Dueling genders

[Johnsteinbeck]

dear lord, i've never heard "straw man" over-used as much as around this board (in it's many re-incarnations). seriously, i think i'm going to go hit the roof next time i have to see it.


on topic, i just don't care any more. you're free to disagree regarding the comparability of wta and atp results - in fact, so do many other members, with good reasons behind it. it's just that they don't feel the need to insult and belittle at every possible instance.

 

[Kieran]

Yeah, the argument that men and women should compete with each other etc, is so silly and doesn't even have the benefit of being a humorous distraction. If you don't believe in equal pay for tennis stars - or if you do - this is not a line of questioning that makes any sense or helps. Women play women's tennis. That's what they get paid for.

The argument is whether or not women's tennis as a stand alone event is worth the same wages, not whether women can compete with men.

By the way, it's also unfair to use the fact that most people would watch Serena-Masha ahead of Ferrer-Gasquet, though I accept why this is said and the validity of it. But there's a familiar narrative to Serena-Masha that doesn't exist in Ferrer-Gasquet. Try pit like against like: the top 2 men or the top 2 women: which would most people watch?

And then, Ferrer-Gasquet or their WTA equivalents, which would most people watch?

Anyway, the argument is moot: I don't have strong feelings either way, though my gut instinct tells me that men's tennis is the default setting for most tennis/casual sports fans and the women's game is only periodically interesting, but never so compelling. That's me, and I accept that others see things differently...

 

[Ricardo]

dear lord, i've never heard "straw man" over-used as much as around this board (in it's many re-incarnations). seriously, i think i'm going to go hit the roof next time i have to see it.


on topic, i just don't care any more. you're free to disagree regarding the comparability of wta and atp results - in fact, so do many other members, with good reasons behind it. it's just that they don't feel the need to insult and belittle at every possible instance.

you find that insulting? want to hit the roof? then go right ahead, just don't tell everybody....

---

Yeah, the argument that men and women should compete with each other etc, is so silly and doesn't even have the benefit of being a humorous distraction. If you don't believe in equal pay for tennis stars - or if you do - this is not a line of questioning that makes any sense or helps. Women play women's tennis. That's what they get paid for.

The argument is whether or not women's tennis as a stand alone event is worth the same wages, not whether women can compete with men.

By the way, it's also unfair to use the fact that most people would watch Serena-Masha ahead of Ferrer-Gasquet, though I accept why this is said and the validity of it. But there's a familiar narrative to Serena-Masha that doesn't exist in Ferrer-Gasquet. Try pit like against like: the top 2 men or the top 2 women: which would most people watch?

And then, Ferrer-Gasquet or their WTA equivalents, which would most people watch?

Anyway, the argument is moot: I don't have strong feelings either way, though my gut instinct tells me that men's tennis is the default setting for most tennis/casual sports fans and the women's game is only periodically interesting, but never so compelling. That's me, and I accept that others see things differently...

women's tennis as stand-alone isn't worth the same money as men's, but if you combine them together then they get paid the same prize-money..... sounds like communism to me.

Tennis fans normally have preference in either ATP or WTA, the fact that they are forced to watch both, with mixed scheduling, is not nearly as enjoyable as if they were separate. They sell combined tickets so ATP and WTA players get paid the same and call it 'equality', yet when they can't separate (ie mens or women's finals) you see huge difference in sales.... and they still get paid the same. I've not seen such manipulation in other sports, it's unjustifiable.

---

Everybody taking turns at Ricardo; I see ricky it's saying something that stings a little.

In the maria/grigor thread; I took to task the topic at hand..........but normally when I take time to do that the counter argument banishes with no reply whatsoever; unless it's a concession.

Maybe, ricardo's words are getting a little bit lost in translation so to speak; but make no mistake about it....he is 100% right. The title of this thread enticed his response, and he responded accordingly.

I mean, if you want to be real about.......college level male players display higher levels of tennis skills than your average WTA.

Why people watch NBA but care less about WNBA? Take the WTA apart from the ATP umbrella.......you will see those salaries collapse QUICKLY.

oh they quickly press the panic button (report me), yet one thing they can't do.... they can't have a real conversation outside of PC. They run around and make up reasons that on the surface sounds 'correct', then you look at the substance.... based on facts, it's all empty and all based on what they 'wished'. That's the problem with WTA fans these days, they only believe what they wished

 

[Johnsteinbeck]

dear lord, i've never heard "straw man" over-used as much as around this board (in it's many re-incarnations). seriously, i think i'm going to go hit the roof next time i have to see it.


on topic, i just don't care any more. you're free to disagree regarding the comparability of wta and atp results - in fact, so do many other members, with good reasons behind it. it's just that they don't feel the need to insult and belittle at every possible instance.

you find that insulting? want to hit the roof? then go right ahead, just don't tell everybody....

nope, two different issues:
1) calling out "straw man!" in the middle of the discussion has become somewhat fashionable on these boards (and you don't even , and it annoys me for some reason. i've complained about it before, about other poster. nothing personal, and nothing related to the subject matter of the thread.

