Antiseptic
I would tend to agree, although I think most football players play football because they enjoy the game.

A problem everywhere is that girls tend to drop out of sports as they get older. The fact that they go to the football is not the fault of the football players, something the sexist and discriminatory author overlooked when repeating her 1970’s dogma of “males oppress females”

Another consideration is the huge cost in taxpayer funding to put such authors through the education system, only to produce a person so narrow minded, myopic and submerged in dogma.

2 out of 5 female university graduates do not even repay their HECS fees, (notwithstanding the cost of the rest of their education), and so many do social science courses to only repeat feminist dogma.

It is now a major waste of taxpayer funding.

Again I think the point of this article has been lost.

A study in a rural town found that young men and women who rejected either alcohol, football or both became socially isolated.

Lets dissect this
A study states clearly ONE study this is not to say other studies will not have differing views what is implied is A view. This now understanding of issues is formed by the collection of differing views which may or may not lead to a bigger picture and greater understanding.

Rejection of the dominant sporting and drinking culture leads to isolation.
Hard to argue against that, this was my experience of growing up in a small town, being a chess playing book worm non-drinker (until the city corrupted me LOL)

What is social isolation, for many this is a punishment (purgatory). Therefore it is often the case that young men and women will conform "reluctantly" just to fit in. This is where problems arise if you conform just to fit in, excessive drinking and unwanted sex will probably occur in these situations.( a major issue for parents of teenagers)

What the author is trying to highlight is that, this a problem and needs to be addressed by the whole community, this is not just an educational problem although it will manifest in school age teenagers as their limited independent decision making ability is more influenced by peer pressure.
This article in my opinion is not a critique of all small communities or of education and or sports clubs but an accurate reflection of a perceived social problem for young men and young women.

beefyboy's quite correct. This article, on the basis of of some firsthand research, simply affirms Connell's theoretical position and also fits well with current discussions about football and gender. It doesn't purport to generalise to the wider community, rather it's a case study that confirms general trends that have been widely reported elsewhere.

As such, I don't think that it adds much to the debate. The social milieu that Merete Schmidt describes is well-known to anybody who lives in a small country town (as I do), however there's much more going on in these communities than is apparent in the culture that surrounds football. Undoubtedly Ms Schmidt's wider project takes the bigger picture into account.

Those who decry the article for what it's not only draw attention to their own biases and lack of knowledge about ethnographic research. Such methodology doesn't involve double-blind studies nor control groups, essentially because it is conducted in the real world and is not experimental.

Lastly, I think that Antiwomen and HRS/Timkins/vanna should find a way to hook up in real life - they are obviously kindred spirits, and no woman will have them. Are you guys sure you're not closet queens?

CJMorgan:"Such methodology doesn't involve double-blind studies nor control groups"

Which means it's not worth much.

As I said.

beefyboy

There was so much going on in country towns in the Seventies that even a chess playing bookworm introvert would have experienced trouble wriggling out of headlocks applied by well-meaning people trying to get him to one of the dances, hops, fetes, fetes, home dinners, bbqs and so on that were so popular.

Contrary to the impression some might get from your tale, in the Seventies booze was actually frowned upon or banned at most youth entertainment and particularly from functions held at schools, church halls, town halls and so on. Similarly youth groups such as Junior farmers (both city and country membership), Scouts Australia (Venturers and Rovers), Red Cross an so on had strict rules banning booze from their premises. They still do I think.

Returning to the present, others can comment on the research method employed by the author, however my experience tells me that the findings are way off the mark. We volunteer at our son's AFL club and booze and tobacco are not permitted near the ground. Our son is quiet and an accomplished musician (saxophone, piano, classical and electric guitar). Few of his fellow players would qualify as jocks and most enjoy cultural pursuits. They prefer mixed groups and avoid pubs. There are many young adults like that, there always were and there always will be. It isn't booze or jock-strap masculinity that opens social doors for them it is their own efforts and love of people.

When volunteering we are forever encountering the same families that are represented in youth activities, be that the pre-kindy yard clean-up and sandwiches, the Year 12 band performance, or the university drama club. There are lessons in there for anyone with an open mind. It is quaint that some blame their lack of social success on others. Better to be a victim than look inwards for an explanation, apparently.

Sorry to point out the obvious which is that you have to make some effort too and there are options, even if that is putting your hand up for voluntary work.

CJ Morgan, "Lastly, I think that Antiwomen and HRS/Timkins/vanna should find a way to hook up in real life - they are obviously kindred spirits, and no woman will have them. Are you guys sure you're not closet queens?"

Closet Queen: Gay male who does not admit that he's gay and pretends that he is straight all the time to his friends/family.

It says volumes about your deeply held prejudice that you are oblivious to the heavy backhanded insult you deliver to homosexuals when you sledge your opponents as gays. Surprised you didn't also use 'homoerotic' which is also used by some feminists thinking to humiliate, disgrace and label men with opposing views.

It is shabby and unnecessary of you to twist the stiletto even more for homosexuals who already feel that the pain of coming out is too much to bear.