Another Gender Topic

 Pages 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT
 

I can almost hear the audible groans and exasperated sighs, so I'm just going to preface this by saying while I hope this time around will be different, I don't expect it. Ok, onto the subject at hand...

An article that was forwarded to me in an email by a friend from askmen.com:

http://www.askmen.com/entertainment/austin/coed-teenage-football.html

The article in full if you don't want to check the link. So, I'd like to get everyones opinions on this. On the general subject of co-ed sports, whether it's ok, or good, to seperate the sexes at some point, on the schools reaction, and on the author's take on the situation.

At this time, having just read the article, and not having mulled it over for an extended period of time or really having applied critical thought to it, the author's take on the situation seems to be a reasonable one. So I'll punt this one to ya'll, hopefully I can get some good returns[1].

[1] I couldn't resist the pun

In b4 the tide of people saying that they know this one girl who's really hench and could easily pound most guys they know into the dust.

In every competitive arena I've observed or competed in the strength differential between males and females is just ridiculous, even given the same amount of training. I have no idea what the precise biological factors are that lead to this, but I am quite happy to accept the general "Men are stronger than women" argument when it comes to situations (such as sports or the military or police or whatever) where extraneous factors such as diet and time dedicated to practice are minimised.

So I would have been OK if they'd just said, "Yeah, no, she has to go in the girl's team now because the boys are about to gain 40kgs in 4 years. Sorry."

But no, they had to bash men instead. It's this weird low expectation of men which manifests itself as limiting women. It's the same sort of logic as burqas. Unfortunately for me, it means that I can't complain about the offence it causes me because it leads to actual restrictions on women.

It's a lose-Lose situation.

I wish people would just hurry up and accept that men and women are practically the same on a personal level so that the large-scale generalizations that lead to stuff like this (although not this) will go away. Things like "Men are hornier than women," etc.. etc.. It lowers the bar for men and restricts women in such a self-fulfilling combination of ways it drives me nuts.

EDIT: The above is a departure from my normal coherence because these subjects expose the chip on my shoulder. Tangents ahoy!

Ahh the old "here's some bullshit I agree with but I didn't actually write it so you can't hold me to account!" type thread. The article itself is just full of needless hyperbole, skewed logic and a generally weird outlook as well as plenty of strawmanning.

Axolotl:
Ahh the old "here's some bullshit I agree with but I didn't actually write it so you can't hold me to account!" type thread. The article itself is just full of needless hyperbole, skewed logic and a generally weird outlook as well as plenty of strawmanning.

Some elaboration would be appreciated. I am perfectly fine with anyone taking me to task for something I agree with, even if I didn't write the original article, all I ask is that specifics are given, and reasoning explained. It's rather difficult for me to understand what your position is here. Which part is bullshit? Can you point out the hyperbole, and explain why you feel the logic is skewed, as well as who the author is strawmanning? As I stated in the original post, I had just read the article, and hadn't put any heavy thought into it yet. I'm not above changing my opinion on something.

Strikes me as a load of bullshit honestly.

But the backlash itself is also concerning. Discarding the boneheaded reasoning, anyone taking issue with her dismissal is telling boys that wanting to take part in anything that isn't 100% gender-neutral and rainbows and daisies makes them wrong, or bad people. That, to me, is just as troubling.

From my understanding of the article, the whole point of the backlash was that it centered around this "impure thoughts" excuse. I don't see how you can extrapolate that boys are being told they're bad people for not participating in strictly gender neutral activities. If the school had given any other reason, like that she had gotten too old to continue playing co-ed, no one would care. It's not the idea of gender segregation in sport that people have a problem with.

We can't on one hand bemoan the end of men and then on the other fight to eliminate or gender-neutralize things that are havens for men.

What are havens for men? Sports? Politics? The sciences? Mathematics? The army? We shouldn't try to "gender-neutralize" these things because it might mean the "end of men"?

What do you say, then, to the 280-pound teenage boy whose job it is to tackle the ball carrier, who in this hypothetical happens to be a girl? Don't hit her too hard, so you don't kill her?

How about you say "Go read a fucking book". The writer is more concerned with vague, implicit messages being sent to boys regarding what they ought to feel guilty about. But the hero worship of American footballers, the very explicit presumption that it's not just acceptable, but impressive for men to take part in violent behaviour, is apparently fine. But no! If you suggest teaching boys that being aggressive and hyper competitive isn't good, it must mean you want to turn them into women, and what could be worse than that.

manic_depressive13:
-snip-

These are the sorts of criticisms I was looking for, and I appreciate the different angle you looked at the article from. On my first read I had missed this stuff, as most of the article seemed pretty reasonable, I hadn't really delved into the implications behind some of what he said.

I can say from personal experience in co-ed sports(College Intramural) that even when there is absolutely no contact or roughness in a sport, males tend to always absolutely dominate females, its so bad that in a lot of these sports females get two points for scoring as opposed to one for males. To me this is just insulting to females as its saying, "Yeah, you aren't as good, so we're giving them an incentive to let you touch the ball." Are the exceptions? Sure, but they are few and far between as far as general athleticism is concerned. (This is a military college btw)

On the flip side, I see no reason for there being a Male and Female shooting team. I know women tend to actually shoot better then men due to their tendency not to fuck around with guns before any training, but that is usually overcome over time so I don't see how sex comes into it.

As for the talk of Gender Neutralizing activities such as football, thats a mixed bag for me. On one hand I can definitely see why people would be concerned over the issue as when something thats traditionally a boys club becomes co-ed, there are immediately a million new "Thou shall nots". At least 950,000 of these are things that men do among other men that have a high chance of alienating, offending, or disgusting any female in the area. That is why men do these things in these boys clubs and among other men, not anywhere else. Most of you guys know exactly what I mean.

