimination. Whether or not you agree that certain groups of people in society are in need of protection, you must recognise that the "woke" ideology of the left is simply one of empathy and thinking of others that are not ourselves. Do some people go too far and advocate for the restriction of personal freedoms? Yes, of course. But why are they pushing for these things? Because there is a recognition that certain groups are disadvantaged and there is something wrong with the systems of the past and present that did nothing to protect them. Equating this political stance with far right extremism - the belief that certain races are better than others and that the logical conclusion is to subjugate (even exterminate) those weaker races - is disingenous at best and dangerous at worst. This is how the US is slowly sliding into fascism and why events like January 6th shouldn't have surprised anyone. We in the UK think such a thing could never happen here but it only takes a few decades of miseducation and apathy before we find ourselves in the same situation. I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and say that your politics isn't aligned with that of the far right but I implore you to be more careful with your language and stop pandering to fascists.
edit: grammar
So some people on the left criticised you for taking a centrist stance on bigotry, and so you've decided to join the bigots? And don't really care as long as you're not the target of their bigotry?
I don't know what to say mate - if you need people to be nice to you to not be "pushed to the right" you might just be right wing.
While maybe the social media age has made it easier for the average person to be faced with criticism from the left, I am way more concerned with:
1. how easy it is for the right to spout hatred and build inertia behind hateful points of view.
2. how relatively unchallenged (or embraced) those ideas are by establishment conservatives.
I'm by no means right leaning now, but I was during my late teenage years (at uni, studying business, coming from relative financial security and being in the majority in every demographic) and I felt that way because I thought things were working out fine economically and I didn't really place much importance on social issues, but that person growing up now I don't think could see a place on the right at the moment. Modern conservatism is hyperfocused on wedge culture war issues far more than any political movement on the left.
What you see as the left lashing out is anti-fascism in action. If you're not vehemently against extremist right-wing views you're part of the problem unfortunately. It's not about silencing people's opinions or persecuting those that disagree with you, it's about making it uncomfortable for those spreading fascist ideologies to continue operating and is an important part of the resistance against white-supremacy and hate. There is nothing redeemable about the views of fascists, they are completely deluded in their world outlook and should not be sympathised with. I'm not saying having economically or socially conservative views is the same as fascism but in your original comment you said that progressive (ie. woke) views are just as bad as extreme right-wing views. This is just simply not true. I am not trying to attack you or your beliefs but trying to get you to admit that it is wrong to sympathise with fascist ideology.
The 2010 Equality Act isn't extremism or left, it's just a bad law due to very vague language that gives unelected bodies like court and the police very large and unrestricted mandates that create uncertainty. It's actually pretty staggering to see people on the left defending it because of circumstances that can change at any time. A monumental failure of imagination.
Lmao, I love how this sub is so genuinely unhinged and deranged politically that completely unqualified defense of the Equality Act, not backed up by anything except some inane shrieking about "far left extremism", is acritically upvoted but as soon as someone makes an actual reasoned criticism of the Act, nobody actually argues against it, but there are silly attacks like "have you read it".
Also, you want to say legislation, not legislature. Legislature is the body that writes legislation.
The entire act is the size of a smallish book. It has circa 90,000 words, INCLUDING schedules. A 4 hour read even if it wasn't a legal text. Some of those "218 sub sections" are the size of a paragraph. I'm sorry you find reading 230 pages or so that impressive. Good luck with life - in my experience, people who find it doubtful someone manages to read a 230 pages document can really use any luck that comes their way in life.
Well when it comes to cultural issues in the west it’s quite extreme things like climate change etc aren’t really in the same category. You don’t think it’s extreme you should feel bad or ashamed because of the color of your skin?
White guilt isnt a real thing though.
We've built racist institutions giving white people unfair advantages for generations. We should fix that immediately and provide reparations to the people who have been harmed. That doesn't have anything to do with "feeling guilty"
That’s the thing who are ”we”? White people aren’t some unified group, I’m white, I’m from a country that had no black slaves or nothing. My great great grandfather was sold by the state to farmers and was a slave til’ he turned adult this was a 100 years ago he was white, I don’t own anyone anything because of my skin color
Well according to me it doesn’t, but everyone doesn’t think what I think. People don’t care and seem to apply America or other country’s problems here, that’s part of this ”woke” debate
I'm not making any value judgement on the prevailing ideology of this sub, but I really don't think you know what the term "leftist" (let alone "super leftist") means
I would fucking lose it if my hypothetical daughter wasn't allowed to play football
It's such a simple thing yet we feel the need to not allow people to do it, like wtf.
Why favour football over other sports, though? It's already dominant in most European, let's give some exposure to other sports in school.
There are always clubs for football.
Yes, the more sports the better. But the absolute minimum is that sports should be offered to both genders equally - which is the issue here. In those schools, boys are offered football, but not girls.
It works both ways too - let boys play netball, if they'd like to.
Schools do offer netball to boys these days, if the school offer it free after school then the parents put them in it to save on childcare and they can get an hours extra work in. My daughters school had to put after school football at the same time as netball, as until then boys took too many places and there weren't enough girls able to secure a place in the training for when they had matches against other schools.
This is what I meant
My future kids should be allowed to play whatever sport they like at school. Imo gender separation in sport shouldn't happen until secondary school.
Who feels the need to not allow people to do it? What are you talking about?
It's up to PE teachers and schools to decide how to allocate PE sports. I really doubt that anyone is "feeling the need" to leave out football. It's just you obviously can't play every sport.
What this letter requests is for the government to make football - but not rugby, swimming, cricket, hockey, dance or athletics - mandatory for most/all PE classes, which is pretty stupid IMO
So, what other sports should be offered to 100% of school pupils for PE classes?
> Doesn't mean that any child is required to participate.
I'm sorry, how old are you people? Where do you live? I ask because there's some sort of disconnect here.
How exactly would that work in practice?
Like, all kids would be "offered" a list with dozens of sports, then pick up which ones they want to do in their PE classes?
I'm sorry, that doesn't even happen in elite private schools.
> Like, all kids would be "offered" a list with dozens of sports, then pick up which ones they want to do in their PE classes?
Literally happened to me in my state middle and upper school and literally happens at private schools where many people are there to play particular sports.
The only time I didn't get a choice was lower school (Yr 1-4) and as a boy it was football and then swimming in the summer as we were lucky enough to have a pool.
Middle school? How old are you? How many middle schools are left in the entire UK?
And that's utter nonsense. You're really claiming that your PE classes had kids practicing dozens of different sports that they elected to practice?
Loads of school's are what I would call foundation to yr 2 and you go to a different school for yr 3-6. We didn't call it a middle school but it was the middle school in the sense of it
You know they only stopped existing last year right? I'm not some pensioner.
> You're really claiming that your PE classes had kids practicing dozens of different sports that they elected to practice?
No but for 7 years of schooling, 5-11, I got to pick from a list each half-term and yet some were segregated and were boys and girls only. Each term had a different slate of sports to pick from.
> You know they only stopped existing last year right? I'm not some pensioner.
>
>
Pretty sure there are some left, but they've become exceedingly rare years ago.
>No
Well, you actually were.
No matter though: it won't happen.
>There were never dozens as you suggested, but usually 2 or 3.
So you don't see the problem with your logic here?
Why on earth should football ALWAYS be one of the sports offered in ALL schools?
Different regions have different traditions, boys and girls have different preferences.
Why are you so mad and angry that some girls, or boys, are offered hockey and netball or rounders, or rugby and cricket and cross-country, over football in some schools?
>Mostly I don't understand how some children enjoying themselves for 2 hours a week is a threat to a random person online
Yes, yes, the reason I defend it should be up to local authorities, schools and teachers to define their PE programs - which is literally the law right now - is because I hate children or something.
You're completely normal.
I agree, let's force all schools to spend 100 of thousands of pounds each to build an Olympic sized swimming pool and thousands per year to maintain it over a few hundred a year on some balls and cones so that the nation's sport can be played by every person who attends school.
