Question for those who wouldn't let their kids play football
In only two weeks, we will see a whirlwind of satellite football camps. If I'm counting correctly, there are now 35 or more separate camps Michigan is involved in. Harbaugh has been very upfront about his purpose. He wants to help spread a love for the game of football. He believes that football is a great arena in which to teach many things, from teamwork to hard work to physical exercise to a host of other things. I happen to agree. In fact, I agree to the point that my son is gearing up for summer football, in preparation for the Fall season. While I seriously doubt my son will play in college, he is more than good enough to play in high school, and really enjoys the game.
However, many of you, while fans of Michigan football, would be strongly against letting your own children play football. This question is for you.
How can you justify being a fan of football if you are completely against your child participating in it? This just doesn't make sense to me. I don't mind those who hate football, and I understand that there are many people who for whatever reason, aren't capable of playing ball. But if you are a Michigan football fan, but won't let your kid play ball, help me understand how you reconcile that.
(Note: this question isn't about whether or not football is dangerous, or whether or not there is a threat of CTE or concussion in playing ball. It is solely about being a fan and at the same time being against familial participation in tackle football.)
Is that really a fair comparison? I mean, there are youth football leagues all over. Kids can play ball around 2nd or 3rd grade. I've never seen a league for jackass stunts. Playing football in America is as easy as playing baseball, or basketball, or soccer, or lacrosse, or being on a swim team. (Some sports are hard because of the cost involved: hockey, equestrian stuff, ballet, gymnastics, sometimes tennis).
And I specifically give a pass to those whose kids could not, for whatever reason, play football. This isn't about having Div 1 talent either: this is about normal, healthy average kids, usually boys, who want to play football.
I think most people tend to morally separate what they purchase and consume as entertainment from the things they directly participate within. This is a problem, or at least an inconsistency, that we encounter throughout our everyday lives. You could ask the same question about purchases from the grocery store, from companies like Nike (or at least in the past. Idk Nike's current labor situtation), etc. How people reconcile the inconsistency is highly subjective. I'm not sure that most people necessarily consider that there's a connection.
The Jackass/football comparision is completely fair in the context of your question -- how can you enjoy watching football if you are opposed to your child competing in it. I like watching football. I like watching porn, spy movies, war movies, and action movies where people get into crazy car chases and jump off buildings and lot of other stuff. I liked watching a serial killer on the TV show Dexter (except the last season which was dogshit). I like boxing and MMA. I enjoy all of that entertainment, just like I enjoy the entertainment of football.
I wouldn't want my kid to do any of that.
The point is, football is entertainment. Its not some all encompasing ethos where you have to live and breathe it in order to watch and enjoy it. That's a pretty simple distincting to make, and not at all hard to understand.
Frankly, your desire to take the danger/CTE aspects out of the discussion is the hard to understand part. Its very much a part of the sport, and as parents who are in charge of their child's wellbeing, that's absolutely part of the discussion. Taking it out is like having a discussion about what you like about sex without mentioning any of the parts that make you feel good.
Football can be entertainment. I don't disagree with that, but as a kid, and even a little now, football was/is an all encompassing ethos. In the off season I would lift weights 3 hours a day to get bigger, I'd watch football and I'd talk football. In retrospect I should have spent some time doing more productive stuff, but I loved it. That's what is so cool about Harbaugh. Football is everything to him. He's a jackhammer.
I'm not sure if my kids will play football or not. The concussion thing is a concern, but I played for 10 years and I never got a concussion that I know of. that I know of. They'll probably play at least a few years of cub football.
Ok, if football for you is entertainment, then football should become more like movies, where everything is staged. If everything is staged and fake in football, like spy movies, war movies, action movies, with crazy car chases and jump off buildings and killers on TV shows and other stuff like that, then CTE/concussions go way down. You don't hear anyone saying they should shut Hollywood down because of concussions. Yes, they can happen, but because everything is staged, the frequency is much less. Football "games" could be scripted out, even with fake blood, and fake injuries, to increase the entertainment value.
As for boxing and MMA, I'd be ok with making football more like them: they don't exist in college, people who enter those sports go in from the start knowing the risks, and for the potential of gaining money. Same with wrestling. Make football an entertainment show, and stop calling it amateur athletics. Take it out of college.
We can agree to disagree, but you've helped me clarify something in myself. There are numerous things in this world I have no desire to see, watch, or participate in. And they've existed throughout history. I enjoyed the movie Gladiator . . . but the idea of supporting the whole enterprise of gladiatorial combat as it existed 2,000 years ago (watching people kill each other for the entertainment value, watching animals kill people for the entertainment value) leaves me cold. Same thing with cock fighting, with dog fighting, with any "sport" where the goal is to kill, injure, maim, destroy. Same thing with snuff films, or kiddie porn, or anything that exploits others for entertainment value. While "The Hunger Games" weren't the best movies, they tapped into this whole thing of enjoying watching others kill or be killed. I didn't see all the movies, but was struck by the crowds in the capital enjoying the show, yet being completely disconnected from anyone forced to play in the games.