I can also see why there is a strong argument to allow females who want to participate in these activities. These days its generally seen as pretty discriminatory to say someone can't do something based solely on sex. Why should someone be limited from doing something if they are totally capable of succeeding in it?

I think the root of the problem actually probably stems from the perception from many women that gaining entry and being a part of traditionally male activities and groups is a badge of honor. On the other side, for a man to hold a role seen as feminine is shameful, and men do not strive to enter things that are seen as Girls Clubs, because in general they just have zero desire to. This of course does not just apply to sports, but to society as a whole, and it has a no real signs of changing soon.

The reason is BS, but it might be a flowery way of saying "we want to avoid potential sexual harassment issues." Still, that is the worst reason they could possibly give.

On the topic on co-ed sports, I don't mind in non-contact sports (baseball, soccer, volleyball, tennis, etc etc) but not the rougher sports such as hockey or (American) tackle football. You can still easily play (American) football coed if you do flag or touch.

In the rougher sports, no I wouldn't want it to be Co-ed because I would be too afraid to hurt women to be able to concentrate on the game, let alone enjoy playing it.

Co-ed wrestling? Yea my mind is going to be somewhere COMPLETELY else.

If a girl can compete on an equal level with her male counterparts at any god damn age, I say let her continue to play. The idea that men need a "haven" is absolute bullshit. Men don't need to be coddled and protected from the scary women. If anything, they need to be exposed to more women. Maybe then, more men will move away from the BS and stereotypes that are forced upon them by society all their lives. So, in conclusion... Fuck traditional gender roles. Fuck them to hell, nobody needs that crap.

I think we all agree that the "impure thoughts" excuse is nonsense. It has yet to be seen if the girl in question can't keep up with the boys. Perhaps one day she will no longer be able to, but for right now if she can keep up why not let her? Sure, not every girl would be able to do it, but not every guy can do it either. So if she has the build, the speed, and the drive, let her. With the right training she'd probably be fine through middle school anyway. I'd say just let the coach take note of how she well she performs, and if it looks like the boys are significantly outpacing her then worry about taking her off the team.

Ryotknife:
The reason is BS, but it might be a flowery way of saying "we want to avoid potential sexual harassment issues." Still, that is the worst reason they could possibly give.

On the topic on co-ed sports, I don't mind in non-contact sports (baseball, soccer, volleyball, tennis, etc etc) but not the rougher sports such as hockey or (American) tackle football. You can still easily play (American) football coed if you do flag or touch.

In the rougher sports, no I wouldn't want it to be Co-ed because I would be too afraid to hurt women to be able to concentrate on the game, let alone enjoy playing it.

Co-ed wrestling? Yea my mind is going to be somewhere COMPLETELY else.

If the issues are yours I think you're the one that shouldn't be in the sport. Your lack of discipline in it shouldn't be keeping others out.

I agree that men are going to excel at particular sports, specifically football, at a much greater rate than women, but...

Danny Ocean:

So I would have been OK if they'd just said, "Yeah, no, she has to go in the girl's team now because the boys are about to gain 40kgs in 4 years. Sorry."

That's not a better reason at all. Because she's not going to be able to keep up in the future she shouldn't be allowed to play while she can keep up? Let her have fun while she still can. When the day comes that she can no longer meet the cut, then so be it. There's no need to artificially disqualify her.

Master of the Skies:

Ryotknife:
The reason is BS, but it might be a flowery way of saying "we want to avoid potential sexual harassment issues." Still, that is the worst reason they could possibly give.

On the topic on co-ed sports, I don't mind in non-contact sports (baseball, soccer, volleyball, tennis, etc etc) but not the rougher sports such as hockey or (American) tackle football. You can still easily play (American) football coed if you do flag or touch.

In the rougher sports, no I wouldn't want it to be Co-ed because I would be too afraid to hurt women to be able to concentrate on the game, let alone enjoy playing it.

Co-ed wrestling? Yea my mind is going to be somewhere COMPLETELY else.

If the issues are yours I think you're the one that shouldn't be in the sport. Your lack of discipline in it shouldn't be keeping others out.

im guessing that snide attack was about the wrestling joke at the end. Also, no one is suggesting people from being kept out from a sport other than you.

Ryotknife:

Master of the Skies:

Ryotknife:
The reason is BS, but it might be a flowery way of saying "we want to avoid potential sexual harassment issues." Still, that is the worst reason they could possibly give.

On the topic on co-ed sports, I don't mind in non-contact sports (baseball, soccer, volleyball, tennis, etc etc) but not the rougher sports such as hockey or (American) tackle football. You can still easily play (American) football coed if you do flag or touch.

In the rougher sports, no I wouldn't want it to be Co-ed because I would be too afraid to hurt women to be able to concentrate on the game, let alone enjoy playing it.

Co-ed wrestling? Yea my mind is going to be somewhere COMPLETELY else.

If the issues are yours I think you're the one that shouldn't be in the sport. Your lack of discipline in it shouldn't be keeping others out.

im guessing that snide attack was about the wrestling joke at the end. Also, no one is suggesting people from being kept out from a sport other than you.

You're the one who said you mind in rougher sports and said 'You can still easily play football coed if you do flag or touch'. Implying the other was not a possibility. You also say "I wouldn't want it co-ed".