2) i didn't feel insulted, but i felt that some of your comments in this thread were (deliberately) phrased in an insulting manner, in order to 'stir things up a little' - probably to get people riled up and then acting as if it's your brillliant argumentation that warrants the attention, when really, it's just you playing drama queen (look at the very first page - a reasonable discussion, with people speaking out pro and con the question posed in OP. then you march in and resort to 'arguments' like "only dumb feminists would..." - who was jumping at whose throat, then, and why?)

so remember: two different issues.

 

[huntingyou]

Probably because you say it nicer, HY.

We keep going around in circles about a couple of things on this issue:

1) Are men better than women at most sports? The answer is yes, but the fine point is that most sports are designed to play to men's strengths. (Power, upper-body strength, jumping ability, etc.) In the sports and activities where women's strengths feature, they can even shine. Where women excel is in flexibility, and endurance. Therefore, they are the stars in figure skating, gymnastics, and (I know it's an art, not a sport, but it IS physical,) ballet, and dance in general. And women have beaten men, overall, in ultra-marathoning.

What do you mean by "most sports are designed to play to men's strengths"? There is no sexist agenda behind the invention of basketball for example or football. The claim that most sports plays to men's strengths it's absolutely correct but it wasn't design because of that fact.

I know you went out on a limb a little here by listing sports were women are the main attraction and better performers. There is no debating that. Not from me. The main point is men and women are inherently different which is a great thing and because of this design; there are certain hard cold facts that can't be sugar coat.

2) The other question is do they deserve the same money. I know a lot of you guys keep saying that if you separated the women's game from the men's, the money would go down. However, I don't believe the money-men, (and I believe they are mostly men,) are feminists, and just giving it out from a spirit of political correctness. These are business decisions, and they find the women are a money-draw. They're putting their money where they believe their money-return is. Who are you lot to say they're wrong? Tennis is the first sport to have female super-stars, and this goes back to the 50s. Golf is probably the other.

These money men you speak off are a conglomeration of many powerful people/institutions including media, sport wear businesses, and of course the owners and sponsors of tour events. It make "sense" to have both league together because they both play tennis professionally.

Now if you want to talk about money EARNED....look no further than this board just for an example. Tell me where most of the traffic takes place? Exactly! When your average tennis fan person speak about tennis, they talk about the men top players. Unless nationality it's involved; they don't even know who are the top women players....guessing Sharapova because of her media exposure doesn't help either.

I think they appeal of tennis it's so great that it transcends genders. It's a one on one sport, thus it's more easy to attached yourself with individuals. I personally admire tennis legends like Martina, I find her story and dominance quite remarkable. But I love tennis anyways; so that's that.

Getting back to the money issue; tennis is a product and there is no denying the fact that men produce the higher quality product. How can you justify equal earnings when one group is performing their craft several layers higher? This is not merely a principle but a basic economic reality........people on average want to see the man play.

And not to mention that women's soccer in the US is so much better than the men's. I think you guys get all twisted up that some women might be good athletes. Men and women don't generally play each other, so that's not the issue. But women's athletics deserves a bit of respect, wouldn't you say? I think some of you guys should not be so macho that you can't recognize that there are legitimate sports stars who are women.

You miss me here.......it doesn't bother me at all to see women excel in sports. After all, they are human right? Isn't women the one in our specie that can handle pain and tribulation the best?

The problem here is the OP (you) opened the discussion on a false premise that misses the marks by miles. There is no one singular GOAT among men and women tennis......they don't play the same sport but if you insist to proceed; then I will tell you where women rank in the pecking order of tennis ability; and that's the reality you want to ignore.

 

[Moxie]

OK, I'm crap at the multi-quote formatting, so I'll just address point by point, HY:

* I'm not saying that there's a 'sexist agenda' to the fact that most sports play to men's strengths, I'm saying that is the natural evolution, and women are catching up. (Remember, we haven't actually been included in sports for the bulk of human history.)

* I don't think that I have to justify the fact that some women in tennis are paid a high amount in endorsements, and not just in winnings. Traffic on this site, and others? Yes, and I'm certainly one that pays more attention the the ATP than the WTA, IN THIS ERA. No one responded to my link previously about the top earning female athletes of last year. And you even acknowledge women in the sport. Your point is that it's a one-on-one sport, and therefore, some will become superstars. Money follows popularity which follows results, and that's not exclusive to the men's game, however you find it overall superior.

* I'm pleased that you have no problem with women excelling in sports. That's settled. As to my OP, it was not my point. I was highlighting a conversation between two journalists to get the conversation going. And go, it did! LOL.

 

[britbox]

calling out "straw man!"

Do we have straw women?

 

[Moxie]

calling out "straw man!"

Do we have straw women?

Haha! But I do agree with JS that's it's an over-used term here, and seems to be most understood, and used, by those who are most guilty of skewing the argument in their favor. A bit of calling the kettle...etc.