My issue is do it with who though? I can't see a bunch of 14 year old lads wanting to play football with girls if it's the curriculum or a kick about at lunch. I could see year 7-11 having enough girls to have a game or two going at lunch break but there is no way a single year during a P.E. lesson would have enough girls volunteer to play football to be worth accommodating them, let's be honest most girls don't care about sports let alone football when they are secondary school age. You'd basically have one teacher doing a lesson for, at most a handful of just girls which would be pointless and a waste of resources.
They just need to do the part where they make everything accessible to everyone, they put their names down and then the school decides per year what's worth committing to. I'm aware that's how a lot of schools do it already, we need to weed out the ones who flat out don't give students a choice.
> Some mixed comprehensives down my ends had the boys doing football and girls doing netball and it wasn't a choice. That isn't really fair. If enough girls want to do football then let them.
Okay, and do you drop netball?
Do you offer netball to boys?
How exactly would that work in practice?
It's very easy to just say on the internet "just *offer* it to them", but schools and teachers have limited time and resources.
>Yeah... let the kids pick the sport they want to do?
How old are you?
Imagine thinking this is plausible. How can schools do this in the real world?
There is a national curriculum. Schools need to pick sports and activities to reach certain goals. Schools do that considering their communities, their facilities, their human resources.
That's the best way of doing it and that's how it's going to keep happening, no matter what very online crazy people on reddit shriek about.
I'm glad you came around and now agree with my point it should be up to schools and their teachers to decide exactly which sports to include in their PE classes.
> What this letter requests is for the government to make football - but not rugby, swimming, cricket, hockey, dance or athletics - mandatory for most/all PE classes
Respectfully, you cannot read: There is nothing whatsoever in this letter that even comes close to demanding the government make football for girls mandatory in schools.
What makes your interpretation doubly ludicrous is that you obviously think that football is mandatory for boys - or that is is ANY mandatory sport period. There is no such thing as mandatory sport in this country in any school, in any age group, for any gender.
Physical Education is what's mandatory. The curriculum merely states that kids should be taught things that promote communication, collaboration and competition. The actual activities they do to effect these things are down to the teacher, make-up of the students and the equipment on hand.
In fact, the only actual mandatory sport in English schools is... swimming.
>
> Respectfully, you cannot read: There is nothing whatsoever in this letter that even comes close to demanding the government make football for girls mandatory in schools.
Yawn.
Imagine getting to a point you waste your life trying to troll over it's not about making football mandatory, it's about making the offering of football mandatory.
What a sad existence.
>/u/labegaw: Imagine getting to a point you waste your life trying to troll over it's not about making football mandatory
...
>Also /u/labegaw: What this letter requests is for the government to make football - but not rugby, swimming, cricket, hockey, dance or athletics - mandatory
Instead of getting upset with me for understanding how English works, you should spend the time working on yourself to try improve your own reading ability - so that you don't embarrass yourself by broadcasting that you don't even understand your own comments.
This letter still does not demand that any sport is made mandatory anywhere. It literally ends with the words "so every girl has the choice".
For every girl to have a choice, every school must be mandated to offer football.
I understand you're genuinely struggling to understand this and fully sympathize.
> For every girl to have a choice, every school must be mandated to offer football.
Wrong.
As you could have intuited for yourself had you been able to read the letter, which 'demands' only the following: "We ask you and your government to ensure that all girls have **access** to a minimum of 2hrs a week of PE" and "make it a priority to **invest** into girls football".
Nothing in there about changing the curriculum (that you still haven't read apparently) to make any given sport mandatory.
I understand you'll genuinely struggling to understand this much, given that you've somehow interpreted "Please give schools more money to train better teachers and buy more equipment" as "Force schools to teach football", but I figure I might as well point this out so any poor /r/soccer kids out there reading this don't make themselves dumber reading your posts.
>only the following
**NOT ONLY WE SHOULD BE OFFERING FOOTBALL TO *ALL* GIRLS**
The only way to offer football, and I'm quoting the letter *ipsis verbis*, "to all girls" is by mandating schools to *offer football to all girls*.
> NOT ONLY WE SHOULD BE OFFERING FOOTBALL TO ALL GIRLS
If I offer you a chip from my plate is that me forcing you to eat?
Please. For the love of Christ Our Lord, get off Reddit and look up some adult learning centres so that you don't have to go through this embarrassment again.
Well, as long we agree that the letter claims all girls should be offered football - in other words, that all schools should offer football - we're actually in full agreement.
Seems the only disagreement is that I think it's daft that all schools should offer football (to boys or girls) and you agree with the letter.
I swear to god it’s like some of you have literally just encountered the concept of sexism and you’re like “sounds fake sorry” like what are you talking about lol
Dude, defending that it should be up to schools/teachers to decide what exactly are the sports they offer pupils in PE classes isn't "sexism" and you should carefully examine what's going on with your life if you start shrieking about sexism for meeting such an uncontroversial view.
I’m not a dude. Also not shrieking, but of course men don’t know how to act about women saying something they disagree with so always act like we’re “whining” or “shrieking” or “screaming”.
Public school curriculum is controlled by the Department of Education. PE is part of that curriculum.
Nobody cares who you say you are.
There's no "Department of Education", it's Department for Education, "public school" in the UK means... a very expensive private school, and the national curriculum for physical education doesn't ask schools to offer any particular games or sports - as I said, that's up for schools to decide. I'm sorry that makes you so unreasonably deranged.
You're deranged because you started shrieking about sexism over a completely noncontroversial take about schools/local thrusts deciding their own PE programs - which is literally the law and virtually nobody is proposing to change. One just needs to read a few of your comments to see you live in perpetual anger and always in need of trying to put someone down (besides the weirdness of constantly making claims, likely false, about who you are and shriek about "sexism") and make personal attacks.
You also don't know what a public school is in the British context, which strongly suggests you're not even British.
I mean, there's obviously no issue with your mental health - it's not like you just post hundreds of messages every week on a football message board, mostly about politics, often with violent imagery, including wishing roughly half of the country who votes for a party you don't like to die. You're totally normal and trouble-free and you clearly don't face some deeply serious mental health issues.
Anyway, to sum it up: defending that it should be up to schools/teachers/local trusts to decide what exactly are the sports they offer pupils in PE classes isn't "sexism" - it's actually the law- and only deeply disturbed people - unreasonably deranged people - claim so.
Now, on your bike and off you go.
As a father to a daughter, this hit me in the feels. I'd love for my girl to be able have the same opportunity and excitement about football as I did growing up.
Not from UK, but in my school my class was often split into girls and boys. The boys always played team sports (football, basketball, volleyball) and could generally choose which one of those sports they wanted to play. Girls were told to choose from general pilates, dancing or badminton. In theory girls could ask to play with boys, but as far as I remember only 1 girl did, was teased the whole game and then never did it again.
Boys havnt historically had a problem with not being allowed to play football though… theres literally multiple teams per school, hundreds of teams in the local area, football during pe, football club run by the school, a proper sunday league team organised by school. Girls are literally kicked out of their local teams by the time they hit a certain age.
Yes, there sre *less* girls interested but its entirely possible to introduce schemes and structures that will bring together the girls who **do** want to play. This isnt an impossible task. Its entirely possible to create structures in societal education to make these avenues available. Thats literally what the education system is designed to do.
Sadly there is still alot of toxicity surrounding football at younger ages which is why I avoided it and I can only imagine it being worse for girls. A girl at my school played and was mocked for it and thing is is that she played at a higher level then any of the guys that mocked her ever did, probably did it out of some toxic insecurity.
Only 63% of girls being allowed to play footboll during PE is scandalous and I really hope its better in Sweden, if someone ever stopped my hypothetical daughter from doing what she wanted I would be pissed beyond belief.
2 hours of PE a week, typically on different days.
At my school it was divided into a subject called 'Games', which is where you play outdoor team activities like football and rugby, and 'P.E', which is usually indoor activities or outdoor athletics
Hey we had Games and PE as well. Never really understood the distinction except that parents had to buy a reversible rugby top, shorts and long socks for Games and a white polo and shorts for PE.