Master of the Skies:

Ryotknife:

Master of the Skies:

If the issues are yours I think you're the one that shouldn't be in the sport. Your lack of discipline in it shouldn't be keeping others out.

im guessing that snide attack was about the wrestling joke at the end. Also, no one is suggesting people from being kept out from a sport other than you.

You're the one who said you mind in rougher sports and said 'You can still easily play football coed if you do flag or touch'. Implying the other was not a possibility. You also say "I wouldn't want it co-ed".

not wanting to play co-ed rough sport =/= women shouldn't play X sport. I also made suggestions on how coed version of those typically rough sports could easily work by taking the rough part out of the sport with flag or touch football. Typically American schools do not play the rougher sports in gym.

You say its because of my lack of discipline. Okay with my wrestling quip you would have a point. But in American football or hockey it is because of my discipline that I don't want it to be coed. My parents instilled in me to never hurt a woman. A lesson that is not that uncommon in the US judging by how many men refuse to defend themselves if attacked by women. With my height and build it would be easy for me to toss the average woman around like a ragdoll in hockey or football. As such I will go out of my way to avoid hurting a female player in a full contact sport to the point where I will endanger my own health even when it is impractical to do so.

The idea of initiating violence against women makes me uneasy. I suppose you could say that's sexist, but its not an aspect of myself that's going to change.

Ryotknife:

Master of the Skies:

Ryotknife:

im guessing that snide attack was about the wrestling joke at the end. Also, no one is suggesting people from being kept out from a sport other than you.

You're the one who said you mind in rougher sports and said 'You can still easily play football coed if you do flag or touch'. Implying the other was not a possibility. You also say "I wouldn't want it co-ed".

not wanting to play co-ed rough sport =/= women shouldn't play X sport. I also made suggestions on how coed version of those typically rough sports could easily work by taking the rough part out of the sport with flag or touch football. Typically American schools do not play the rougher sports in gym.

In which case you were unclear. You did not say "I wouldn't participate". You said "I wouldn't want it to be co-ed". The suggestions seem quite unnecessary if you're not saying that there shouldn't be co-ed.

You say its because of my lack of discipline. Okay with my wrestling quip you would have a point. But in American football or hockey it is because of my discipline that I don't want it to be coed. My parents instilled in me to never hurt a woman. A lesson that is not that uncommon in the US judging by how many men refuse to defend themselves if attacked by women. With my height and build it would be easy for me to toss the average woman around like a ragdoll in hockey or football. As such I will go out of my way to avoid hurting a female player in a full contact sport to the point where I will endanger my own health even when it is impractical to do so.

Refusal to change is the lack of discipline. Endangering your own health instead of playing properly is a lack of discipline. If you'll endanger yourself then you are the one who should not be playing for refusing to play properly.

The idea of initiating violence against women makes me uneasy

Refusing to get over it when in a sport is a lack of discipline. It's no better excuse than "I'm too tired", "Eww, I'll sweat" or any such minor concern.

I suppose you could say that's sexist, but its not an aspect of myself that's going to change.

It is sexist, and it's a reason you should be disallowed from co-ed sports given what you've said. Between you and a woman who would want to play, you're the one who wants their personal desires to be given the most weight as opposed to equality.

Ryotknife:

Master of the Skies:

Ryotknife:

im guessing that snide attack was about the wrestling joke at the end. Also, no one is suggesting people from being kept out from a sport other than you.

You're the one who said you mind in rougher sports and said 'You can still easily play football coed if you do flag or touch'. Implying the other was not a possibility. You also say "I wouldn't want it co-ed".

not wanting to play co-ed rough sport =/= women shouldn't play X sport. I also made suggestions on how coed version of those typically rough sports could easily work by taking the rough part out of the sport with flag or touch football. Typically American schools do not play the rougher sports in gym.

You say its because of my lack of discipline. Okay with my wrestling quip you would have a point. But in American football or hockey it is because of my discipline that I don't want it to be coed. My parents instilled in me to never hurt a woman. A lesson that is not that uncommon in the US judging by how many men refuse to defend themselves if attacked by women. With my height and build it would be easy for me to toss the average woman around like a ragdoll in hockey or football. As such I will go out of my way to avoid hurting a female player in a full contact sport to the point where I will endanger my own health even when it is impractical to do so.

The idea of initiating violence against women makes me uneasy

Dude, they are there by their own free will. They know the risks and they have signed up for it. If a really scrawny male faced you in a football game, would you hold back or run him over?

Realitycrash:

Ryotknife:

Master of the Skies:

You're the one who said you mind in rougher sports and said 'You can still easily play football coed if you do flag or touch'. Implying the other was not a possibility. You also say "I wouldn't want it co-ed".

not wanting to play co-ed rough sport =/= women shouldn't play X sport. I also made suggestions on how coed version of those typically rough sports could easily work by taking the rough part out of the sport with flag or touch football. Typically American schools do not play the rougher sports in gym.

You say its because of my lack of discipline. Okay with my wrestling quip you would have a point. But in American football or hockey it is because of my discipline that I don't want it to be coed. My parents instilled in me to never hurt a woman. A lesson that is not that uncommon in the US judging by how many men refuse to defend themselves if attacked by women. With my height and build it would be easy for me to toss the average woman around like a ragdoll in hockey or football. As such I will go out of my way to avoid hurting a female player in a full contact sport to the point where I will endanger my own health even when it is impractical to do so.

The idea of initiating violence against women makes me uneasy

Dude, they are there by their own free will. They know the risks and they have signed up for it. If a really scrawny male faced you in a football game, would you hold back or run him over?

doesn't really matter if they know the risks if society will treat me like an A-hole regardless if I hurt her, even accidently. I really don't want to be known as a woman beater for obvious reasons.

