There is no substitute for whining

Friday, February 16, 2007

According to the Assoc-iated Press, Leavitt Area High School in Leeds, Maine has gone beyond banning guns, to symbolically banning XY chromosomes.

Boys basketball coach Mike Remillard was fired after a (successful) halftime pep talk in which he challenged his players to reach into their pants and "check their manhood" before re-turning to the court.

I'm sure the politically correct crowd will make a hero of the lone player who refused to follow Remill-ard's strategy. I'm curious. Did he refuse to stick his hand down his pants be-cause he had nothing to prove? Because he couldn‚t condone tacky male bonding stunts that denigrate feminine attributes? Or, more likely, because he was afraid he would smear his nail polish?

I guess the administration didn't want the solitary holdout to feel (ugh!) "uncomfortable." Maybe next they'll eliminate the bathroom urinals so he doesn't have to be reminded of his manhood.

Remillard is the victim of a double standard. The school nurse had probably spent all day merrily instructing the lads on how they could safely use their manhood. And if Remillard had offered to do the inspection himself, he would probably have benefited from a gazillion lawyers paid for by the North American Man/Boy Love Association. .

I suppose Remillard could have tried different motivational techniques, but would they have produced a basketball victory? ("McKinney goes in for a lay-up? No, wait, he's buying a time-share!")

I'm saddened that Remil-lard was browbeaten into acting as if he had done something "inappropriate." By exactly what standards were his actions inappropriate? I don‚t remember an "Emily Post's Book of Etiquette" entry about "Your left hand is for using the salad fork, not for checking your privates." Did he violate the Declaration of Independence? ("We hold these truths to be self-evident?but we ain't holdin‚ anything else! Honest!")

Is there some Biblical injunction against Remill-ard's actions? With all the "begettings" that went on in the Scripture, surely someone was doing at least the routine "6 months or 3,000 miles" manhood check. And the inspired writers seemed quite prone to honor the exploits of "mighty men of valor," not "girly-men of unbridled enthusiasm."

No, Remillard did nothing unusual or wrong in his locker room talk. He just stood against the further sissification of high school athletics. What would it take to make his opponents happy with boys basketball? Should the players ignore their testosterone and stop to ask directions on the court? Should they learn to glisten instead of sweat? Should they yell at the referee, "Are you blind?? Those shoes don't match that shirt!"?

Why do we cringe at the thought of guys questioning other guys‚ masculinity? Women question their own femininity all the time. ("I've gained a quarter of an ounce! I'm a blimp! A blimp!")

I think most of us can recognize male posturing as sophomoric silliness, but is it a firing offense? What's next? Someone files a lawsuit to shield us from the NBC peacock?

Apparently there's no stopping the Leeds administrators. It's now a national security issue. They had to nip Remillard's tactics in the bud before they were picked up by the insurgency in Iraq. ("Good! Now we've got our body armor, so we're prepared for "oh, no! The terrorists have caught us off guard by bombarding us with --- guy talk and good-natured joshing! Aaaaarrrr-ggghhh!")

Note: Danny Tyree

welcomes e-mail at