I can support football because I actually believe, like Harbaugh, that it is a great game. There is certainly risk and danger, but there is in all arenas of life. Yes, it is the responsibility of all parents to act for their children's well being. But I don't much care for the disconnect between watching others play football, and being adamently against participation by my own kids (should they want to play, and be physically capable).
So pretty much every form of entertainment ever.
Short answer your question -- This line of yours: "I don't much care for the disconnect between watching others play football, and being adamantly against participation by my own kids" means nothing to me. Doesn't resonate. I don't recognize it and I've never considered it.
You're obviously offended by this "disconnect" in some way.
I am not.
Sports is one oldest real-time reality show (entertainment) on earth. Football is not exception of it.
You obviously don't know much about boxing. Junior Golden Gloves starts as young as 8 years old. Muhammad Ali won a gold medal at age 19. Sugar Ray Leonard and Michael Spinks both won Olympic gold medals at age 20. You may not think of it as a college sport, but kids start in boxing long before they personally understand the risks.
you just don't get it.
I know you're not asking me, but the lightbulb just went off about what the OP is asking. Yes, I'm fine with that.
I care about my kids, not anyone else's. Does that make me a hypocrite and an asshole? Maybe, but I don't care.
It's also not comparable because I'm not watching middle school football for fun. I'm watching college football, which is immeasurably different. If I paid $100 per game to watch a middle school team but didn't let my kid play it, then maybe you'd have a better argument that I'm a hypocrite.
I'm not sure why you're struggling with it?
So you wouldn't want your child to play, because of the danger of injury, but you're fine with deriving entertainment from watching someone else's child risk injury?
I sometimes like to youtube the guys that jump off mountains in the wingsuits with gopros. Craaazy! The jumpers know the danger and sometimes they crash and burn. Yet, watching the videos is a rush. But I wouldn't want my kid doing it!!! The hell to the no!
As long as the parents of the participants are aware of the risks and (amateur) rewards in a transparent manner as best known at the time, football parents and their kids should be free to choose to play. Likewise, I am free to choose whether to watch these voluntary participants. Those two things are independent.
Now if you are someone who finds himself at times taking the position that football poses too great a danger and should be banned in some circumstances, yet still like your Michigan football, only then do I think the inconsistency rises to the level of hypocricy. (This does not include merely advocating for greater safety and/or awareness.)
Michigan is to Jackass as football watching is to movie watching.
I don't like it.
I think that is fair. Just about every community had kids that where going out, filming, and doing stuff like that when jackass was in its prime. When their first movie came out, landspeed, my friends and I were the ones doing it and we made movies to show our friends and school.
I enjoy watching the show but I don't want MY KID doing it! Safer ways to make a good living.
I wouldn't stop my kid from playing football. One of mine did and one stopped after only one season. But I wouldn't encourage them to play. I can understand why other parents would not allow it.
And because I'm an alpha and I appreciate dominating others.
And because I was raised on a steady diet of Billy Taylor, Anthony Carter, Wangler, Messner, Gillettte, Harbaugh, Jamie Morris, Brady, Henne, Biankabituka, Wheatley, Ty Law, Griese, Sword, Paris, and way too many left out...
And Ufer. He was the Messenger
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
This is a fantastic comment.
My boys will NEVER play football. I'm training them for a career in MMA.
Yeah right. You have the worst reflexes ever.
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
I think OP's point is that by watching and supporting Michigan football, fans are supporting its continuation, even though some of those same fans find the game too violent for their own children to take part in. To some, that appears hypocritical and morally dubious, that some would enjoy watching a violent sport--to the point of making it a profitable venture--that they themselves refuse to directly participate in.
It seems completely hypocritical. Either:
- It isn't hypocritical to you, or
- You have no problem with hypocrisy.
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
I really strike out . . . not only does my son play football in high school, my oldest daughter is an Aegis Network Technician on a Destroyer about to deploy to the Middle East.
You are the most man that has ever manned. Congrats.
important decision by virute of dicsontinuing the draft. I am a Vietnam Veteran and my father was a veteran of WWII. I can now look back and understand his advice about, "Don't go over there. We have no place over there. Son, war will change you forever. There is no doubt when it's right or wrong and this is undoubtedly wrong." I still had no idea how he know all those who didn't go would be forgiven in the matter of less than a decade after ir ended. Must have had something to do with non declaration or something.
But seriously, I am happy you can speak with your children. However, don't allow them to sign, and if then called, try to back out. That is just as wrong. It' a decision, but not one to be made, hoping for college tuition with little chance of visiting a war zone. If anything, this country's history should tell you America's economy is war and despite our past three presidents finding in inconvenient, they will not hesitate to put your sons and daughters in harms way in a split second.
Both of these are actually questions for parents that have children facing choices in one or both. Those days are gone for me, so I rescind my post as an advocate for. It's up to today's parents in those age groups. Hope you all are able to resolve this. It's not an easy decision.