 

[huntingyou]

OK, I'm crap at the multi-quote formatting, so I'll just address point by point, HY:

* I'm not saying that there's a 'sexist agenda' to the fact that most sports play to men's strengths, I'm saying that is the natural evolution, and women are catching up. (Remember, we haven't actually been included in sports for the bulk of human history.)

* I don't think that I have to justify the fact that some women in tennis are paid a high amount in endorsements, and not just in winnings. Traffic on this site, and others? Yes, and I'm certainly one that pays more attention the the ATP than the WTA, IN THIS ERA. No one responded to my link previously about the top earning female athletes of last year. And you even acknowledge women in the sport. Your point is that it's a one-on-one sport, and therefore, some will become superstars. Money follows popularity which follows results, and that's not exclusive to the men's game, however you find it overall superior.

* I'm pleased that you have no problem with women excelling in sports. That's settled. As to my OP, it was not my point. I was highlighting a conversation between two journalists to get the conversation going. And go, it did! LOL.

Not surprise about top earners in the women realm coming from tennis. Like you said, endorsements can add up plus there is always the money you get for winning matches, no?

I think we can agree that we have reach full cycle as far as this thread is concern. Terrible selection for journalists conversations; it did raised a response .........I hope you can agree with me on the unjust and fatal endeavor of mixing men and women accomplishments in this sport.

I'm curious about your categorization of THIS ERA? Has there ever be any era in tennis where women was greater or more popular than men? Are you talking about the 70s?

 

[Moxie]

Everybody taking turns at Ricardo; I see ricky it's saying something that stings a little.

In the maria/grigor thread; I took to task the topic at hand..........but normally when I take time to do that the counter argument banishes with no reply whatsoever; unless it's a concession.

Maybe, ricardo's words are getting a little bit lost in translation so to speak; but make no mistake about it....he is 100% right. The title of this thread enticed his response, and he responded accordingly.

I mean, if you want to be real about.......college level male players display higher levels of tennis skills than your average WTA.

Why people watch NBA but care less about WNBA? Take the WTA apart from the ATP umbrella.......you will see those salaries collapse QUICKLY.

Probably because you say it nicer, HY.

We keep going around in circles about a couple of things on this issue:

1) Are men better than women at most sports? The answer is yes, but the fine point is that most sports are designed to play to men's strengths. (Power, upper-body strength, jumping ability, etc.) In the sports and activities where women's strengths feature, they can even shine. Where women excel is in flexibility, and endurance. Therefore, they are the stars in figure skating, gymnastics, and (I know it's an art, not a sport, but it IS physical,) ballet, and dance in general. And women have beaten men, overall, in ultra-marathoning.

2) The other question is do they deserve the same money. I know a lot of you guys keep saying that if you separated the women's game from the men's, the money would go down. However, I don't believe the money-men, (and I believe they are mostly men,) are feminists, and just giving it out from a spirit of political correctness. These are business decisions, and they find the women are a money-draw. They're putting their money where they believe their money-return is. Who are you lot to say they're wrong? Tennis is the first sport to have female super-stars, and this goes back to the 50s. Golf is probably the other.

And not to mention that women's soccer in the US is so much better than the men's. I think you guys get all twisted up that some women might be good athletes. Men and women don't generally play each other, so that's not the issue. But women's athletics deserves a bit of respect, wouldn't you say? I think some of you guys should not be so macho that you can't recognize that there are legitimate sports stars who are women.

or maybe women are really not as good athletes in general? why are most sports designed to suit men not women? i think it really simply comes down to, mens' body is designed to have better athletic ability in general, not this and that. The general traits of sports, be it speed, power, agility all favor men by nature, even stamina - i think you really stretched that, because if that was the case women would not play shorter matches in majors. The fact you use ultra marathon as example, is a straw-man's argument. Why would anyone look at a super-minor sport where only dozens of people are even interested to participate? with that sample size you simply have no case in such argument, when we are talking global sports - all major sports have shown otherwise regarding stamina between the two genders. You might as well say Susy next door is taller than your brother, so women are taller than men....

The reason I mention the ultra-marathon is because it discounts your argument that stamina is a way in which men dominate women in sports. It's not a "straw-man" argument. I'm not trying to dazzle or distract you from the original argument. I'm simply making a factual point.

And you make no equal point by saying that women don't play best of 5 at Slams because they don't have the stamina. I have argued that they should. It's certainly not that they couldn't, for lack of stamina, it is just that it is a convention that the powers that be refuse to change.

 

[Ricardo]

Everybody taking turns at Ricardo; I see ricky it's saying something that stings a little.

In the maria/grigor thread; I took to task the topic at hand..........but normally when I take time to do that the counter argument banishes with no reply whatsoever; unless it's a concession.

Maybe, ricardo's words are getting a little bit lost in translation so to speak; but make no mistake about it....he is 100% right. The title of this thread enticed his response, and he responded accordingly.

I mean, if you want to be real about.......college level male players display higher levels of tennis skills than your average WTA.

Why people watch NBA but care less about WNBA? Take the WTA apart from the ATP umbrella.......you will see those salaries collapse QUICKLY.

Probably because you say it nicer, HY.