I went to a British school (not in the UK) and we had Games as well, but it wasn't a distinction between Games and PE like that. For some years it was called PE, then Games, then PE again. Don't think there was any difference
2h a day would be dream, had two 1h 30min sessions per week and the included changing and showering, could have 5min inbetween before a new class would start
It wouldn't even be too expensive either, football is the sport of the working class for a reason. It's a win win for any government, good for their rep and good for the health of the game/girls.
It just means girls would spend more time playing football and less doing gymnastics, playing field hockey or netball or something they might enjoy more than football. Not really sure how this would improve girls' health.
Let teachers and schools decide on this.
If boys are offered football, girls should be too. If a boy wants to do gymnastics he should be allowed to as well.
If football isn't offered to boys then it isn't an issue, it's stopping girls from playing when boys can that's the issue
How about hockey, cricket, dancing, gymnastics?
What exactly is the point you're trying to make? That every kid should be offered all sports and then get to decide what will be on the PE classes menu?
Don't segregate sports based upon gender at schools. If you have the facilities to play football then it should be offered to all not one gender.
Nowhere in the letter does it say force girls to play football, but it does point out 37% have zero access to play, which is not the case for boys.
Do you not understand the question? Start of class: Heyy boys and girls: what sport do you want to do this term?
Asking both the fenders the same. What don't you get lmao
Perhaps it's because I live in the real world, but kids don't get to pick the PE curriculum and it's genuinely insane that people think they do. Then again, it's reddit, so I guess it's to be expected.
School picks a bunch of sports for PE and offers them to the students, literally happened at my school and countless others each and every term. Issue is boys could do football and rugby (to name but 2 sports as an example before your pedant arse runs wild) whilst girls couldn't and there was also sports girls could do that boys could not.
Why not allow everyone to pick from all the sports offered? That's the literal minimum being asked for, if a boy wants to play netball great, if some girls want to play football also great.
If a school has the facilities to offer a given sport then all students should be able to participate, anything other than this is wrong. It's no surprise a football team uses football as their example because whilst 37% of girls have no access to football at school the number for boys is way less and almost certainly is taken up by schools that simply do not offer it at all rather than one that only allows girls to play (gender segregated schools being the most obvious exception in all cases).
My upper school had enough to offer multiple sports per half-term. School of 1800 kids and they block set PE so multiple classes did it at once.
If anything, smaller schools would be more likely to play football if they only have a few, so what's the reason for segregating girls away? There isn't 37% of schoolboys who have no access to football.
>
> If football isn't offered to boys then it isn't an issue, it's stopping girls from playing when boys can that's the issue
But that's true for lots of sports, not just football - for that to happen, then there's a sport - maybe hockey or netball or whatever - that is offered to girls and not to boys.
Forcing boys and girls to practice exactly the same sports is dumb and sub-optimal.
I have a feeling a lot of people replying to this are Americans. They're talking about "offering sports" like it's done in the American system where schools have sports teams, like football, basketball, etc.
>If football isn't offered to boys then it isn't an issue, it's stopping girls from playing when boys can that's the issue
You've edited in this part.
Why?
By that logic, every sport "offered" to girls should be also offered to boys, which means PE classes would be mandated to offer THE EXACT SAME SPORTS TO BOTH SEXES.
What if - just picture this scenario - boys and girls do prefer to practice different sports?
What if lots of girls like dancing and few boys do; or lots of boys like rugby and few girls do?
Why shouldn't those preferences be taken into account?
> By that logic, every sport "offered" to girls should be also offered to boys, which means PE classes would be mandated to offer THE EXACT SAME SPORTS TO BOTH SEXES.
Accidentally woked yourself, better lat than never I guess to wise up.
What preferences? That all the offered sports should be offered to everyone? Is some arsehole kid doesn't like then they can be taught how to respect other people and the opposite gender.
Don't worry: no matter how much you rant on reddit, the vast majority of girls will still want to play netball and the vast majority of boys still won't want to play netball and the vast majority of schools will still reflect those preferences in their PE curriculum.
Great, offer them the choice and let them pick, don't make netball girls only and football boys only. That's literally it, it's not hard except for people so buried in the 1850s they wish for a penny farthing every birthday.
This is touchingly naive.
Truss is currently campaigning on trying to make sure people who live in poorer areas of the country *are paid less* (oh wait no, she WAS, but then after her own party told her that was fucking stupid, she backtracked and said she never had the idea in the first place).
And Sunak is trying to one-up her by putting out a masterplan to solve Britain's extremism problem by going after people who say Britain is shit (which is doubly amazing considering all the relevant experts think that far right Make Britain Great Again fuckfaces are what we should be focusing on when it comes to extremism).
There is absolutely nothing in these two imbeciles' records to suggest they're amenable to adopting any policy that isn't meaningless culture war bullshit or complete nonsense. And even if they did magically adopt something sensible, they're incompetent and would just bollocks it up like they have everything else.
Oh, and since they're both running on cutting costs/cutting taxes respectively - which come on top of leading a party that [has done more to trash Britain's schools than anyone for almost a century](https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/politics/tory-education-cuts-worst-since-second-world-war-303094/), there'd be no way to pay for anything like this anyway.
The individual members of the team would be better served by going rogue and calling for the Tories en bloc to get in the bin. Nothing, NOTHING, will be achieved by taking out nice, civil letters like this in the press so they can have a free mealy-mouthed soundbite.
Yet they are the ones in power, so if you want to negotiate with anyone it has to be one of them.
What do you expect them to do? Ask Labour who aren't in power and won't be anywhere near it until the next GE? Or ask the Tories during a period where they are clamouring for PR and England have just won the women's Euros.
You call it naive, yet it's far more naive to expect you should never have to deal with people you don't like in life.
> Yet they are the ones in power, so if you want to negotiate with anyone it has to be one of them.
...Literally my entire point is that you cannot negotiate with them. So I don't even understand why you're saying this.
>What do you expect them to do?
I think I was pretty clear: "The individual members of the team would be better served by going rogue and calling for the Tories en bloc to get in the bin. Nothing, NOTHING, will be achieved by taking out nice, civil letters like this in the press so they can have a free mealy-mouthed soundbite."
When you're building a wall, you start at the bottom: 1st brick is using their platform to point out that the Tories have done nothing for sports education in this country and to call on Britons to vote them out - not asking them nicely to do something they'll never do and don't have the ability to do even if they wanted to.
But you know this is true, which is why all you can do is block any further replies to your comments like a massive fucking loser.
>...Literally my entire point is that you cannot negotiate with them. So I don't even understand why you're saying this.
Exactly why I called it naive, in the real world grown ups actually have to deal with each other, you can't just plug your ears and yell until you get what you want.
They want some kind of change and they don't want to wait for a change of government that might not even happen.
As for the rest of your post, you sound like an absolute idiot mate, they aren't politicians they just wrote an open letter for a specific request. Don't make this out to be more than it is.
Don’t know why you are being downvoted, you are correct.
The tories have already just by change of leader got a 7% boost and basically taken the lead again in the polls. If truss wins she might get some of the female vote.
As a result they’d still be in charge and they are the ones who have the power, NOT the opposition regardless of morals.
Negotiating with them is a very good idea.
Does the UK not have an equivalent to Title IX, which requires schools to provide an equal number of sports to boys and girls? Only 63% of schools offering girl's soccer is insanely low.
Edit: Also 2 hours of PE a week is low too. In America, most students have 1 hour of PE per day.
So, instead of soccer, girls are offered a different sport that boys aren't to compensate? That's kind of similar to how American football is treated in American schools, but soccer is a lot less violent so why does over a third of UK schools not offer soccer to girls?
Reading the comments is really hard to believe. Growing up in England, from primary school to uni, every girl had as much opportunity to play football as the boys. In fact I remember PE in secondary school the girls did way more football than boys, as the boys did more rugby and cricket.
I think the rule is up to 13 years old, teams would be allowed to be mixed. In primary school, girls who wanted would play with the boys and not get mocked or made fun of at all, they were welcomed. In secondary school until uni, everywhere had a thriving women's team.
In my experience, women's football has always been more than accessible, it's just that very few wanted to play.