Master of the Skies:
snip

Holding yourself back...and refusing to hurt someone...is a lack of discipline.

Well you learn something new everyday.

Ryotknife:

Master of the Skies:
snip

Holding yourself back...and refusing to hurt someone...is a lack of discipline.

Well you learn something new everyday.

Holding yourself back and refusing to hurt someone as much as you would hurt other people, to the point you said you would endanger yourself, based on some personal whim is a lack of discipline. When you're playing a game that involves hurting people to some degree and you refuse to do so at all for particular people, you're the problem. Refusing out of a personal whim is what's lacking in discipline. It's not some kind of desire to never hurt anyone because you're already hurting people, so please don't insult everyone by trying to pass it off as that.

I'm somewhat disappointed. I actually expected honest discussion and instead I get someone trying to reduce what I say, and leave out all the relevant details to 'win'. Or something. Though it's not much of a win since it's a short enough thread people can see what you tried to pull.

Ryotknife:

Realitycrash:

Ryotknife:

not wanting to play co-ed rough sport =/= women shouldn't play X sport. I also made suggestions on how coed version of those typically rough sports could easily work by taking the rough part out of the sport with flag or touch football. Typically American schools do not play the rougher sports in gym.

You say its because of my lack of discipline. Okay with my wrestling quip you would have a point. But in American football or hockey it is because of my discipline that I don't want it to be coed. My parents instilled in me to never hurt a woman. A lesson that is not that uncommon in the US judging by how many men refuse to defend themselves if attacked by women. With my height and build it would be easy for me to toss the average woman around like a ragdoll in hockey or football. As such I will go out of my way to avoid hurting a female player in a full contact sport to the point where I will endanger my own health even when it is impractical to do so.

The idea of initiating violence against women makes me uneasy

Dude, they are there by their own free will. They know the risks and they have signed up for it. If a really scrawny male faced you in a football game, would you hold back or run him over?

doesn't really matter if they know the risks if society will treat me like an A-hole regardless if I hurt her, even accidently. I really don't want to be known as a woman beater for obvious reasons.

It's a sport. You aren't a woman-beater. Just as you aren't committing assault in boxing. I don't know any sport that allows both genders to play at the same time, though, so I guess the point is moot.
To derail a bit, I don't think your attitude towards 'never fighting a woman, even in self-defense' is a healthy one. It's really a tad sexist, akin to thinking that women are 'fragile creatures that need to be protected'.
I'm against hurting people, and if I can take someone down without hurting them (like small men, and 90% of all women), I certainly will. But against a big man, or a big woman, that is assaulting me, I have no problem fighting back.
It's about strength and size, not about gender. If a woman is equal in me in strength and size (and I know a few professional boxers that are, they train at my club) then why on earth is it a moral dilemma in defending myself? These women would LAUGH at my worries, and then beat the crap out of me.

Ryotknife:

Realitycrash:

Ryotknife:

not wanting to play co-ed rough sport =/= women shouldn't play X sport. I also made suggestions on how coed version of those typically rough sports could easily work by taking the rough part out of the sport with flag or touch football. Typically American schools do not play the rougher sports in gym.

You say its because of my lack of discipline. Okay with my wrestling quip you would have a point. But in American football or hockey it is because of my discipline that I don't want it to be coed. My parents instilled in me to never hurt a woman. A lesson that is not that uncommon in the US judging by how many men refuse to defend themselves if attacked by women. With my height and build it would be easy for me to toss the average woman around like a ragdoll in hockey or football. As such I will go out of my way to avoid hurting a female player in a full contact sport to the point where I will endanger my own health even when it is impractical to do so.

The idea of initiating violence against women makes me uneasy

Dude, they are there by their own free will. They know the risks and they have signed up for it. If a really scrawny male faced you in a football game, would you hold back or run him over?

doesn't really matter if they know the risks if society will treat me like an A-hole regardless if I hurt her, even accidently. I really don't want to be known as a woman beater for obvious reasons.

I would like the answer to that question as well, if you'd tackle a man then by all means you should be able to tackle a woman of the same size.

I think this shows a conflict between traditional values which tended to be on the sexist side (treating women better than you'd treat men) and the modern values in which everyone is equal. I was also raised by the traditional values but I have since adopted the modern ones.

OT: let her play, her choice. All football players know the risk so let them have their fun.

Realitycrash:

Ryotknife:

Realitycrash:

Dude, they are there by their own free will. They know the risks and they have signed up for it. If a really scrawny male faced you in a football game, would you hold back or run him over?

doesn't really matter if they know the risks if society will treat me like an A-hole regardless if I hurt her, even accidently. I really don't want to be known as a woman beater for obvious reasons.

It's a sport. You aren't a woman-beater. Just as you aren't committing assault in boxing. I don't know any sport that allows both genders to play at the same time, though, so I guess the point is moot.
To derail a bit, I don't think your attitude towards 'never fighting a woman, even in self-defense' is a healthy one. It's really a tad sexist, akin to thinking that women are 'fragile creatures that need to be protected'.
I'm against hurting people, and if I can take someone down without hurting them (like small men, and 90% of all women), I certainly will. But against a big man, or a big woman, that is assaulting me, I have no problem fighting back.
It's about strength and size, not about gender. If a woman is equal in me in strength and size (and I know a few professional boxers that are, they train at my club) then why on earth is it a moral dilemma in defending myself? These women would LAUGH at my worries, and then beat the crap out of me.

not trying to protect them, just going out of my way not to hurt them. There is a difference. Not going to jump in front of a bullet. I don't go around white knighting. If someone insults a woman I don't yell out "how dare thee you uncouth cur!"