We keep going around in circles about a couple of things on this issue:

1) Are men better than women at most sports? The answer is yes, but the fine point is that most sports are designed to play to men's strengths. (Power, upper-body strength, jumping ability, etc.) In the sports and activities where women's strengths feature, they can even shine. Where women excel is in flexibility, and endurance. Therefore, they are the stars in figure skating, gymnastics, and (I know it's an art, not a sport, but it IS physical,) ballet, and dance in general. And women have beaten men, overall, in ultra-marathoning.

2) The other question is do they deserve the same money. I know a lot of you guys keep saying that if you separated the women's game from the men's, the money would go down. However, I don't believe the money-men, (and I believe they are mostly men,) are feminists, and just giving it out from a spirit of political correctness. These are business decisions, and they find the women are a money-draw. They're putting their money where they believe their money-return is. Who are you lot to say they're wrong? Tennis is the first sport to have female super-stars, and this goes back to the 50s. Golf is probably the other.

And not to mention that women's soccer in the US is so much better than the men's. I think you guys get all twisted up that some women might be good athletes. Men and women don't generally play each other, so that's not the issue. But women's athletics deserves a bit of respect, wouldn't you say? I think some of you guys should not be so macho that you can't recognize that there are legitimate sports stars who are women.

or maybe women are really not as good athletes in general? why are most sports designed to suit men not women? i think it really simply comes down to, mens' body is designed to have better athletic ability in general, not this and that. The general traits of sports, be it speed, power, agility all favor men by nature, even stamina - i think you really stretched that, because if that was the case women would not play shorter matches in majors. The fact you use ultra marathon as example, is a straw-man's argument. Why would anyone look at a super-minor sport where only dozens of people are even interested to participate? with that sample size you simply have no case in such argument, when we are talking global sports - all major sports have shown otherwise regarding stamina between the two genders. You might as well say Susy next door is taller than your brother, so women are taller than men....

The reason I mention the ultra-marathon is because it discounts your argument that stamina is a way in which men dominate women in sports. It's not a "straw-man" argument. I'm not trying to dazzle or distract you from the original argument. I'm simply making a factual point.

And you make no equal point by saying that women don't play best of 5 at Slams because they don't have the stamina. I have argued that they should. It's certainly not that they couldn't, for lack of stamina, it is just that it is a convention that the powers that be refuse to change.

ultra marathon means nothing, and anyone with some knowledge knows it. nobody serious about an argument would have that as example, a sport that has a little more than 'zero' participants and even less followers and you think it qualifies as evidence ? :laydownlaughing maybe you really are trying too hard for promoting WTA...

while it may be fashionable for everyone to agree and applaud loudly with feminist views, lets get back to the roots and show some facts you (and all feminists) don't like to see: firstly tennis is a sport (like all major sports really) invented and popularized by men; it's also an 'industry' (like all major industries really) created by men, without the men there wouldn't be this sport you love so much, and obviously there would never even be a tour. You sound like your version of equality is so well deserved, ever think about who got it rolling and really earned it? with a little conscience i think you know, admit or not; the WTA players? they really live off by sharing a market created by the male players... oh i am sure the PC people will be quick to deny it, i don't really care. Then they are of course quick to provide a little camouflage... some distraction... by saying 'its all about the money'; even then we know who opened the bank for them WTA people. How quickly they forget, and now they take it for granted and think they are an equal of the ATP - truth is, WTA (and whatever it was formerly) is only minor in terms of contribution (invention...etc), quality (any questions?) and overall popularity (don't try making it up and think i can be fooled). The fact they get same prize money and think they deserve it is the biggest injustice in this sport.

---

oh by the way, in past Aussie open who were the players who couldn't take it in the finals and just about pass out in a best of three match? does anyone believe the girls really can play a high intensity match as long as the men can? oh spare me that ultra marathon stuff where only Susie and Jimmy ran, look at marathon and the picture is clear. Who actually believes Moxie's theory that girls overall actually have more stamina than men? put your hand up!!

 

[jhar26]

[video=youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n-Nj1GR890s[/video]

 

[Ricardo]

[video=youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n-Nj1GR890s[/video]

feminists never stop talking, and when they see the truth hurts they try to be cute
applaud your effort though :clap

---

OK, I'm crap at the multi-quote formatting, so I'll just address point by point, HY:

* I'm not saying that there's a 'sexist agenda' to the fact that most sports play to men's strengths, I'm saying that is the natural evolution, and women are catching up. (Remember, we haven't actually been included in sports for the bulk of human history.)

* I don't think that I have to justify the fact that some women in tennis are paid a high amount in endorsements, and not just in winnings. Traffic on this site, and others? Yes, and I'm certainly one that pays more attention the the ATP than the WTA, IN THIS ERA. No one responded to my link previously about the top earning female athletes of last year. And you even acknowledge women in the sport. Your point is that it's a one-on-one sport, and therefore, some will become superstars. Money follows popularity which follows results, and that's not exclusive to the men's game, however you find it overall superior.