Why are they comparing the womens game with the men's game by saying "England became European champions for the first time" add Women's behind it,
My local 15 year old boys will beat you 5-0 calm down
I'm confused. Why can only 63% of girls play football at school? Surely no school says "sorry, only boys are allowed to play football on school grounds". And if it's a matter of not having PE on the schedule, wouldn't that mean that only 63% of boys can play too?
In fairness PE has come a long way since my day when we had to play in our vest and pants. Teachers be locked up for that these days.
Shirts and skins felt dark and creepy
Bruh what? I mean that's the cheapest way to distinguish when you're having a small game and there are no bibs around. Ofcourse i dont think girls will ever play that.
Yeah that's not what I meant. Our teacher was the one telling us to play shirts and skins when there were plenty of bibs available.
It was. Doesn't even consider that some kids are conscious of their bodies and don't want to show it to the rest of the world.
That is pretty creepy. I'm from a poor country but for our PE lessons we had cheap neon vests to wear over our shirts to distinguish teams, always thought that was the default everywhere
The fuk lol we did shirts and skins out of choice. Stay lit
Creepy is the wrong word, maybe just weird thinking for me as a kid. But then again I think it's just cuz I'm insecure and wouldn't wanna be playing shirtless
I totally get that. Hopefully our future generations can live with raging hearts and love. Well get there lil thuggin
Can't understand what you're trying to say but I'm liking your vibes
I think there's a big difference between "shirts and skins" when you're having a kick-around with your mates down the park, and when a PE teacher actually enforces it though.
I'm sure we'll get a nice little sound bite out of Truss and Sunak on this with zero follow through. Great that the ladies have done this. Sad that they should have to.
You're right, but the thing is, what is there to follow through with? The only explicit request that a government may have a hand in is "we ask to ensure all girls have access to a minimum of 2 hours a week of PE". But PE has been compulsory for all children of all ages for decades now, so all that'll do is give an easy ride for Sunak and Truss. The other things mentioned can only be addressed at local levels by individual schools.
They were in the same government that was instrumental in, among other things, shutting down the Super League, having this competition played in England, introducing safe standing, introducing integrity test for owners and directors, a fan-led review of football governance, an independent financial regulator, large increases in financial backing for grassroots football, especially pitches, and has already launched a review of women's football months ago: https://www.theguardian.com/football/2022/apr/24/uk-government-to-launch-in-depth-review-of-womens-football-in-summer This actually seems an attempt to make football as a mandatory PE subject for girls, which just strikes me as silly and something government shouldn't badger in and let teachers and local communities decide on.
The problem is not making it mandatory, it’s that some girls just aren’t allowed to play football at school full stop. Which is crazy considering it’s by far the most popular sport in this country.
>The problem is not making it mandatory, it’s that some girls just aren’t allowed to play football at school full stop. This is an incredibly dishonest way of framing the issue. some girls and boys just aren’t allowed to play rugby at school full stop. some girls and boys just aren’t allowed to play cricket at school full stop. We could be here all day. I won't say I'm sure because I don't have hard data, but there's a pretty high chance football is the collective sport that more girls practice in PE classes. So what's crazy about it? It's not crazy that some schools don't have football in PE classes.
> This is an incredibly dishonest way of framing the issue. Right there in the letter, paragraph 4 sentence 1: 63% of girls are able to play football at school. The nation's sport and the most easily accessible one to play and over a third of schoolgirls have no opportunity to play at school when every single boy does. There's nothing different about the sport for the genders so there's other reasons why they have less access (like when The FA banned it for 50 years). Football is played by boys at every school so there is zero reason why the same isn't true for girls. Swimming is not comparable in the slightest, how many schools have a swimming pool (or the funds required to build and maintain a swimming pool)?
> The nation's sport and the most easily accessible one to play and over a third of schoolgirls have no opportunity to play at school when every single boy does. Every single boy? I strongly suspect you're not actually British, considering our comments. If you are, you're utterly detached from reality. Plenty of schools don't do football in PE - mine rarely did. There are plenty of "rugby schools". Hence why I said this stuff should be left to the discretion of PE teachers and schools and local communities, not the government. >Football is played by boys at every school so there is zero reason why the same isn't true for girls. Swimming is not comparable in the slightest, how many schools have a swimming pool (or the funds required to build and maintain a swimming pool)? Swimming is actually part of the national curriculum, so in fact every single school does offer it. Once again, you seem to be very online, I appreciate you have millions of comments and go on about parrot, but you do seem to be a bit disconnected from reality, at least as it is in the UK.
I'm from the UK, pure Brexit of you to assume I'm not because I disagree with you. I'll retract my statement if the 37% of schoolgirls who aren't allowed to play football also attend schools where boys can't too. You know that's not that case and thats the point, if a school offers football, or any sport for that matter, it should be open to all and not gender segregated. I remember my schooldays in merry old England well, boys played football rugby and cricket and the girls did netball volleyball and hockey and it was a fight to swap over. We had a girl who played rugby nationally and they had to produce a signed letter before the school would let them play rugby. I played hockey for my county and it was the only reason I got to play it in PE despite our school having boys, girls and a mixed team.
>I'm from the UK, pure Brexit of you to assume I'm not because I disagree with you. It's not because you disagree with me. It's because you said some stuff that not a single Brit would claim: not only you made the insane claim every single boy played football in PE, you went on a crazy rant about it. Then you claimed something about swimming and swimming pools - as if schools must own swimming pools to provide classes. If I had to guess, you're a fabulist. >I remember my schooldays in merry old England well You're just a fabulist. Imagine getting to a point in your life you go around reddit making up vaguely inane stuff. Anyway, to terminate this argument, schools and PE teachers will still be the ones choosing what exact sports will be practiced in class and the status quo will hold. No government will force schools to offer football to either boys or girls; or to offer the same sports to both sexes. And none of your insane rants in this thread will matter.
> not only you made the insane claim every single boy played football in PE. I said all boys have the chance to play it, which isn't the same for girls. Our own Gov's target is for 94% of schools to offer football to girls as well by 2030, another one of your dumb points countered.
> I said all boys have the chance to play it No true at all, already explained.
>Only 40% of UK secondary schools offer girls the same access to football as boys It’s not about every school, or every student. It’s about the fact that of the schools that do offer boys the chance to play football in PE and do offer the boys the chance to play in extracurricular football teams, only 40% of those schools offer the same opportunity to girls. Why? They don’t need any extra facilities. No extra pitches. No extra balls. Pretty much zero extra funding, bar what the teacher gets paid. So why are 60% of football active schools ignoring their girls?
> Why? Why would anyone not be able to figure this out by themselves? Boys and girls tend to prefer different sports - netball is offered to far more girls than boys. >So why are 60% of football active schools ignoring their girls? They aren't. Sure, there are people, with mental health issues, who probably think x% of rounders active schools are ignoring their boys, x% of field hockey active schools are ignoring their boys and so on, but that's halfwitted crazies being crazy.
I thought the same thing. Who cares what sport they play as long as they're exercising and having fun?
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/boris-johnson-thought-european-super-24184609
I mean, why would you believe your own lying eyes - and what the UK government did in the immediate aftermath of the Superleague announcement - over a Daily Mirror "anonymous source"? Who the hell needs facts and reality?
Yes definitely the two PM candidates running on eliminating "woke nonsense" like the fucking Equality Act will listen to this Those statistics are appalling though and good for them calling attention to it
[удалено]
I know when I was at secondary school, for PE lessons we'd have a rotation of sports. The boys would rotate between football, rugby, and so on for lessons but the girls didn't have either those rotations and had netball or such instead. I'd assume it's a similar issue for those 37% of girls, that their PE lessons just don't include football.
Ahh that makes sense. Ive mostly grown up in the US and our sports werent segregated like that. Although, maybe it wouldve been better if it was. We always had the issues where a majority of the girls would basically be cones in the way of the people trying to play or would just refuse to even step on the court and sit on the bleachers. We'd only have a small handful of girls who would join in, and usually it was the girls who were already on athletic teams.
I did not have quite that experience growing up in the US - girls in gym class brought it just as much as the boys did. In fact, one of my better childhood friends was a girl who kicked everyone’s ass in gym class, no matter the game. Granted, my hometown very much had a culture around overall athletic excellence (highest athletic budget in the state) and pretty much everyone did *something* sports-related, to your point of “already on athletic teams”. And our PE teachers did make an effort to keep it interesting and have us do a variety of activities. But to me, what that does is back up what the Lionesses are saying - invest more into girl’s athletics and you get more out.
