Our school aims to instill in our boys a profound respect for women and girls. Teaching our boys to treat ladies with deference, we choose not to place them in an athletic competition where proper boundaries can be respected with difficulty.

The school’s so-called “deference” to women sounds like the condescension that says women are inherently delicate and shouldn’t be allowed to do things like play sports. It’s the same attitude that makes it difficult for women to break into traditionally male spheres. It’s same men-only attitude that contributes to the low number of women as Fortune 500 CEO’s and members of Congress.

If Our Lady of Sorrows were indeed instilling in their students “a profound respect for women and girls,” they would view them as equals and play ball.

See Sultzbach’s interview on PoliticsNation with Al Sharpton.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Follow me on Twitter and Like me on Facebook.

This story is multi-faceted with so many different angles, causes and repercussions, I wanted to put some them together to try to find some context.

First, let’s call these alleged crimes at Penn State what they are writes Tommy Christopher at Mediaite:

The nomenclature surrounding “sex crimes” is already hopelessly sterile, and the media routinely refers to cases of rape and sexual assault as “sex scandals,” but that makes it no less important to call them out every time they do it.

Sandusky is not accused of “having sex” with little boys, he is accused of raping them. In our civilization, “sex” with a child is not possible, since a child cannot consent to sex. As I half-listened to the news all day today, then, and I heard repeated references to “the Penn State sex scandal,” it pissed me off. It made my blood steam a little bit, like a hot cup of coffee.

(I would apply this criticism to the Dominique Strauss-Kahn alleged sexual assault which was often referred to as a “sex scandal.”)

Many have made the connection between the cover-up at Penn State and the Catholic Church’s cover-up of child molestation. Maureen Dowd made it in her Tuesday column in the New York Times:

Like the Roman Catholic Church, Penn State is an arrogant institution hiding behind its mystique. And sports, as my former fellow sports columnist at The Washington Star, David Israel, says, is “an insular world that protects its own, and operates outside of societal norms as long as victories and cash continue to flow bountifully.” Penn State rakes in $70 million a year from its football program.

Lawrence O’Donnell also discussed the failure of institutions and the people within them with with filmmaker Michael Moore on The Last Word.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

There was a lot of reaction on Twitter last night as protesters and rioters took to the streets at Penn State in support of Paterno.

@shayera tweeted:

Why don’t more abuse victims come forward? Just look at the scene at Penn State and I think you have an answer.

@ultraverified wrote:

I remember when college students protested against violations of civil rights, not to defend child molesters and their enablers.

LeVar Burton (yes, that LeVar Burton) tweeted:

Now might be an appropriate time for us to re-evaluate the importance we place on both collegiate and pro sports in this culture!

On this topic of college sports, Buzz Bissinger concluded in The Daily Beast that not only should the entire Penn State coaching staff go..

And so, frankly, should major college football and basketball as it exists now, rotten beyond repair, as has been pointed out a thousand times. Totally disconnected from the academic experience, they are insulated kingdoms with their own rules and reigns of terror because of the money they make, trading in illegal recruiting and illegal gifts and illegal favors, and now, thanks to Penn State, alleged sexual abuse of children by a former coach who must have assumed he would always be protected. Just like a Mafia soldier.

Except that the even the Mafia has higher moral standards.

In the DailyKos, Kevin Powell links the Penn State story to another big story of the week – the Herman Cain sexual harassment (sexual assault?) allegations. He laments, “what a disaster manhood is when it is unapologetically invested in power, privilege, patriarchy, sexism, and a reckless disregard for the safety and sanity of others, especially women and children.”

Every single year, it seems, some well-known man somewhere gets into trouble because of sex, money, drugs, or violence, or some combination thereof (and God only knows how many unknown males do likewise). It is always the same themes, just with a new cast of characters. Yesterday it was priests of the Catholic Church. Today it is the male leadership of Penn State. Yesterday it was Anthony Weiner and Charlie Sheen. Today it is Herman Cain.