If your female boxer acquaintances were beating up some scrawny guy im not going to start putting on my brass knuckles that I don't have and join in on beating him up. I would try to stop her from beating him up without hurting her though. If it was a life or death situation where I had to get violent to save his life, then I probably would (not that I would be able to do much against a professional boxer). If it was a life or death situation involving myself and a female assailant, I probably would defend myself. If it wasn't a life or death situation I probably would not.

Keep in mind, you are essentially trying to convince me to commit or be open minded to committing acts of violence/aggression against women, even though it is in the name of equality. If anything, you should be arguing for me to hold back against men just as much as I hold back against women (which Ive been doing as I get older)

Ryotknife:

Realitycrash:

Ryotknife:

doesn't really matter if they know the risks if society will treat me like an A-hole regardless if I hurt her, even accidently. I really don't want to be known as a woman beater for obvious reasons.

It's a sport. You aren't a woman-beater. Just as you aren't committing assault in boxing. I don't know any sport that allows both genders to play at the same time, though, so I guess the point is moot.
To derail a bit, I don't think your attitude towards 'never fighting a woman, even in self-defense' is a healthy one. It's really a tad sexist, akin to thinking that women are 'fragile creatures that need to be protected'.
I'm against hurting people, and if I can take someone down without hurting them (like small men, and 90% of all women), I certainly will. But against a big man, or a big woman, that is assaulting me, I have no problem fighting back.
It's about strength and size, not about gender. If a woman is equal in me in strength and size (and I know a few professional boxers that are, they train at my club) then why on earth is it a moral dilemma in defending myself? These women would LAUGH at my worries, and then beat the crap out of me.

not trying to protect them, just going out of my way not to hurt them. There is a difference. Not going to jump in front of a bullet. I don't go around white knighting. If someone insults a woman I don't yell out "how dare thee you uncouth cur!"

If your female boxer acquaintances were beating up some scrawny guy im not going to start putting on my brass knuckles that I don't have and join in on beating him up. I would try to stop her from beating him up without hurting her though. If it was a life or death situation where I had to get violent to save his life, then I probably would (not that I would be able to do much against a professional boxer). If it was a life or death situation involving myself and a female assailant, I probably would defend myself. If it wasn't a life or death situation I probably would not.

Keep in mind, you are essentially trying to convince me to commit or be open minded to committing acts of violence/aggression against women, even though it is in the name of equality.

It's the downside of equality but it's what women want. For so long they've fought to be equal to men and nobody ever mentions the downsides to equality.

Xan Krieger:

Ryotknife:

Realitycrash:

It's a sport. You aren't a woman-beater. Just as you aren't committing assault in boxing. I don't know any sport that allows both genders to play at the same time, though, so I guess the point is moot.
To derail a bit, I don't think your attitude towards 'never fighting a woman, even in self-defense' is a healthy one. It's really a tad sexist, akin to thinking that women are 'fragile creatures that need to be protected'.
I'm against hurting people, and if I can take someone down without hurting them (like small men, and 90% of all women), I certainly will. But against a big man, or a big woman, that is assaulting me, I have no problem fighting back.
It's about strength and size, not about gender. If a woman is equal in me in strength and size (and I know a few professional boxers that are, they train at my club) then why on earth is it a moral dilemma in defending myself? These women would LAUGH at my worries, and then beat the crap out of me.

not trying to protect them, just going out of my way not to hurt them. There is a difference. Not going to jump in front of a bullet. I don't go around white knighting. If someone insults a woman I don't yell out "how dare thee you uncouth cur!"

If your female boxer acquaintances were beating up some scrawny guy im not going to start putting on my brass knuckles that I don't have and join in on beating him up. I would try to stop her from beating him up without hurting her though. If it was a life or death situation where I had to get violent to save his life, then I probably would (not that I would be able to do much against a professional boxer). If it was a life or death situation involving myself and a female assailant, I probably would defend myself. If it wasn't a life or death situation I probably would not.

Keep in mind, you are essentially trying to convince me to commit or be open minded to committing acts of violence/aggression against women, even though it is in the name of equality.

It's the downside of equality but it's what women want. For so long they've fought to be equal to men and nobody ever mentions the downsides to equality.

You know, it always seems spiteful when people put it in those terms. It can't just be casual "Gender shouldn't be a concern, we're equal", it's gotta be "Hah yeah they asked for equality so let's give it to them!"

Ryotknife:

Realitycrash:

Ryotknife:

doesn't really matter if they know the risks if society will treat me like an A-hole regardless if I hurt her, even accidently. I really don't want to be known as a woman beater for obvious reasons.

It's a sport. You aren't a woman-beater. Just as you aren't committing assault in boxing. I don't know any sport that allows both genders to play at the same time, though, so I guess the point is moot.
To derail a bit, I don't think your attitude towards 'never fighting a woman, even in self-defense' is a healthy one. It's really a tad sexist, akin to thinking that women are 'fragile creatures that need to be protected'.
I'm against hurting people, and if I can take someone down without hurting them (like small men, and 90% of all women), I certainly will. But against a big man, or a big woman, that is assaulting me, I have no problem fighting back.
It's about strength and size, not about gender. If a woman is equal in me in strength and size (and I know a few professional boxers that are, they train at my club) then why on earth is it a moral dilemma in defending myself? These women would LAUGH at my worries, and then beat the crap out of me.

not trying to protect them, just going out of my way not to hurt them. There is a difference. Not going to jump in front of a bullet. I don't go around white knighting. If someone insults a woman I don't yell out "how dare thee you uncouth cur!"