* I'm pleased that you have no problem with women excelling in sports. That's settled. As to my OP, it was not my point. I was highlighting a conversation between two journalists to get the conversation going. And go, it did! LOL.

Catching up? women have not designed a single sport and made it global. All this time, who stopped them from doing so? this kind of excuse shows the attitude why they live off of men, take concessions and now they take it for granted, thinking 'equality'..... when they clearly didn't earn it.

Now who said women weren't included in sports for the bulk of human history? of course they have been, but they always played unimportant roles because they have less athletic ability - when you are less competent you are forgotton, it's simply nature of competition. If women were better athletes, men would be the one looking for a share of 'attention'.

While ultra marathon is irrelevant, a bit of looking up here shows that all those records in major ultra marathon world championships (recorded by IAAF and IAU), the men hold all those records - OFFICIAL RECORDS. i don't know how you can conclude that women have BETTER STAMINA than men, what do you base it on? I think it deserves some explanation. uzzled

 

[Moxie]

[video=youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n-Nj1GR890s[/video]

feminists never stop talking, and when they see the truth hurts they try to be cute
applaud your effort though :clap

---

OK, I'm crap at the multi-quote formatting, so I'll just address point by point, HY:

* I'm not saying that there's a 'sexist agenda' to the fact that most sports play to men's strengths, I'm saying that is the natural evolution, and women are catching up. (Remember, we haven't actually been included in sports for the bulk of human history.)

* I don't think that I have to justify the fact that some women in tennis are paid a high amount in endorsements, and not just in winnings. Traffic on this site, and others? Yes, and I'm certainly one that pays more attention the the ATP than the WTA, IN THIS ERA. No one responded to my link previously about the top earning female athletes of last year. And you even acknowledge women in the sport. Your point is that it's a one-on-one sport, and therefore, some will become superstars. Money follows popularity which follows results, and that's not exclusive to the men's game, however you find it overall superior.

* I'm pleased that you have no problem with women excelling in sports. That's settled. As to my OP, it was not my point. I was highlighting a conversation between two journalists to get the conversation going. And go, it did! LOL.

Catching up? women have not designed a single sport and made it global. All this time, who stopped them from doing so? this kind of excuse shows the attitude why they live off of men, take concessions and now they take it for granted, thinking 'equality'..... when they clearly didn't earn it.

Now who said women weren't included in sports for the bulk of human history? of course they have been, but they always played unimportant roles because they have less athletic ability - when you are less competent you are forgotton, it's simply nature of competition. If women were better athletes, men would be the one looking for a share of 'attention'.

While ultra marathon is irrelevant, a bit of looking up here shows that all those records in major ultra marathon world championships (recorded by IAAF and IAU), the men hold all those records - OFFICIAL RECORDS. i don't know how you can conclude that women have BETTER STAMINA than men, what do you base it on? I think it deserves some explanation. uzzled

---

You will never understand that the quack joke is basically on you. Nor will you believe that, no, women have not actually been invited to play sports for most of human history. Not because they weren't good at it, but because of attitudes like yours. A woman was actually arrested for running in the Boston Marathon in the late 60s, (a men's only race, at the time.) And the first time that the women were allowed to run the marathon in the Olympics was in 1984. Does that sound like a fair playing field? The original Greek Olympics were just naked men competing against each other. It has taken thousands of years for men to even allow women to play most sports. Is it really surprising that women are still catching up?

 

[Ricardo]

[video=youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n-Nj1GR890s[/video]

feminists never stop talking, and when they see the truth hurts they try to be cute
applaud your effort though :clap

---

OK, I'm crap at the multi-quote formatting, so I'll just address point by point, HY:

* I'm not saying that there's a 'sexist agenda' to the fact that most sports play to men's strengths, I'm saying that is the natural evolution, and women are catching up. (Remember, we haven't actually been included in sports for the bulk of human history.)

* I don't think that I have to justify the fact that some women in tennis are paid a high amount in endorsements, and not just in winnings. Traffic on this site, and others? Yes, and I'm certainly one that pays more attention the the ATP than the WTA, IN THIS ERA. No one responded to my link previously about the top earning female athletes of last year. And you even acknowledge women in the sport. Your point is that it's a one-on-one sport, and therefore, some will become superstars. Money follows popularity which follows results, and that's not exclusive to the men's game, however you find it overall superior.

* I'm pleased that you have no problem with women excelling in sports. That's settled. As to my OP, it was not my point. I was highlighting a conversation between two journalists to get the conversation going. And go, it did! LOL.

Catching up? women have not designed a single sport and made it global. All this time, who stopped them from doing so? this kind of excuse shows the attitude why they live off of men, take concessions and now they take it for granted, thinking 'equality'..... when they clearly didn't earn it.

Now who said women weren't included in sports for the bulk of human history? of course they have been, but they always played unimportant roles because they have less athletic ability - when you are less competent you are forgotton, it's simply nature of competition. If women were better athletes, men would be the one looking for a share of 'attention'.