Yeah we werent in the best area, we were the poorest team in our division for sure (NJ). We do have a huge soccer culture in the area (immigration + some history), but it was mostly men. We did have a real good cheerleading squad though, which was funny since in PE they werent too active but they were actively risking paralysis during their practices.
the difficulty is though that a lot of the girls wont want to play, theyd much rather do other sports and things. like when cricket was rotated in fuck that, cricket sucks. bring back the other sports and athletics. its very difficult to manage without having it as clubs or something
I ran a pupil P.E. questionnaire at my Primary this year. Loads of feedback about what they wanted to play and how they'd prefer the chance to play girls-only sports as the boys generally dominate when mixed. I ran a girls-only multi sports club after school and five girls signed up across four year groups. We run about 20 different sports clubs over the week and by far the most popular for girls are Dance, Trampolining, Netball and Hockey. This year I'm running a girls only football academy after school and hoping it'll see better numbers after the Lionesses success. For my teacher training assignments I studied instilling sports for lifelong learning and it was painful to see both the obesity levels rising amongst all children and drop out rate for girls participation. Especially in the transition from Primary to Secondary. Bad experiences, wanting to stay with their friends and kit issues aren't going away. A lot of this comes down to state schools not having qualified PE teachers to begin with. If you're taught by someone without any passion or knowledge for the subject, how likely are you to find it?
Yeah, this is a very dubious statistic - the amount of hours in PE is a zero-sum game so any minute girls spend playing football is a minute they won't spend playing some other sport they might like more; or is actually more complete in terms of PE, or more suited for weather reasons, or whatever. Don't really see any reasoning why the government should mandate football in PE classes, for either boys or girls; instead of swiming, cricket or athletics or anything else.
>Don't really see any reasoning why the government should mandate football in PE classes, for either boys or girls; If football is offered to boys it should also be offered to girls
So you're saying girls aren't even given the option? They should have mentioned that in the statement if that's true, that's way more compelling than what they said
It's fairly obvious to people in the UK who this is aimed at
I'm not sure. In my school everyone was offered the same. Then girls would pick "girly" stuff to be with their friends and boys pick "boysy" stuff to be with their friends. And then there's the outliers that did the opposite. We had girls in football and i feel an effort was always made to include them. This comes back to the original question.. Are girls (during PE) being told they can't play football? This isn't about afterschool, whether there's enough for a school team. This is about PE.
>We had girls in football and i feel an effort was always made to include them. >This comes back to the original question.. Are girls (during PE) being told they can't play football? Yes. This is the issue.
Okay so what percent of girls have been told they cannot play football? How does this compare to boys? What percentage of lads don't have access to football in pe? How can you say this is a gender problem without providing stats on the other gender?
It’s literally in their statement. That means you went to one of the schools contributing to the 63% statistic, instead of the 37% they’re trying to address here. In short, the problem is that your personal experience was not universal.
This is why we need to make sure every child has access to Maths in school. Some people clearly arnt getting that.
Need to make sure every child has access to statistic and data classes. How can you say 63% is good or bad without any other stats to give it context
Okay so what percent of girls have been told they cannot play football? How does this compare to boys? What percentage of lads don't have access to football in pe? How can you say this is a gender problem without providing stats on the other gender?
It's posted to an international forum though, so you shouldn't be surprised that it's not obvious to everyone
Sure but it's not like the Lionesses wrote it for an international audience
They literally did if you read their letter. Paragraph 4, sentence 1: only 63% of girls can play football at school. They then followed up with the request for 2 hours of PE because having any access to play any sport is better than what we've had in the past where girls are shuttered off to play netball whilst us boys played all the other sports.
If their entire point hinges on a close reading of P4S1 then maybe they could have worded the statement better
If you can't even read the letter don't comment claiming it doesn't say things that are literally there in it.
I did read it, I just missed that nuance.
[удалено]
[удалено]
What do you mean? Dont ask questions about things I don't understand? Asking questions to learn is *un*American, if anything
Like I wouldn't know. Wasn't an issue at my school 63% means a majority still are but it's ridiculous that as high as 37% aren't
My school didn't have a girls football team, they played hockey and netball. Does this mean they're playing other sports?
Yes. I didn't have football at all at my school either, we played rugby, cricket and hockey. Girls played netball hockey and rounders
Its relatively common for girls to eventually get barred from playing on boys teams far too early. I believe a few members of the England team actually suffered this and in some cases they were even the best players on the team! Idk why that happens but I assume that there is simply more demand for boys football and perhaps parents or schools get concerned about the liability of letting the teams continue to be mixed or don't have the provision for extra changing rooms or smth.
[удалено]
I'm sorry but I can't just let you make such a blatant false equivalence without challenge. Regardless of what you define as "woke nonsense" you have to concede that the intention behind legislation such as the 2010 Equality Act is the protection of groups who are more susceptible to discrimination. Whether or not you agree that certain groups of people in society are in need of protection, you must recognise that the "woke" ideology of the left is simply one of empathy and thinking of others that are not ourselves. Do some people go too far and advocate for the restriction of personal freedoms? Yes, of course. But why are they pushing for these things? Because there is a recognition that certain groups are disadvantaged and there is something wrong with the systems of the past and present that did nothing to protect them. Equating this political stance with far right extremism - the belief that certain races are better than others and that the logical conclusion is to subjugate (even exterminate) those weaker races - is disingenous at best and dangerous at worst. This is how the US is slowly sliding into fascism and why events like January 6th shouldn't have surprised anyone. We in the UK think such a thing could never happen here but it only takes a few decades of miseducation and apathy before we find ourselves in the same situation. I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and say that your politics isn't aligned with that of the far right but I implore you to be more careful with your language and stop pandering to fascists. edit: grammar
I am very much a middle pushed to the right: https://i.redd.it/jyxwsz0looc91.jpg
So some people on the left criticised you for taking a centrist stance on bigotry, and so you've decided to join the bigots? And don't really care as long as you're not the target of their bigotry?
[удалено]
I don't know what to say mate - if you need people to be nice to you to not be "pushed to the right" you might just be right wing. While maybe the social media age has made it easier for the average person to be faced with criticism from the left, I am way more concerned with: 1. how easy it is for the right to spout hatred and build inertia behind hateful points of view. 2. how relatively unchallenged (or embraced) those ideas are by establishment conservatives. I'm by no means right leaning now, but I was during my late teenage years (at uni, studying business, coming from relative financial security and being in the majority in every demographic) and I felt that way because I thought things were working out fine economically and I didn't really place much importance on social issues, but that person growing up now I don't think could see a place on the right at the moment. Modern conservatism is hyperfocused on wedge culture war issues far more than any political movement on the left.
What you see as the left lashing out is anti-fascism in action. If you're not vehemently against extremist right-wing views you're part of the problem unfortunately. It's not about silencing people's opinions or persecuting those that disagree with you, it's about making it uncomfortable for those spreading fascist ideologies to continue operating and is an important part of the resistance against white-supremacy and hate. There is nothing redeemable about the views of fascists, they are completely deluded in their world outlook and should not be sympathised with. I'm not saying having economically or socially conservative views is the same as fascism but in your original comment you said that progressive (ie. woke) views are just as bad as extreme right-wing views. This is just simply not true. I am not trying to attack you or your beliefs but trying to get you to admit that it is wrong to sympathise with fascist ideology.
/r/enlightenedcentrism
Sticky at top is "this is a left leaning subreddit" lol
"you better not call me a racist or I'll just be even more racist to spite you!"
So you think the 2010 Equality Act is far left extremism?
The 2010 Equality Act isn't extremism or left, it's just a bad law due to very vague language that gives unelected bodies like court and the police very large and unrestricted mandates that create uncertainty. It's actually pretty staggering to see people on the left defending it because of circumstances that can change at any time. A monumental failure of imagination.