He concludes:

If any good can come of the Cain and Penn State disasters it is my sincere hope that spaces and movements are created, finally, where we men can really begin to rethink what manhood can be, what manhood might be. Manhood that is not about power, privilege, and the almighty penis, but instead rooted in a sense of humanity, in peace, in love, in nonviolence, in honesty and transparency, in constant self-criticism and self-reflection, and in respect and honor of women and girls, again, as our equals; in spaces and movements where men and boys who might not be hyper-macho and sports fanatics like some us are not treated as outcasts, as freaks, as less than men or boys. A manhood where if we see something bad happening, we say something, and not simply stick our heads in the sand and pretend that something did not happen. Or worse, yet, do something wrong ourselves, and when confronted with that wrongness, rather than confess, acknowledge, grow, heal, evolve, we instead dig in our heels and imagine ourselves in an all-out war, proclaiming our innocence to any who will listen, even as truth grows, like tall and daunting trees in a distant and darkened woods, about us.

Layers and perspectives will surely develop as the more details emerge from the story. What I think these views show is not just a breakdown in the system at Penn State, but a breakdown of institutions having any consideration for individuals as human beings. When the culture at a university or a church (a church!) prioritizes the perpetuation of itself instead of children, then something is deeply wrong with the people who run the institution.

There’s something to the O’Donnell/Moore interview about how this breakdown happens over and over again. Institutions, corporations, and business are made up of many people. The cultures at those entities are made by the people within them. So, why is it that so many men (it’s often men) can turn a blind eye to repeated and flagrant misdeeds? Part of it is greed, but where did breakdown with these men occur that allowed greed and the need to be right to make them turn away from helping their fellow human being?

Powell suggested “creating spaces and movements” to address this. We must crawl before we can walk, but spaces won’t suffice. If this culture of masculinity is embedded in so many men from childhood, change on this front will require movements. To create a culture where it doesn’t contribute to tragedies like these, masculinity will have to redefined and recreated from the ground up.

I’m not an expert on football, but there are probably a ton of reasons why it’s so appealing to Americans. One might be the combination of power and strength that is seen as representative of the ideal American male. Another, which I’ve written about, is the violence involved in the game.

The effect of that appeal is quantifiable: An estimated 100 million people will watch the Super Bowl. Yes, 100 million is the number that’s thrown around every year at this time, but think about that for a minute. That’s about one in three Americans who will share this event simultaneously. With media fragmented over different platforms, channels, stations and websites, it’s remarkable that so many Americans share this same experience at the same time.

It’s not just the Super Bowl that’s popular. Americans have been watching football throughout the season, too. This was the first year that every primetime football game won its time slot. And it’s not just men who are watching football. Women make up about a third of NFL viewers and Sunday Night Football on NBC was the third highest rated show of the season for women 18-49 years old.

There are probably more reasons. Scheduling probably helps: It’s easier to get an individual to watch the 16 regular season football games that are played on Sundays, than to get that same person to watch the dozens of basketball or baseball games that occur during the workweek. But it’s more than just scheduling that keeps Americans coming back to football.

What do you think? Why is football so popular in America? Are you going to watch the Super Bowl tonight? Why?

See also: Mind-Boggling

I was at the gym when coverage of the Masters was wrapping up on TV. When watching TV on mute (or close to mute), the images can speak to the viewer more than when the sound is turned up. At the gym, I was watching pictures and video of this year’s winner, Phil Mickelson, hugging his wife, Amy, who is battling cancer. (Mickelson’s mother also has cancer.) For someone who doesn’t follow golf and wouldn’t have been able to point out Mickelson if he passed me on the street, I was touched sitting there in the gym resting between my sets.

It was great video for the folks at the Masters and CBS, who broadcasted the event. The warm, fuzzy moment was great TV. After all the speculation about how Tiger might perform because of the scandal and the scandal itself looming over coverage of the tournament, it was a guy with a backstory that pulls at the heartstrings who won the weekend.

It would’ve been odd if Tiger won. The win would’ve been great for his career and a step towards the comeback of his image. A win is a win. In light of the sex scandal, though, Woods would’ve looked like an ass if he celebrated exuberantly with his trademark fist-pumping. His wife Elin wasn’t at the tournament. Even if she were, I don’t think there would have been a warm embrace.

All of this, of course, has little to do with actually playing golf. But how viewers feel about winners can impact how they feel about a sport. On Sunday, the golf world could put the scandal behind them – maybe even let out a sigh of relief – and have a feel-good moment.

..until Tiger plays again.

The resurrection of the Tiger Woods Brand began Friday with his televised apology. Woods seemed sincere, but the mea culpa to his fans, sponsors and the general public is secondary to something else.

He must win at golf.

The most important part of Tiger’s brand is being a golfer who wins. Yes, his image as wholesome family man helped him be a pitchman, inspiration to kids and known as an all-around good guy. All of that, though, was based on him being a golf champion.

His apology was a good first step to bring reality in sync with what his image was before seemingly countless women came forward to say they slept with Tiger. The biggest step, though, will be when Tiger competes. If he can dominate on the golf course, then he will be “back.” If he can’t, The Tiger Woods Brand will be a contrite face on the memory of a once-great golfing career.

The controversy over what ads CBS has decided to show and what they rejected is important, though. Those decisions over what an expected 90 million people will see says a lot about CBS’s and the NFL’s points of view. It also says a lot about what they think the 90 million viewers want to see.

The network rejected ads from ManCrunch, a gay dating website, and the web domain and hosting firm GoDaddy, whose ads have been rejected from previous Super Bowl broadcasts. CBS has agreed, though, to air a pro-life ad from conservative group Focus on the Family featuring Heisman Trophy winner Tim Tebow. There have been sexy ads that have aired during previous Super Bowls, including some from GoDaddy, and there will surely be some this year. There’s very little flesh in either the ManCrunch or GoDaddy ads, though. This seems to be more about sexuality than straight-up sex.

In the ManCrunch ad, two guy’s guys are on a couch watching a football game. Their hands touch over a bowl of potato chips, they share a glance and then they start making out. It’s nothing racier than something you might see on a late night sketch comedy (and apparently it’s already been done there). Here’s the ad:

In the GoDaddy ad, you have a gruff looking footballer who retires, comes out of the closet after leaving football, is flamboyantly gay, and starts a lingerie line using GoDaddy’s services:

See a pattern?

Two NFL-lovers who, while watching the game, realize they themselves want to be lovers. In the other ad, an ex-football player leaves the game and comes out of the closet.

Dan Neil says in the Los Angeles Times that there could be something going on here.

The subtext in both [commercials] is that football itself is, well, kind of gay.

…American football strikes me as a pretty homoerotic spectacle, beginning with the hypertrophic masculinity of the male form in tight pants and huge shoulder pads and ending with the most undignified gesture in all of sports, the hands-between-the-cheeks snap of the ball. Hike, indeed…The pats on the fanny, the showering together, the endlessly rolling around in the dirt. All things considered, I think figure skating is more butch…If I were one of football’s guardians, I might be a little touchy about it. Perhaps that is at the root of the ads’ dismissal.

Maybe. If Neil’s supposition is correct and the subtext (intentional or not) of both commercials is that football is “kind of gay,” no one had to make a big deal about it. CBS or the NFL could’ve just shrugged, laughed it off, or ignored it, but still aired the ad. Instead, CBS pulled it. So, was someone worried about the NFL being offended? Did someone worry about viewers being offended? CBS puts out generic statements when ads are rejected which read something something like the ad is “not within the broadcast standards for Super Bowl Sunday.” So, we don’t know.

Let’s get to the pro-life ad. It hasn’t been released yet, but it reportedly has Tebow’s mother talking about when she was sick while pregnant in the Philippines. She was told she should terminate the pregnancy, but she decided to keep the baby. Tim was born and grew-up to be a Heisman Trophy winner. The ad reportedly ends with “Celebrate Family, Celebrate Life.”

Is that going to play with a Super Bowl audience? How’s it going to fit with the violent – um, action movie trailers, sports cars and buxom women selling beer? Will the ad fit in with the game itself that has 250-300lb men slamming into each other at top speed?

It’s one of the strange things about America. Violence, on some level, is ok. Most sex, is not. On it’s face, it seems antithetical that a violent, macho game would have an ad that’s supposed to “Celebrate Family, Celebrate Life.”

The powers that be – not just those at CBS and the NFL, but also those in Washington – think the Super Bowl is an event that every American family should be able to enjoy. Remember how everyone flipped-out over the Jackson/Timberlake Wardrobe Malfunction in 2004?

Celebrate Football. Celebrate Family.

When 90 million people are watching, celebrating anything other than violence, in movies or on the field, or heterosexual sex, within marriage for the sole purpose of making babies, is unacceptable.

Neil also says in his piece, “The [ManCrunch] ad’s real transgression is to imply that football-loving straight men, the sort who high-five after touchdowns, might under the right circumstances act out sexually with another man.” Someone saying that gay sex is possible by the very men who are watching the Super Bowl is out of the question. Making that implication to almost 1/3 of the American population would be pretty ballsy.

This whole thing reminds me of something Bill Maher said a few years ago about how Americans who are homophobic really don’t have an issue with lesbian sex. They have a problem with gay male sex. “In America, when a man puts something in another man, it had better be a bullet.”

Violence is ok for family time. Straight sex is ok, too. Sex between two men is a no-no.

What do you think?

Are CBS and/or the NFL too conservative? Are they being anti-gay?

Is CBS being careful because of the Jackson/Timberlake Wardrobe Malfunction?

Does CBS have to be ideologically fair or neutral when choosing the ads that run on it’s air?

Leave a comment below.

UPDATE: I saw the Tebow/Focus On The Family commercial. With the exception of the “Celebrate Life” tagline at the end, it wasn’t overtly pro-life. I’m not sure what the controversy was for. It would have been easy to release the ad before the game to show how benign it was. It makes me wonder if the ad wasn’t revealed so it could be hyped. By doing that, everyone would be talking about the abortion issue and the ad itself. And since so many people know about the controversy, there wouldn’t be a need to say anything explicitly pro-life. It’s implied. Or did the controversy make CBS decide to have Focus On The Family pull back on the more blatantly pro-life rhetoric?

Thoughts?

But football is a violent sport that can cause great physical injury to players. That was proven again when Miami Dolphins quarterback Pat White collided with Pittsburgh Steelers cornerback Ike Taylor on Sunday. Though he appeared motionless at first, he was finally talking and moving his arms and legs by the time he was taken off the field. (White was seen at in the Dolphins locker room on Monday and is reported to have suffered a “likely concussion.”)

The other quarterbacks in the game were having a rough time, too. White, a rookie quarterback, replaced starting quarterback Chad Henne who was out with an eye injury due to a hit in the first half of the game. Steelers quarterback Ben Roethlisberger has been knocked around in the last few years, too. He’s had four concussions since 2006. Pardon the pun, but it’s mind-boggling that so many injuries, particularly head injuries, are tolerated in football.

Some doctors are taking notice, though. Hard hits to the head are being linked to depression and dementia later in life. A “60 Minutes” report sited a study commissioned by the NFL showing that football players are 19 times more likely than the general public to develop dementia, Alzheimer’s or other memory problems before they turn 50. The report also looks at the incidence of chronic traumatic encephalopathy, or CTE, in former football players. CTE is a degenerative brain disease that causes dementia. It can only be diagnosed after death when the brain can be dissected. CTE is triggered by brain trauma early in life, but can slowly and quietly progress until dementia and other problem develop decades later. See the “60 Minutes” story here:

Watch CBS News Videos Online

The NFL is in the process of deciding if any safety changes should be made to helmets and other aspects of the game. Regardless of those changes, football will still be a violent game. There will still be 200 to 300-lb. men hitting each other at top speed. Players will twist limbs, break bones and get knocked out. Occasionally a player will suffer a serious injury. At this point, though, players and fans accept those injuries as a part of the sport.

That acceptance is interesting. Children are allowed – encouraged! – to participate in football. Little kids idolize the professional players of this violent game. It’s also seen as a “way out” of poverty, as illustrated in The Blind Side. And achieving NFL stardom – which means being able to avoid some big hits and withstand others – is a measure of success.

But does that success have a price? I really don’t have anything against football. I haven’t followed pro football in years, but I generally tune in for the Super Bowl. I just find this remarkable because it’s another example of the types and levels of violence and injury Americans will tolerate. Thousands of people die every year in the U.S. in auto accidents and from firearms, but heads would explode all over the country if there were serious limits to cars and guns.

American football can never get away from its violent and injurious roots. Only a few rules could change before it ceases to become “football” as we know it. The fans don’t seem to want it to change, anyway. Pressure from them is probably the only thing (except a law) that would significantly change the game.

Until then, the hits will keep coming.