While ultra marathon is irrelevant, a bit of looking up here shows that all those records in major ultra marathon world championships (recorded by IAAF and IAU), the men hold all those records - OFFICIAL RECORDS. i don't know how you can conclude that women have BETTER STAMINA than men, what do you base it on? I think it deserves some explanation. uzzled

---

You will never understand that the quack joke is basically on you. Nor will you believe that, no, women have not actually been invited to play sports for most of human history. Not because they weren't good at it, but because of attitudes like yours. A woman was actually arrested for running in the Boston Marathon in the late 60s, (a men's only race, at the time.) And the first time that the women were allowed to run the marathon in the Olympics was in 1984. Does that sound like a fair playing field? The original Greek Olympics were just naked men competing against each other. It has taken thousands of years for men to even allow women to play most sports. Is it really surprising that women are still catching up?

---

and you let that kind of provokative and irrelevant post to fly around? certainly a different standard applied, that's ok though i am still on top of her.

My attitude has nothing to do with how women participate in sports, thanks for the criticism though. If they were as good at it, who's stopping them from inventing their own sport, excel at it and make it big? now that your ultra marathon example is proven invalid, which you simply cannot counter - i have the numbers to show your talk about stamina is exactly the OPPOSITE; can you name a 'sport' where they beat the men? if not how were they 'as good'? be careful with whatever numbers or example you come up with, i will look into the facts and official records; if needed i will show those facts which may again be unpleasant in your eyes. (do i get a warning for that too?)

I also see that 1960 instance as ridiculous. That's a single instance and you make a conclusion out of it. Men's race only? you know what, any man who tries to join women's only race (plenty of those these days) UNINVITED will get arrested, anyone wants to try? - so what do you say about that? look at golf, another major sport where only women are allowed to play men's tour and not vice-versa. Does that fit your version of equality?

It's getting tiring, every time you have an example it's proven invalid. From ratings, ultra marathon, men's only race and basically whatever, there is not a single instance about this gender issue where your argument holds true. Clearly its all to do with attitude like yours, in comparison my attitude is perfectly fine as my argument would be based on facts.

 

[jhar26]

feminists never stop talking, and when they see the truth hurts they try to be cute
applaud your effort though

I have hardly said a word. It's you who never stops talking. But whether you like it or not, feminism is here to stay. If you have a problem living in a world where women aren't under your tumb I guess you have a problem. Not me because I'm perfectly happy with such a world.

 

[Ricardo]

feminists never stop talking, and when they see the truth hurts they try to be cute
applaud your effort though

I have hardly said a word. It's you who never stops talking. But whether you like it or not, feminism is here to stay. If you have a problem living in a world where women aren't under your tumb I guess you have a problem. Not me because I'm perfectly happy with such a world.

250 posts show you talk a lot no? of course you are happy, watching a sport that's invented by men, popularized by men and excelled by men, only they subsidize a minor group that is ungrateful. Doesn't matter whether i like it or not, feminism, like poverty and war is here to stay. People do live in a world of imperfections

 

[Moxie]

feminists never stop talking, and when they see the truth hurts they try to be cute
applaud your effort though :clap

---

OK, I'm crap at the multi-quote formatting, so I'll just address point by point, HY:

* I'm not saying that there's a 'sexist agenda' to the fact that most sports play to men's strengths, I'm saying that is the natural evolution, and women are catching up. (Remember, we haven't actually been included in sports for the bulk of human history.)

* I don't think that I have to justify the fact that some women in tennis are paid a high amount in endorsements, and not just in winnings. Traffic on this site, and others? Yes, and I'm certainly one that pays more attention the the ATP than the WTA, IN THIS ERA. No one responded to my link previously about the top earning female athletes of last year. And you even acknowledge women in the sport. Your point is that it's a one-on-one sport, and therefore, some will become superstars. Money follows popularity which follows results, and that's not exclusive to the men's game, however you find it overall superior.

* I'm pleased that you have no problem with women excelling in sports. That's settled. As to my OP, it was not my point. I was highlighting a conversation between two journalists to get the conversation going. And go, it did! LOL.

Catching up? women have not designed a single sport and made it global. All this time, who stopped them from doing so? this kind of excuse shows the attitude why they live off of men, take concessions and now they take it for granted, thinking 'equality'..... when they clearly didn't earn it.

Now who said women weren't included in sports for the bulk of human history? of course they have been, but they always played unimportant roles because they have less athletic ability - when you are less competent you are forgotton, it's simply nature of competition. If women were better athletes, men would be the one looking for a share of 'attention'.

While ultra marathon is irrelevant, a bit of looking up here shows that all those records in major ultra marathon world championships (recorded by IAAF and IAU), the men hold all those records - OFFICIAL RECORDS. i don't know how you can conclude that women have BETTER STAMINA than men, what do you base it on? I think it deserves some explanation. uzzled

---

You will never understand that the quack joke is basically on you. Nor will you believe that, no, women have not actually been invited to play sports for most of human history. Not because they weren't good at it, but because of attitudes like yours. A woman was actually arrested for running in the Boston Marathon in the late 60s, (a men's only race, at the time.) And the first time that the women were allowed to run the marathon in the Olympics was in 1984. Does that sound like a fair playing field? The original Greek Olympics were just naked men competing against each other. It has taken thousands of years for men to even allow women to play most sports. Is it really surprising that women are still catching up?