It's a free rider issue. If a magical genie were to tell me today that football as a sport would cease to exist if I stopped watching, I would feel morally compelled to stop watching for the health benefits of those who play. But that's not going to happen -- if I, individually, stop watching, it's not going to change a damn thing.
provides a great deal of health and social benefits as well. High School football players are likely to be in good physical condition, probably do not smoke and are not attracted to smoking. They probably drink less than others at or near the same age due to the demands of the sport. They also probably have a well developed social life and high self esteem due to the comradary and opportunities for accomplishment the sport provides. There is a lot of upside there balanced against a very small chance of any significant damage at that level of play. I have a young son that is genuinely and completely uninterested in the concept of sports altogether and I would absolutely love for him to play football(and ask him if he wants to on a weekly basis) for all the reasons listed above. A lot of parents who won't let their kids play football probably have no issue with him sitting in his room playing Call of Duty or Halo - this is ass backwards if you ask me.
I think we can all agree on that. I think we can also agree that we are learning more about the risk involved. Framing your question another way, at what point should parents decide the possible risks to their children outweigh the benefits to their playing? Must they first decide the sport is so dangerous they can't watch it or support it in any way? Must they also campaign to see it banned from their schools? Do you want your own love of the game to influence a decision about your child's health?
You don't have to make those type of decisions so black and white. It's possible for children to understand why you think it's too risky for them to play football, while still watching games with them. It may even provide good teaching moments. Especially if you're a big fan, I think it's far better to have that discussion, rather than have a child feel guilty for causing you to give up something they know you love or for you to possibly resent the child for the same thing.
It's possible to revisit your decision as more is learned or advances in protecting players are made. Or even be convinced the local organization has improved the training and resources to protect their players. Or to find a less dangerous football activity, say 7 on 7 leagues. They might be close calls that you want to revisit every year. That's a lot easier to do if you don't take a football is evil, banned in this house approach. That seems more a formula for raising extremists than thoughtful young people.
Getting back to your original question. Is it hypocritical to watch college students and/or adults play a sport that you won't let your child play? I don't think there's one answer. Do you think it's so dangerous that schools should stop playing it or are you perhaps being overly cautious with your child? Would you have made a different decision if you thought your kid could play at a high level, or if football was something you felt they truly loved, not just another activity they wanted to do? How about the parents that let their kids play? Suppose they wouldn't make the same choice if their kids were starting this year or if other circumstances were different. Is it hypocritical to enjoy football without seriously thinking about whether you would let your hypothetical kids play, or if you doubt that you would?
I don't think there is a simple answer. Playing football is a dangerous activity. Being a fan of such things always lead to some moral questions. For some, the danger is an attraction. I've certainly changed the way I look at big hits. It's hard to enjoy seeing players getting leveled, not since the PSU game where Taylor ended two careers with one big, reckless hit. But what if it's also a big play for my team? It's hard not to get excited about that. I still enjoy the skill and strategy involved, but some of my enjoyment has gone. I think I'll remain a fan as long as the leagues take meaningful measures to protect the players, but I don't know for sure. I still appreciate a good high level boxing match, but I found my interest in them has waned. Rather than getting excited when a knockout is looming, I find myself hoping the fight ends safely.
If I like to watch football but don't want my kid to play - how is that hypocritical?
Hypocrisy: the practice of claiming to have moral standards or beliefs to which one's own behavior does not conform
Liking to watch football for entertainment is not claiming to have a moral standard that
1) Children should play football
2) Anyone should play football
So exactly what moral standard would I be claiming, but not conforming to?
PS - my kid played football, is possibly playing next fall, and I support kids playing football
ask the question a different way, how can you possibly enjoy watching kids destroy each others skulls without be morally repulsed if you truly, honestly believe the sport to be that dangerous? If that is what somebody believes about the sport, it is a fair question to ask why they watch it for sport. Perhaps to do so is not hypocritical, but it certainly is pretty savage.
... Not all fair questions are worth examining. People have watched gladiators since the beginning of civilization. There are cave paintings of people wrestling for sport that are 17,000 years old. It is human nature, and nature has savage and tame elements. These things can coexist.
times change, people evolve. If we as a culture really believe that football is such an activity, should we not take in upon ourselves to do our part to make sure this savagery and inhumanity are brought to an end? But we are still watching, still following, still going to games.
The reason for this is either because we all believe that we are witnessing faux outrage driven by the media and scientific community for ratings and research funding or because we believe that the element of personal choice in playing football removes any moral turbulence in our decision to watch it and accept it. It is one or the other, or perhaps both.
The "porn" comparison is off base. As far as I can gather, there are not stadiums hosting 115,000 people in public every Saturday watching live porn. The "gladiator" comparison is not accurate either as the vast majority of gladiator fights in history did not involve "willing" participants. We are justifying it in some way in our minds, we are not just accepting it as an evil or a vice. No way.
"times change, people evolve."
Not really.
We're the same humans we were 200,000 years ago.
"If we as a culture really believe that football is such an activity, should we not take in upon ourselves to do our part to make sure this savagery and inhumanity are brought to an end? "
I believe footbal is, to some extent savagery - as are all combat sports.
I don't believe savagery is inherently bad though. It's part of the human condition. If people wish to engage in it, it should be allowed.