If your female boxer acquaintances were beating up some scrawny guy im not going to start putting on my brass knuckles that I don't have and join in on beating him up. I would try to stop her from beating him up without hurting her though. If it was a life or death situation where I had to get violent to save his life, then I probably would (not that I would be able to do much against a professional boxer). If it was a life or death situation involving myself and a female assailant, I probably would defend myself. If it wasn't a life or death situation I probably would not.

Keep in mind, you are essentially trying to convince me to commit or be open minded to committing acts of violence/aggression against women, even though it is in the name of equality. If anything, you should be arguing for me to hold back against men just as much as I hold back against women (which Ive been doing as I get older)

I'm not trying to convince you to commit acts of violence against ANYONE. I am arguing that yes, you should hold back equally for both sexes.

Bottom-line: To refuse to hurt someone based on sex is sexist. If you want to refuse to hurt someone, refuse to hurt them depending on size or ability to fight back. Treat a fragile woman and a fragile man the same, and a buff woman and a buff man the same.

Realitycrash:

Bottom-line: To refuse to hurt someone based on sex is sexist. If you want to refuse to hurt someone, refuse to hurt them depending on size or ability to fight back. Treat a fragile woman and a fragile man the same, and a buff woman and a buff man the same.

Is it? Really? I have a personal objection to "roughing it" with women (whether we're talking wrestling, boxing, American football, whatever) because in 90% of cases it won't be a level playing field. Not only that, but society will paint you as the bad guy if the woman comes off worse (not to mention crow about how you got "beaten by a woman" if she wins).

We segregate many physical sports for the same reason we often segregate by weight category and age: not out of a desire to exclude, but for fairness and commonsense safety. Put a 90lb guy and a 250lb guy in the boxing ring together, and assuming they're both fairly good, the little guy is at an immediate disadvantage; actually there's a very real risk of him sustaining serious injury.

What's the solution? Only let in girls who resemble men in stature and aggression, or, as some appear to be implying, get rid of any men who fight tougher and dirtier than the average woman? Both solutions are unsatisfactory. In one case we're paying lip service to the idea of inclusion by moving the bar from "no women allowed" to "only 0.5% of all women allowed", and in the other we're imposing a penalty on the majority.

Is the obvious solution not to just create a women's league for physical or contact sports?

Here's a case that echoes what I mentioned above: http://blogs.wsj.com/wsjam/2011/02/18/coed-wrestling-controversy/

Wall Street Journal:
I feel bad for the Iowa high school wrestler who defaulted in his first-round state tournament match yesterday because he was uncomfortable getting on the mat with a girl. I feel bad for the girl as well.

I also have tremendous respect for each. The boy, for taking a bold stand. The girl, for pursuing her passion.

A boy came up against a girl in a wrestling tournament and refused to fight her. Sexist, to be sure, inasmuch that he declined not based on her religion or skin colour but her sex. But did he act that way because he hates women? I'd argue no, he acted that way because he *likes* women, and probably thinks that the best way to show this is to not choke her, gouge her, squeeze her nuts when the ref isn't looking (hang on, let me rethink that) and throw her around until she submits. Does this kind of thing not present at least a little bit of cognitive dissonance for Feminists? On the one hand young boys have it drilled into them that violence against girls isn't OK, you should never use your size or aggression to get what you want from a girl, and in fact it's better to find non-violent solutions to conflict. Then you take this small part of a boys life where he is allowed to use physicality and violence, you put a girl in front of him, and you say "go crazy, champ". Exactly what part of smacking her around like a rag-doll is consistent with the social rules we've been enforcing thus far?

It's not just contact sports: the physical disparity between men and women is pronounced across the field, whether we consider power lifting or sprinting or tennis men just plain outperform women.

We won't have equality in sports until male and female physiology is equal.

Batou667:

Realitycrash:

Bottom-line: To refuse to hurt someone based on sex is sexist. If you want to refuse to hurt someone, refuse to hurt them depending on size or ability to fight back. Treat a fragile woman and a fragile man the same, and a buff woman and a buff man the same.

Is it? Really? I have a personal objection to "roughing it" with women (whether we're talking wrestling, boxing, American football, whatever) because in 90% of cases it won't be a level playing field. Not only that, but society will paint you as the bad guy if the woman comes off worse (not to mention crow about how you got "beaten by a woman" if she wins).

We segregate many physical sports for the same reason we often segregate by weight category and age: not out of a desire to exclude, but for fairness and commonsense safety. Put a 90lb guy and a 250lb guy in the boxing ring together, and assuming they're both fairly good, the little guy is at an immediate disadvantage; actually there's a very real risk of him sustaining serious injury.

What's the solution? Only let in girls who resemble men in stature and aggression, or, as some appear to be implying, get rid of any men who fight tougher and dirtier than the average woman? Both solutions are unsatisfactory. In one case we're paying lip service to the idea of inclusion by moving the bar from "no women allowed" to "only 0.5% of all women allowed", and in the other we're imposing a penalty on the majority.

Is the obvious solution not to just create a women's league for physical or contact sports?

Here's a case that echoes what I mentioned above: http://blogs.wsj.com/wsjam/2011/02/18/coed-wrestling-controversy/

Wall Street Journal:
I feel bad for the Iowa high school wrestler who defaulted in his first-round state tournament match yesterday because he was uncomfortable getting on the mat with a girl. I feel bad for the girl as well.

I also have tremendous respect for each. The boy, for taking a bold stand. The girl, for pursuing her passion.