---

and you let that kind of provokative and irrelevant post to fly around? certainly a different standard applied, that's ok though i am still on top of her.

My attitude has nothing to do with how women participate in sports, thanks for the criticism though. If they were as good at it, who's stopping them from inventing their own sport, excel at it and make it big? now that your ultra marathon example is proven invalid, which you simply cannot counter - i have the numbers to show your talk about stamina is exactly the OPPOSITE; can you name a 'sport' where they beat the men? if not how were they 'as good'? be careful with whatever numbers or example you come up with, i will look into the facts and official records; if needed i will show those facts which may again be unpleasant in your eyes. (do i get a warning for that too?)

I also see that 1960 instance as ridiculous. That's a single instance and you make a conclusion out of it. Men's race only? you know what, any man who tries to join women's only race (plenty of those these days) UNINVITED will get arrested, anyone wants to try? - so what do you say about that? look at golf, another major sport where only women are allowed to play men's tour and not vice-versa. Does that fit your version of equality?

It's getting tiring, every time you have an example it's proven invalid. From ratings, ultra marathon, men's only race and basically whatever, there is not a single instance about this gender issue where your argument holds true. Clearly its all to do with attitude like yours, in comparison my attitude is perfectly fine as my argument would be based on facts.

---

In fact I am right that women have beaten men overall at the ultra-maraton, whether you like that example or not. My example of a woman getting arrested for trying to run the Boston marathon is cogent, while your notion that a man would get arrested for running in a woman's race is not. Yes, there are all-women's races now, but it is not illegal that men run in them, where it was specifically illegal for a woman to run in Boston, for most of it's 100+ years. And women were excluded from the marathon in the Olympics until 1984. This doesn't really fit with your argument that women have always been invited to the sports party.

And to that point, it's rather foolish of you to mention golf. I'm sure there is no proscription against men playing on the women's tour. However, it has only been in the last 2 years that the Augusta National Golf club has admitted women, even to play, let alone compete, where they have one of the most prestigious Majors in golf. That's the equivalent of not allowing women to play at Wimbledon until 2 years ago.

You have said that you are fine with women playing sports, and I have said that I'm not trying to say that women are, generally, superior athletes. I think the bottom line is that all kids should have the chance to play sports, boys AND girls, and the cream will rise to the top. Most importantly, sports builds confidence in kids who aren't academic, specifically, like the arts does. And I absolutely think that the more girls who play sports, the more you'll have a pool to choose from, and you will get a higher level of female athlete rising to the top of the various sports. It's happening already. The best little league pitcher in baseball is a girl:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b5dDtsxsLH0

And if that video's too old for you, she's now 15, and has a contract to play baseball in Japan. In a couple of years, she's likely to be pitching in the minor leagues of the MLB.

 

[Ricardo]

feminists never stop talking, and when they see the truth hurts they try to be cute
applaud your effort though :clap

---

OK, I'm crap at the multi-quote formatting, so I'll just address point by point, HY:

* I'm not saying that there's a 'sexist agenda' to the fact that most sports play to men's strengths, I'm saying that is the natural evolution, and women are catching up. (Remember, we haven't actually been included in sports for the bulk of human history.)

* I don't think that I have to justify the fact that some women in tennis are paid a high amount in endorsements, and not just in winnings. Traffic on this site, and others? Yes, and I'm certainly one that pays more attention the the ATP than the WTA, IN THIS ERA. No one responded to my link previously about the top earning female athletes of last year. And you even acknowledge women in the sport. Your point is that it's a one-on-one sport, and therefore, some will become superstars. Money follows popularity which follows results, and that's not exclusive to the men's game, however you find it overall superior.

* I'm pleased that you have no problem with women excelling in sports. That's settled. As to my OP, it was not my point. I was highlighting a conversation between two journalists to get the conversation going. And go, it did! LOL.

Catching up? women have not designed a single sport and made it global. All this time, who stopped them from doing so? this kind of excuse shows the attitude why they live off of men, take concessions and now they take it for granted, thinking 'equality'..... when they clearly didn't earn it.

Now who said women weren't included in sports for the bulk of human history? of course they have been, but they always played unimportant roles because they have less athletic ability - when you are less competent you are forgotton, it's simply nature of competition. If women were better athletes, men would be the one looking for a share of 'attention'.

While ultra marathon is irrelevant, a bit of looking up here shows that all those records in major ultra marathon world championships (recorded by IAAF and IAU), the men hold all those records - OFFICIAL RECORDS. i don't know how you can conclude that women have BETTER STAMINA than men, what do you base it on? I think it deserves some explanation. uzzled

---

You will never understand that the quack joke is basically on you. Nor will you believe that, no, women have not actually been invited to play sports for most of human history. Not because they weren't good at it, but because of attitudes like yours. A woman was actually arrested for running in the Boston Marathon in the late 60s, (a men's only race, at the time.) And the first time that the women were allowed to run the marathon in the Olympics was in 1984. Does that sound like a fair playing field? The original Greek Olympics were just naked men competing against each other. It has taken thousands of years for men to even allow women to play most sports. Is it really surprising that women are still catching up?