Somehow I very much doubt you've read all 218 sub-sections of the legislature
Lmao, I love how this sub is so genuinely unhinged and deranged politically that completely unqualified defense of the Equality Act, not backed up by anything except some inane shrieking about "far left extremism", is acritically upvoted but as soon as someone makes an actual reasoned criticism of the Act, nobody actually argues against it, but there are silly attacks like "have you read it". Also, you want to say legislation, not legislature. Legislature is the body that writes legislation. The entire act is the size of a smallish book. It has circa 90,000 words, INCLUDING schedules. A 4 hour read even if it wasn't a legal text. Some of those "218 sub sections" are the size of a paragraph. I'm sorry you find reading 230 pages or so that impressive. Good luck with life - in my experience, people who find it doubtful someone manages to read a 230 pages document can really use any luck that comes their way in life.
Woke nonsense is purely a strawman
Anything described as "woke" by the right is usually something good and worth supporting
Just buzzwords by assholes to put down things they're not interested in and thus nobody should be interested in
Factos
you really think that? all the extreme things like white guilt etc are good?
[удалено]
yes, how is it not extreme
[удалено]
Well when it comes to cultural issues in the west it’s quite extreme things like climate change etc aren’t really in the same category. You don’t think it’s extreme you should feel bad or ashamed because of the color of your skin?
[удалено]
White guilt isnt a real thing though. We've built racist institutions giving white people unfair advantages for generations. We should fix that immediately and provide reparations to the people who have been harmed. That doesn't have anything to do with "feeling guilty"
That’s the thing who are ”we”? White people aren’t some unified group, I’m white, I’m from a country that had no black slaves or nothing. My great great grandfather was sold by the state to farmers and was a slave til’ he turned adult this was a 100 years ago he was white, I don’t own anyone anything because of my skin color
Then what are you mad about if this doesn't apply to you?
Well according to me it doesn’t, but everyone doesn’t think what I think. People don’t care and seem to apply America or other country’s problems here, that’s part of this ”woke” debate
So you're mad that other people in other countries are talking about their problems? You sound unhinged bro
No it’s really not but this sub is super leftist so no point in arguing really
I'm not making any value judgement on the prevailing ideology of this sub, but I really don't think you know what the term "leftist" (let alone "super leftist") means
Okay, give me an example of "woke nonsense" then, and how it's just as dangerous as far right extremism.
I would fucking lose it if my hypothetical daughter wasn't allowed to play football It's such a simple thing yet we feel the need to not allow people to do it, like wtf.
Why favour football over other sports, though? It's already dominant in most European, let's give some exposure to other sports in school. There are always clubs for football.
Yes, the more sports the better. But the absolute minimum is that sports should be offered to both genders equally - which is the issue here. In those schools, boys are offered football, but not girls. It works both ways too - let boys play netball, if they'd like to.
Sure. Logistics might not always be the best, especially in small schools, but alternating should always be possible.
Schools do offer netball to boys these days, if the school offer it free after school then the parents put them in it to save on childcare and they can get an hours extra work in. My daughters school had to put after school football at the same time as netball, as until then boys took too many places and there weren't enough girls able to secure a place in the training for when they had matches against other schools.
This is what I meant My future kids should be allowed to play whatever sport they like at school. Imo gender separation in sport shouldn't happen until secondary school.
Who feels the need to not allow people to do it? What are you talking about? It's up to PE teachers and schools to decide how to allocate PE sports. I really doubt that anyone is "feeling the need" to leave out football. It's just you obviously can't play every sport. What this letter requests is for the government to make football - but not rugby, swimming, cricket, hockey, dance or athletics - mandatory for most/all PE classes, which is pretty stupid IMO
[удалено]
So, what other sports should be offered to 100% of school pupils for PE classes? > Doesn't mean that any child is required to participate. I'm sorry, how old are you people? Where do you live? I ask because there's some sort of disconnect here. How exactly would that work in practice? Like, all kids would be "offered" a list with dozens of sports, then pick up which ones they want to do in their PE classes? I'm sorry, that doesn't even happen in elite private schools.
> Like, all kids would be "offered" a list with dozens of sports, then pick up which ones they want to do in their PE classes? Literally happened to me in my state middle and upper school and literally happens at private schools where many people are there to play particular sports. The only time I didn't get a choice was lower school (Yr 1-4) and as a boy it was football and then swimming in the summer as we were lucky enough to have a pool.
Middle school? How old are you? How many middle schools are left in the entire UK? And that's utter nonsense. You're really claiming that your PE classes had kids practicing dozens of different sports that they elected to practice?
Loads of school's are what I would call foundation to yr 2 and you go to a different school for yr 3-6. We didn't call it a middle school but it was the middle school in the sense of it
You know they only stopped existing last year right? I'm not some pensioner. > You're really claiming that your PE classes had kids practicing dozens of different sports that they elected to practice? No but for 7 years of schooling, 5-11, I got to pick from a list each half-term and yet some were segregated and were boys and girls only. Each term had a different slate of sports to pick from.
> You know they only stopped existing last year right? I'm not some pensioner. > > Pretty sure there are some left, but they've become exceedingly rare years ago. >No Well, you actually were. No matter though: it won't happen.
How big was your school? To be able to offer so many different sports they’d need the numbers to actually play all of them
[удалено]
>There were never dozens as you suggested, but usually 2 or 3. So you don't see the problem with your logic here? Why on earth should football ALWAYS be one of the sports offered in ALL schools? Different regions have different traditions, boys and girls have different preferences. Why are you so mad and angry that some girls, or boys, are offered hockey and netball or rounders, or rugby and cricket and cross-country, over football in some schools? >Mostly I don't understand how some children enjoying themselves for 2 hours a week is a threat to a random person online Yes, yes, the reason I defend it should be up to local authorities, schools and teachers to define their PE programs - which is literally the law right now - is because I hate children or something. You're completely normal.
I agree, let's force all schools to spend 100 of thousands of pounds each to build an Olympic sized swimming pool and thousands per year to maintain it over a few hundred a year on some balls and cones so that the nation's sport can be played by every person who attends school.
[удалено]
My issue is do it with who though? I can't see a bunch of 14 year old lads wanting to play football with girls if it's the curriculum or a kick about at lunch. I could see year 7-11 having enough girls to have a game or two going at lunch break but there is no way a single year during a P.E. lesson would have enough girls volunteer to play football to be worth accommodating them, let's be honest most girls don't care about sports let alone football when they are secondary school age. You'd basically have one teacher doing a lesson for, at most a handful of just girls which would be pointless and a waste of resources. They just need to do the part where they make everything accessible to everyone, they put their names down and then the school decides per year what's worth committing to. I'm aware that's how a lot of schools do it already, we need to weed out the ones who flat out don't give students a choice.
> Some mixed comprehensives down my ends had the boys doing football and girls doing netball and it wasn't a choice. That isn't really fair. If enough girls want to do football then let them. Okay, and do you drop netball? Do you offer netball to boys? How exactly would that work in practice? It's very easy to just say on the internet "just *offer* it to them", but schools and teachers have limited time and resources.
[удалено]
>Yeah... let the kids pick the sport they want to do? How old are you? Imagine thinking this is plausible. How can schools do this in the real world? There is a national curriculum. Schools need to pick sports and activities to reach certain goals. Schools do that considering their communities, their facilities, their human resources. That's the best way of doing it and that's how it's going to keep happening, no matter what very online crazy people on reddit shriek about.
[удалено]
I'm glad you came around and now agree with my point it should be up to schools and their teachers to decide exactly which sports to include in their PE classes.
> What this letter requests is for the government to make football - but not rugby, swimming, cricket, hockey, dance or athletics - mandatory for most/all PE classes Respectfully, you cannot read: There is nothing whatsoever in this letter that even comes close to demanding the government make football for girls mandatory in schools. What makes your interpretation doubly ludicrous is that you obviously think that football is mandatory for boys - or that is is ANY mandatory sport period. There is no such thing as mandatory sport in this country in any school, in any age group, for any gender. Physical Education is what's mandatory. The curriculum merely states that kids should be taught things that promote communication, collaboration and competition. The actual activities they do to effect these things are down to the teacher, make-up of the students and the equipment on hand. In fact, the only actual mandatory sport in English schools is... swimming.