A boy came up against a girl in a wrestling tournament and refused to fight her. Sexist, to be sure, inasmuch that he declined not based on her religion or skin colour but her sex. But did he act that way because he hates women? I'd argue no, he acted that way because he *likes* women, and probably thinks that the best way to show this is to not choke her, gouge her, squeeze her nuts when the ref isn't looking (hang on, let me rethink that) and throw her around until she submits. Does this kind of thing not present at least a little bit of cognitive dissonance for Feminists? On the one hand young boys have it drilled into them that violence against girls isn't OK, you should never use your size or aggression to get what you want from a girl, and in fact it's better to find non-violent solutions to conflict. Then you take this small part of a boys life where he is allowed to use physicality and violence, you put a girl in front of him, and you say "go crazy, champ". Exactly what part of smacking her around like a rag-doll is consistent with the social rules we've been enforcing thus far?

It's not just contact sports: the physical disparity between men and women is pronounced across the field, whether we consider power lifting or sprinting or tennis men just plain outperform women.

We won't have equality in sports until male and female physiology is equal.

I wasn't referring to sports, really, I was referring to fighting. In sports, you segregate to keep the sport fair. It's that simple.
If you, in any physical situation, deal with someone based on their sex, instead of their physical stature, then yes, it is sexist.
I know you have written a long post and all, but I don't have much to say more than what I have said.
Social roles dividing sexes are stupid.
"Don't hit a woman, son. It's bad" = Sexist.
"Don't hit someone smaller or weaker when you can walk away, or disarm them without causing harm, no matter what sex they are" = Not sexist.

Jux:

Axolotl:
Ahh the old "here's some bullshit I agree with but I didn't actually write it so you can't hold me to account!" type thread. The article itself is just full of needless hyperbole, skewed logic and a generally weird outlook as well as plenty of strawmanning.

Some elaboration would be appreciated. I am perfectly fine with anyone taking me to task for something I agree with, even if I didn't write the original article, all I ask is that specifics are given, and reasoning explained. It's rather difficult for me to understand what your position is here. Which part is bullshit? Can you point out the hyperbole, and explain why you feel the logic is skewed, as well as who the author is strawmanning? As I stated in the original post, I had just read the article, and hadn't put any heavy thought into it yet. I'm not above changing my opinion on something.

Well I'll put it like this without going into an indepth breakdown of the article which I don't have the time or inclination for. A charitable reading of what they're saying is "This individual case of a woman not being allowed to play is wrong but if we complain too much we may let women play when aren't physically able of doing so safely." which is essentially like saying "Gay marriage is alright but we shouldn't argue for it too much because then we'll legalise paedophilic marriage.". It's just arguing against something that nobodies arguing for and then linking it with something people do support to discredit it. The article itself is just too hyperbolic and strawman filled for me to take it on good faith. It's a guy arguing for a view while trying to claim he doesn't hold that view so you can't criticise him for it.

The official reason is stupid, the overall reasoning behind the decision is sound.
If we take professional football(soccer) then the average PRO male player is over 20CM higher, and 20Kg heavier than the average PRO female player.

I'm sorry but heaving competitive COED teams on any level beyond puberty is just "impossible", yes while the shirtless run after a goal that is just(well even more common) in female soccer might serve a a destruction, it's nothing compared to what a 20Kg and 20CM difference can do in sports.

Males on average are higher, heavier have higher percentage of muscle mass, and a bulkier body structure than females(the pelvic structure is very important for movement).
In every competitive sport males athlete out perform female athletes by quite a big margin, and considering the commercialization of both i don't see any reason why say a female runner that spent all her life training would yield lower results than her male counterpart other than nature.

I think my brain just dribbled out of my ears..

Why is this a gender issue at all?

Oh, but men are on average taller and heavier than.. sorry, I can't keep a straight face when I say that. Who cares? Who honestly gives a flying fuck how about how light or heavy different groups in society are on average?

The existence of 280 pound teenage boys does not mean that all teenage boys weigh 280 pounds. Why the fuck is it okay to allow a 280 pound boy to piledrive a 120 pound boy into the dirt in the name of sport but not a 120 pound girl? This is not the upper echelons of professional sport, we're not dealing with the absolute physical limitations of the human body, this is a bunch of kids running around with a ball. If someone can meet the (utterly negligible) physical requirements, why the hell shouldn't they be allowed to do that because people who share some irrelevant attribute with them are on average shorter.

image

"Sorry guys, I've just realized I can't actually play basketball because Chinese people are about 10cm shorter on average than Americans, therefore I am incapable of competing in this game and need to be protected from my own foolish desire to play it. I hope you understand."

You know what, at least the school was honest. At least the school was able to admit that the real issue for them is the (probably correct) idea that boys physically overpowering girls might develop sexual overtones, but then of course the article got one thing right. The boys in question are 12. The chances are they don't care.

Batou667:
I'd argue no, he acted that way because he *likes* women, and probably thinks that the best way to show this is to not choke her, gouge her, squeeze her nuts when the ref isn't looking (hang on, let me rethink that) and throw her around until she submits. Does this kind of thing not present at least a little bit of cognitive dissonance for Feminists?

I don't know. Does the fact that you clearly hate men and consider it acceptable for them to be choked, gouged and have their nuts squeezed cause any cognitive dissonance for you?

The girl wanted to be treated like a normal person, which in the context she was in meant competing with her as with anyone else. There's no hatred in that. If a male athlete wrestles a male athlete, does this mean he must be on some level self-loathing? If a white athlete wrestles a black athlete, does this mean Helter Skelter is here and it's time to start building that secret underground city?