---

and you let that kind of provokative and irrelevant post to fly around? certainly a different standard applied, that's ok though i am still on top of her.

My attitude has nothing to do with how women participate in sports, thanks for the criticism though. If they were as good at it, who's stopping them from inventing their own sport, excel at it and make it big? now that your ultra marathon example is proven invalid, which you simply cannot counter - i have the numbers to show your talk about stamina is exactly the OPPOSITE; can you name a 'sport' where they beat the men? if not how were they 'as good'? be careful with whatever numbers or example you come up with, i will look into the facts and official records; if needed i will show those facts which may again be unpleasant in your eyes. (do i get a warning for that too?)

I also see that 1960 instance as ridiculous. That's a single instance and you make a conclusion out of it. Men's race only? you know what, any man who tries to join women's only race (plenty of those these days) UNINVITED will get arrested, anyone wants to try? - so what do you say about that? look at golf, another major sport where only women are allowed to play men's tour and not vice-versa. Does that fit your version of equality?

It's getting tiring, every time you have an example it's proven invalid. From ratings, ultra marathon, men's only race and basically whatever, there is not a single instance about this gender issue where your argument holds true. Clearly its all to do with attitude like yours, in comparison my attitude is perfectly fine as my argument would be based on facts.

---

In fact I am right that women have beaten men overall at the ultra-maraton, whether you like that example or not. My example of a woman getting arrested for trying to run the Boston marathon is cogent, while your notion that a man would get arrested for running in a woman's race is not. Yes, there are all-women's races now, but it is not illegal that men run in them, where it was specifically illegal for a woman to run in Boston, for most of it's 100+ years. And women were excluded from the marathon in the Olympics until 1984. This doesn't really fit with your argument that women have always been invited to the sports party.

And to that point, it's rather foolish of you to mention golf. I'm sure there is no proscription against men playing on the women's tour. However, it has only been in the last 2 years that the Augusta National Golf club has admitted women, even to play, let alone compete, where they have one of the most prestigious Majors in golf. That's the equivalent of not allowing women to play at Wimbledon until 2 years ago.

You have said that you are fine with women playing sports, and I have said that I'm not trying to say that women are, generally, superior athletes. I think the bottom line is that all kids should have the chance to play sports, boys AND girls, and the cream will rise to the top. Most importantly, sports builds confidence in kids who aren't academic, specifically, like the arts does. And I absolutely think that the more girls who play sports, the more you'll have a pool to choose from, and you will get a higher level of female athlete rising to the top of the various sports. It's happening already. The best little league pitcher in baseball is a girl:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b5dDtsxsLH0

And if that video's too old for you, she's now 15, and has a contract to play baseball in Japan. In a couple of years, she's likely to be pitching in the minor leagues of the MLB.

---

If you don't mind, stop making up just for argument's sake. Being honest with facts is the first thing you need to learn. Foolish? coming from someone who talks with made up facts with that kind of agenda, not really trustworthy is it?

here it is, and you need to show how 'women have beaten men overall'.... typical Moxie :laydownlaughing

IAAF World Records [edit]

Men [edit]
Event Record Athlete Nationality Date Meet Place Ref
100 km (road) 6:13:33 Takahiro Sunada Japan 21 June 1998 Tokoro, Japan [1]
Women [edit]
Event Record Athlete Nationality Date Meet Place Ref
100 km (road) 6:33:11 Tomoe Abe Japan 25 June 2000 Yubetsu, Japan [1]
IAU World Best Performances [edit]

Men [edit]
Event Record Athlete Nationality Date Meet Place Ref
50000 m (track) 2:48:06 Jeff Norman United Kingdom 7 June 1980 Timperley, United Kingdom [22]
50 km (road) 2:43:38 Thompson Magawana South Africa 12 April 1988 Claremont, South Africa [22]
Women [edit]
Event Record Athlete Nationality Date Meet Place Ref
50000 m (track) 3:18:52 Carol Hunter-Rowe United Kingdom 3 March 1996 Barry, Wales United Kingdom [22]
50 km (road) 3:08:39 Frith Van Der Merwe South Africa 25 March 1989 Claremont, South Africa [22]

As shown, best women don't even come CLOSE to matching best men give me a break. In general the time difference is like, those guys who are front can sit down and have a 18oz steak, and still be ahead of the best ladies

What's next Moxie? come at me with more fake facts? like i said ultra marathon is a crappy example, even then the guys still are far superior.

 

[Moxie]

You didn't like the example of the ultra-marathon, until you asked the question about why didn't women participate better in sports across history, which I addressed more globally, and gave good examples of both discrimination and exclusion, and how girls have done better even against boys since Title 9...and now all you've got is stats for distance running. Don't tell me my arguments and examples are crappy until you're willing to address them.