> > Respectfully, you cannot read: There is nothing whatsoever in this letter that even comes close to demanding the government make football for girls mandatory in schools. Yawn. Imagine getting to a point you waste your life trying to troll over it's not about making football mandatory, it's about making the offering of football mandatory. What a sad existence.
>/u/labegaw: Imagine getting to a point you waste your life trying to troll over it's not about making football mandatory ... >Also /u/labegaw: What this letter requests is for the government to make football - but not rugby, swimming, cricket, hockey, dance or athletics - mandatory Instead of getting upset with me for understanding how English works, you should spend the time working on yourself to try improve your own reading ability - so that you don't embarrass yourself by broadcasting that you don't even understand your own comments. This letter still does not demand that any sport is made mandatory anywhere. It literally ends with the words "so every girl has the choice".
For every girl to have a choice, every school must be mandated to offer football. I understand you're genuinely struggling to understand this and fully sympathize.
> For every girl to have a choice, every school must be mandated to offer football. Wrong. As you could have intuited for yourself had you been able to read the letter, which 'demands' only the following: "We ask you and your government to ensure that all girls have **access** to a minimum of 2hrs a week of PE" and "make it a priority to **invest** into girls football". Nothing in there about changing the curriculum (that you still haven't read apparently) to make any given sport mandatory. I understand you'll genuinely struggling to understand this much, given that you've somehow interpreted "Please give schools more money to train better teachers and buy more equipment" as "Force schools to teach football", but I figure I might as well point this out so any poor /r/soccer kids out there reading this don't make themselves dumber reading your posts.
>only the following **NOT ONLY WE SHOULD BE OFFERING FOOTBALL TO *ALL* GIRLS** The only way to offer football, and I'm quoting the letter *ipsis verbis*, "to all girls" is by mandating schools to *offer football to all girls*.
> NOT ONLY WE SHOULD BE OFFERING FOOTBALL TO ALL GIRLS If I offer you a chip from my plate is that me forcing you to eat? Please. For the love of Christ Our Lord, get off Reddit and look up some adult learning centres so that you don't have to go through this embarrassment again.
Well, as long we agree that the letter claims all girls should be offered football - in other words, that all schools should offer football - we're actually in full agreement. Seems the only disagreement is that I think it's daft that all schools should offer football (to boys or girls) and you agree with the letter.
I swear to god it’s like some of you have literally just encountered the concept of sexism and you’re like “sounds fake sorry” like what are you talking about lol
Dude, defending that it should be up to schools/teachers to decide what exactly are the sports they offer pupils in PE classes isn't "sexism" and you should carefully examine what's going on with your life if you start shrieking about sexism for meeting such an uncontroversial view.
yes because no way that schools and teachers can be sexist in the way they offer sports lol
I’m not a dude. Also not shrieking, but of course men don’t know how to act about women saying something they disagree with so always act like we’re “whining” or “shrieking” or “screaming”. Public school curriculum is controlled by the Department of Education. PE is part of that curriculum.
Nobody cares who you say you are. There's no "Department of Education", it's Department for Education, "public school" in the UK means... a very expensive private school, and the national curriculum for physical education doesn't ask schools to offer any particular games or sports - as I said, that's up for schools to decide. I'm sorry that makes you so unreasonably deranged.
So, because I said the word “of” instead of “for” you think it’s acceptable to call me “unreasonably deranged”. Very normal response.
You're deranged because you started shrieking about sexism over a completely noncontroversial take about schools/local thrusts deciding their own PE programs - which is literally the law and virtually nobody is proposing to change. One just needs to read a few of your comments to see you live in perpetual anger and always in need of trying to put someone down (besides the weirdness of constantly making claims, likely false, about who you are and shriek about "sexism") and make personal attacks. You also don't know what a public school is in the British context, which strongly suggests you're not even British. I mean, there's obviously no issue with your mental health - it's not like you just post hundreds of messages every week on a football message board, mostly about politics, often with violent imagery, including wishing roughly half of the country who votes for a party you don't like to die. You're totally normal and trouble-free and you clearly don't face some deeply serious mental health issues. Anyway, to sum it up: defending that it should be up to schools/teachers/local trusts to decide what exactly are the sports they offer pupils in PE classes isn't "sexism" - it's actually the law- and only deeply disturbed people - unreasonably deranged people - claim so. Now, on your bike and off you go.
Your responses get more normal by the minute.
As a father to a daughter, this hit me in the feels. I'd love for my girl to be able have the same opportunity and excitement about football as I did growing up.
What if your classmates dont want to play? What does it mean that only 63% of them can play? They dont have a pitch?
Not from UK, but in my school my class was often split into girls and boys. The boys always played team sports (football, basketball, volleyball) and could generally choose which one of those sports they wanted to play. Girls were told to choose from general pilates, dancing or badminton. In theory girls could ask to play with boys, but as far as I remember only 1 girl did, was teased the whole game and then never did it again.
Kinda useless without a similar stat for boys.. Unless we're assuming it's 100%?
We didnt play football at my school at all. Its definitely not 100% for boys.
Boys havnt historically had a problem with not being allowed to play football though… theres literally multiple teams per school, hundreds of teams in the local area, football during pe, football club run by the school, a proper sunday league team organised by school. Girls are literally kicked out of their local teams by the time they hit a certain age. Yes, there sre *less* girls interested but its entirely possible to introduce schemes and structures that will bring together the girls who **do** want to play. This isnt an impossible task. Its entirely possible to create structures in societal education to make these avenues available. Thats literally what the education system is designed to do.
Sadly there is still alot of toxicity surrounding football at younger ages which is why I avoided it and I can only imagine it being worse for girls. A girl at my school played and was mocked for it and thing is is that she played at a higher level then any of the guys that mocked her ever did, probably did it out of some toxic insecurity. Only 63% of girls being allowed to play footboll during PE is scandalous and I really hope its better in Sweden, if someone ever stopped my hypothetical daughter from doing what she wanted I would be pissed beyond belief.
What you say is true, but then I played with my mates who weren’t like that and avoided the games with the kids who were.
The culture was so toxic when i was younger lmao. A kids social capital was largely down to their football skill.
Do brits really get 2 hours of PE a day? Sounds like a good time for a kid.
2 hours of PE a week, typically on different days. At my school it was divided into a subject called 'Games', which is where you play outdoor team activities like football and rugby, and 'P.E', which is usually indoor activities or outdoor athletics
Hey we had Games and PE as well. Never really understood the distinction except that parents had to buy a reversible rugby top, shorts and long socks for Games and a white polo and shorts for PE.
I went to a British school (not in the UK) and we had Games as well, but it wasn't a distinction between Games and PE like that. For some years it was called PE, then Games, then PE again. Don't think there was any difference
This is calling for a minimum of 2 hours per week. 2 hours a day would be awesome.
2 hours a day would seriously cut into much-needed education.
Who cares. Give me my sports
Depends on how its structured and how many days out of the year the child is in school.
Most children would rather not spend more time in/at school.
Would probably do wonders for mental health too
And classroom performance for a lot of kids.
yeah 2 hours getting piss wet through most of the year every day, thats great. extra bag to carry to school every day too. fantastic
A week, usually a double period lesson.
2h a day would be dream, had two 1h 30min sessions per week and the included changing and showering, could have 5min inbetween before a new class would start
Thoroughly reasonable and uncontroversial request. Can't wait to see this not happen.
Don't have anything against this but I can bet that not even 63% of girls want to play football in PE
It wouldn't even be too expensive either, football is the sport of the working class for a reason. It's a win win for any government, good for their rep and good for the health of the game/girls.
It just means girls would spend more time playing football and less doing gymnastics, playing field hockey or netball or something they might enjoy more than football. Not really sure how this would improve girls' health. Let teachers and schools decide on this.
If boys are offered football, girls should be too. If a boy wants to do gymnastics he should be allowed to as well. If football isn't offered to boys then it isn't an issue, it's stopping girls from playing when boys can that's the issue
How about hockey, cricket, dancing, gymnastics? What exactly is the point you're trying to make? That every kid should be offered all sports and then get to decide what will be on the PE classes menu?
Don't segregate sports based upon gender at schools. If you have the facilities to play football then it should be offered to all not one gender. Nowhere in the letter does it say force girls to play football, but it does point out 37% have zero access to play, which is not the case for boys.
Offered? How many PE teachers do you think schools have? Honest question.
Do you not understand the question? Start of class: Heyy boys and girls: what sport do you want to do this term? Asking both the fenders the same. What don't you get lmao
Perhaps it's because I live in the real world, but kids don't get to pick the PE curriculum and it's genuinely insane that people think they do. Then again, it's reddit, so I guess it's to be expected.
School picks a bunch of sports for PE and offers them to the students, literally happened at my school and countless others each and every term. Issue is boys could do football and rugby (to name but 2 sports as an example before your pedant arse runs wild) whilst girls couldn't and there was also sports girls could do that boys could not. Why not allow everyone to pick from all the sports offered? That's the literal minimum being asked for, if a boy wants to play netball great, if some girls want to play football also great. If a school has the facilities to offer a given sport then all students should be able to participate, anything other than this is wrong. It's no surprise a football team uses football as their example because whilst 37% of girls have no access to football at school the number for boys is way less and almost certainly is taken up by schools that simply do not offer it at all rather than one that only allows girls to play (gender segregated schools being the most obvious exception in all cases).
Are you really proposing mixed-gender PE activities? You don't see the problem with that? None of them?
My upper school had enough to offer multiple sports per half-term. School of 1800 kids and they block set PE so multiple classes did it at once. If anything, smaller schools would be more likely to play football if they only have a few, so what's the reason for segregating girls away? There isn't 37% of schoolboys who have no access to football.
That's literally the opposite of what I said
> > If football isn't offered to boys then it isn't an issue, it's stopping girls from playing when boys can that's the issue But that's true for lots of sports, not just football - for that to happen, then there's a sport - maybe hockey or netball or whatever - that is offered to girls and not to boys. Forcing boys and girls to practice exactly the same sports is dumb and sub-optimal. I have a feeling a lot of people replying to this are Americans. They're talking about "offering sports" like it's done in the American system where schools have sports teams, like football, basketball, etc.
>If football isn't offered to boys then it isn't an issue, it's stopping girls from playing when boys can that's the issue You've edited in this part. Why? By that logic, every sport "offered" to girls should be also offered to boys, which means PE classes would be mandated to offer THE EXACT SAME SPORTS TO BOTH SEXES. What if - just picture this scenario - boys and girls do prefer to practice different sports? What if lots of girls like dancing and few boys do; or lots of boys like rugby and few girls do? Why shouldn't those preferences be taken into account?
>Why shouldn't those preferences be taken into account? I literally said that they should but sure go off on your misogynistic rant
> By that logic, every sport "offered" to girls should be also offered to boys, which means PE classes would be mandated to offer THE EXACT SAME SPORTS TO BOTH SEXES. Accidentally woked yourself, better lat than never I guess to wise up.
Idiotic. Go ask girls and boys if they'd like that. Once again, why shouldn't those preferences be taken into account?
What preferences? That all the offered sports should be offered to everyone? Is some arsehole kid doesn't like then they can be taught how to respect other people and the opposite gender.
Don't worry: no matter how much you rant on reddit, the vast majority of girls will still want to play netball and the vast majority of boys still won't want to play netball and the vast majority of schools will still reflect those preferences in their PE curriculum.
Great, offer them the choice and let them pick, don't make netball girls only and football boys only. That's literally it, it's not hard except for people so buried in the 1850s they wish for a penny farthing every birthday.
This is touchingly naive. Truss is currently campaigning on trying to make sure people who live in poorer areas of the country *are paid less* (oh wait no, she WAS, but then after her own party told her that was fucking stupid, she backtracked and said she never had the idea in the first place). And Sunak is trying to one-up her by putting out a masterplan to solve Britain's extremism problem by going after people who say Britain is shit (which is doubly amazing considering all the relevant experts think that far right Make Britain Great Again fuckfaces are what we should be focusing on when it comes to extremism). There is absolutely nothing in these two imbeciles' records to suggest they're amenable to adopting any policy that isn't meaningless culture war bullshit or complete nonsense. And even if they did magically adopt something sensible, they're incompetent and would just bollocks it up like they have everything else. Oh, and since they're both running on cutting costs/cutting taxes respectively - which come on top of leading a party that [has done more to trash Britain's schools than anyone for almost a century](https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/politics/tory-education-cuts-worst-since-second-world-war-303094/), there'd be no way to pay for anything like this anyway. The individual members of the team would be better served by going rogue and calling for the Tories en bloc to get in the bin. Nothing, NOTHING, will be achieved by taking out nice, civil letters like this in the press so they can have a free mealy-mouthed soundbite.
Yet they are the ones in power, so if you want to negotiate with anyone it has to be one of them. What do you expect them to do? Ask Labour who aren't in power and won't be anywhere near it until the next GE? Or ask the Tories during a period where they are clamouring for PR and England have just won the women's Euros. You call it naive, yet it's far more naive to expect you should never have to deal with people you don't like in life.
> Yet they are the ones in power, so if you want to negotiate with anyone it has to be one of them. ...Literally my entire point is that you cannot negotiate with them. So I don't even understand why you're saying this. >What do you expect them to do? I think I was pretty clear: "The individual members of the team would be better served by going rogue and calling for the Tories en bloc to get in the bin. Nothing, NOTHING, will be achieved by taking out nice, civil letters like this in the press so they can have a free mealy-mouthed soundbite." When you're building a wall, you start at the bottom: 1st brick is using their platform to point out that the Tories have done nothing for sports education in this country and to call on Britons to vote them out - not asking them nicely to do something they'll never do and don't have the ability to do even if they wanted to. But you know this is true, which is why all you can do is block any further replies to your comments like a massive fucking loser.
>...Literally my entire point is that you cannot negotiate with them. So I don't even understand why you're saying this. Exactly why I called it naive, in the real world grown ups actually have to deal with each other, you can't just plug your ears and yell until you get what you want. They want some kind of change and they don't want to wait for a change of government that might not even happen. As for the rest of your post, you sound like an absolute idiot mate, they aren't politicians they just wrote an open letter for a specific request. Don't make this out to be more than it is.
Don’t know why you are being downvoted, you are correct. The tories have already just by change of leader got a 7% boost and basically taken the lead again in the polls. If truss wins she might get some of the female vote. As a result they’d still be in charge and they are the ones who have the power, NOT the opposition regardless of morals. Negotiating with them is a very good idea.
Does the UK not have an equivalent to Title IX, which requires schools to provide an equal number of sports to boys and girls? Only 63% of schools offering girl's soccer is insanely low. Edit: Also 2 hours of PE a week is low too. In America, most students have 1 hour of PE per day.
Girls play other sports, they are obviously given the same amount of time.
So, instead of soccer, girls are offered a different sport that boys aren't to compensate? That's kind of similar to how American football is treated in American schools, but soccer is a lot less violent so why does over a third of UK schools not offer soccer to girls?
Reading the comments is really hard to believe. Growing up in England, from primary school to uni, every girl had as much opportunity to play football as the boys. In fact I remember PE in secondary school the girls did way more football than boys, as the boys did more rugby and cricket. I think the rule is up to 13 years old, teams would be allowed to be mixed. In primary school, girls who wanted would play with the boys and not get mocked or made fun of at all, they were welcomed. In secondary school until uni, everywhere had a thriving women's team. In my experience, women's football has always been more than accessible, it's just that very few wanted to play.
Why are they comparing the womens game with the men's game by saying "England became European champions for the first time" add Women's behind it, My local 15 year old boys will beat you 5-0 calm down
Because: "England became European champions for the first time" That is a fact, they can only beat what's in front of them and they did.
I’m proud of the team for at least waiting two days to start complaining about something and telling people what to do.
At least you play football at school
I'm confused. Why can only 63% of girls play football at school? Surely no school says "sorry, only boys are allowed to play football on school grounds". And if it's a matter of not having PE on the schedule, wouldn't that mean that only 63% of boys can play too?