No. There's no hatred in these behaviours, and thus abstaining from them shows no great appreciation. An athlete who refuses to compete with someone in a violent sport simply because they are a woman may do so because he "likes" women in some abstract sense, but in doing so he has also demonstrated contempt for women, he has refused to regard them as equivalent to himself. He has refused to accept that they are able to choose to undergo something that he himself would willingly choose to undergo.

Unfortunately, "liking" a class of person is not incompatible with feeling contempt towards them.

Verbatim:

In every competitive sport males athlete out perform female athletes by quite a big margin, and considering the commercialization of both i don't see any reason why say a female runner that spent all her life training would yield lower results than her male counterpart other than nature.

A part of the explanation might be that all-women teams on average has a lot less money to throw around and are always considered secondary to their all-men equivalents. This means that female athletes are much less likely to be able to make a living off their pro-level athleticism and will only get access to the good training equipment if the men aren't using it. Many top tier Swedish teams still doesn't have enough money to keep their female players hired as full-time players, which means many of them have to get part-time jobs, which results in much less training and that means less refined play than their male counterparts.

A good example of the problem is the Swedish handball club IK Sävehof. Their female team has won all but one Swedish Championship (SM short for Svenska Mästerskapet) since 2006 (they came in second in 2008), which makes them 5 year reigning champions and the indisputably best female handball team in Sweden. The key to their success? The coach of the men's team switched over to the women's team. When he did so he brought with him training, tactics and methods that weren't used in the women's SM before that. It gave the women's team a massive skill boost that most other women's teams in Sweden are still trying to catch up to.

Some of the difference is obviously biological in higher levels of sports competition, but let's not ignore the fact that womens athletics are nowhere near as highly regarded as mens.

Everybody, while the guys on the team quickly hitting their growth spurts and disproportionately outweighing her is a legitimate concern for her possible future on the team, it is not the reason that was apparently given. The reason given was "impure thoughts," which is an oddly and needlessly religious way of saying "We want to avoid sexual harassment." Which means they are worried the guys won't have the restraint to handle her on the team...so she's off the team.

Let me repeat that again. They are worried the guys aren't mature enough to handle a lady on the team, so they rectify the problem by removing the girl from the team. Rather than holding the guys to the kind of standards they should already be expected to uphold as students, athletes, and all-around decent human beings, they punish the girl by not letting her do what she wants. As someone else already pointed out, this is the same sort of logic that is used to excuse burqas. "Guys can't be expected to keep it in their pants...so limit what women can do to prevent the situations from happening."

That, my friends, is the real issue here. Not whether or not a female in a football game puts her at a risk of physical injury which is unacceptable (even when compared to the risk of a guy of her same weight and stature).

Gethsemani:

Verbatim:

In every competitive sport males athlete out perform female athletes by quite a big margin, and considering the commercialization of both i don't see any reason why say a female runner that spent all her life training would yield lower results than her male counterpart other than nature.

A part of the explanation might be that all-women teams on average has a lot less money to throw around and are always considered secondary to their all-men equivalents. This means that female athletes are much less likely to be able to make a living off their pro-level athleticism and will only get access to the good training equipment if the men aren't using it. Many top tier Swedish teams still doesn't have enough money to keep their female players hired as full-time players, which means many of them have to get part-time jobs, which results in much less training and that means less refined play than their male counterparts.

A good example of the problem is the Swedish handball club IK Sävehof. Their female team has won all but one Swedish Championship (SM short for Svenska Mästerskapet) since 2006 (they came in second in 2008), which makes them 5 year reigning champions and the indisputably best female handball team in Sweden. The key to their success? The coach of the men's team switched over to the women's team. When he did so he brought with him training, tactics and methods that weren't used in the women's SM before that. It gave the women's team a massive skill boost that most other women's teams in Sweden are still trying to catch up to.

Some of the difference is obviously biological in higher levels of sports competition, but let's not ignore the fact that womens athletics are nowhere near as highly regarded as mens.

I'm talking about Olympic sports, you really going to argue that males and females are "equal" physically?
Men are stronger and faster on average than female, that's nature.

evilthecat:
I don't know. Does the fact that you clearly hate men and consider it acceptable for them to be choked, gouged and have their nuts squeezed cause any cognitive dissonance for you?

Not really. If on the one hand I campaigned for violence against men to be recognised as a special and worse kind of violence than regular common-or-garden violence-against-women, and perhaps even claimed that violence and testosterone were Matriarchal in nature and should be discouraged in civilised society, and then on the other hand endorsed men getting beaten up, that might cause some contradiction.

No. There's no hatred in these behaviours, and thus abstaining from them shows no great appreciation. An athlete who refuses to compete with someone in a violent sport simply because they are a woman may do so because he "likes" women in some abstract sense, but in doing so he has also demonstrated contempt for women, he has refused to regard them as equivalent to himself. He has refused to accept that they are able to choose to undergo something that he himself would willingly choose to undergo.

It's not necessarily an act of dismissiveness or condescension. The guy in question might also have refused to fight somebody who was two weight categories below him, or a child, or an elderly man. Perhaps his upbringing and social expectations also had drilled it into him "don't raise a hand against a woman - treat a woman like a lady" and is that honestly such a bad thing? Don't feminists themselves call for less aggression in society and an end to violence against women? If mixed-sex wrestling and boxing was normalised, don't you think that would have a negative effect on how women are viewed in society?

If I was in this wrestler's place I may well do the same thing (or at the very least I'd be so self-conscious about not touching the girl in certain places, or not going too hard on her, that it'd resemble nothing like earnest competition). I'd rather be a pleasant sexist than beat up a girl in the name of equality.

 Pages 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked