First Female to Tryout for NFL

[ivanvamp]

They'd get destroyed.



Men versus Women Tennis

If you took the greatest women's basketball team ever assembled and played a good (not necessarily great, but good) NYC boys varsity basketball team, the boys team would utterly annihilate them.

 

[ivanvamp]

yes I don't think men should be allowed in women's leagues. But women should be allowed in mens if good enough because they don't have an inherent advantage.

What if a man is on the same level as the women, so it's even. Why shouldn't he be allowed to compete with the women?

 

[Fencer]

The difference is, and would be this...

1. Male kicker gets laid out on kick return - Nobody flinches because that's supposed to happen. The crowd would be silent until he's helped off the field, but there will be no aftershock through the media.

2. Female kicker gets laid out on kick return - Society, as a whole, cringes due to the fact that a man at peak physical condition just trucked a woman. She gets helped off the field. ESPN runs re-runs of this happening all throughout SportsCenter. Panelists debate whether or not there should be rules changes to accomodate the safety of the kicker on punt and kick returns, and people like the people that we have seen on here that are actually for a woman joining the sport are actually the ones that promote those rules changes. Ironic, yes?

Again, if women want to start their own football league (and not the LFL) then fine. All the power to them. But I don't see why they should be mixed in with the men in this sport when other sports don't mix women in with the men.

I've been following Ronda Rousey a little longer than other non-MMA fans have, because her mother happens to tweet at me a fair amount about business. So perhaps I'm a little surer than most that Ronda Rousey Breaks the Glass Ceiling: The Birth of UFC's First Female Superstar | Bleacher Report, an article this week, is really representative of attitudes. But anyway,

We DO have female fighters.
We DO have strong female athletes.
We DO have female warriors.
We DO have "tough" female politicians at the highest levels.
We DO have female action heroes in fiction.

The ship has already sailed.

 

[Fencer]

This is a fool's fantasy.

All the name-calling and other personal attacks you care to engage in doesn't make your opinions one whit more sensible, nor do they make you yourself one whit more intelligent, likable, or honest.

 

[Fencer]

What if a man is on the same level as the women, so it's even. Why shouldn't he be allowed to compete with the women?

I've already answered that.

The top level of competition for any sport or game should be "open" -- if you're good enough to win, you're good enough to win.

Every other level of competition can reasonably be restricted by, for example:

• Nationality -- regional & national championships are fine
• Previous experience -- beginners' competitions are fine, or amateur events
• Age -- youth competitions are fine; so are masters' leagues
• Physical handicap -- the Paraolympics are fie
• Sex -- women's leagues are fine

 

[Deus Irae]

We DO have female fighters.
We DO have strong female athletes.
We DO have female warriors.
We DO have "tough" female politicians at the highest levels.
We DO have female action heroes in fiction.

The ship has already sailed.

:bricks:

You keep posting this as if it's meaningful. It's not. The ship has no more "already sailed" than it had when the responses were


We DO NOT have female fighters.
We DO NOT have strong female athletes.
We DO NOT have female warriors.
We DO NOT have "tough" female politicians at the highest levels.
We DO NOT have female action heroes in fiction.

These are ongoing, important issues. Societies rise and fall, and they change and revert.

 

[Deus Irae]

I've already answered that.

The top level of competition for any sport or game should be "open" -- if you're good enough to win, you're good enough to win.

Every other level of competition can reasonably be restricted by, for example:

• Nationality -- regional & national championships are fine
• Previous experience -- beginners' competitions are fine, or amateur events
• Age -- youth competitions are fine; so are masters' leagues
• Physical handicap -- the Paraolympics are fie
• Sex -- women's leagues are fine

See, this is just a ridiculous notion, and it demonstrates an amazing level of hypocrisy.

 

[Fencer]

See, this is just a ridiculous notion, and it demonstrates an amazing level of hypocrisy.

I presume that -- which I am quoting in its entirety -- is the complete list of intelligent arguments you have in support of your viewpoint?

 

[ivanvamp]

I've already answered that.

The top level of competition for any sport or game should be "open" -- if you're good enough to win, you're good enough to win.

Every other level of competition can reasonably be restricted by, for example:

• Nationality -- regional & national championships are fine
• Previous experience -- beginners' competitions are fine, or amateur events
• Age -- youth competitions are fine; so are masters' leagues
• Physical handicap -- the Paraolympics are fie
• Sex -- women's leagues are fine

No, you just reiterated what you think is acceptable. I'm asking why. Why is it ok to have such restrictions at these levels but not at the highest levels?

Moreover, consider gymnastics. There is men's and women's sports. But some of the events are different. You cannot do the balance beam if you are a man. Men's beam does not exist as a sport. But if you're a guy and that's what you want to do, why shouldn't you be allowed to compete?

 

[TyronePoole]

I presume that -- which I am quoting in its entirety -- is the complete list of intelligent arguments you have in support of your viewpoint?

Deus doesn't make arguments, he makes one liners and quips. His entire game is to get people guessing about why their post is "the stupidest thing he's ever read" (or some similar iteration) and then look in the mirror and tell himself how smart he is while they flounder around trying to get to the point.

 

[TyronePoole]

No, you just reiterated what you think is acceptable. I'm asking why. Why is it ok to have such restrictions at these levels but not at the highest levels?

Moreover, consider gymnastics. There is men's and women's sports. But some of the events are different. You cannot do the balance beam if you are a man. Men's beam does not exist as a sport. But if you're a guy and that's what you want to do, why shouldn't you be allowed to compete?

If you want to have those people compete at all then those restrictions are logistically essential.

The simple fact is that whole bodied males are the clearest delineation we can realistically make where there's almost universally a physical advantage. No such thing exists with any of those other groups. I don't think anyone can honestly argue that they don't easily understand this can they?

You'll notice that nobody is arguing that healthy women should be able to compete in men's paralympics or for the inclusion of paralympians in the special olympics.

As far as balance beam I don't know the history of it, but I imagine it has something to do with the testicles and wanting to keep them in tact. In general though, I agree that anything men want to compete in with each other they should be able to, but that's a question of leagues and sanctioning bodies and not gender.

 

[Tunescribe]

All the name-calling and other personal attacks you care to engage in doesn't make your opinions one whit more sensible, nor do they make you yourself one whit more intelligent, likable, or honest.

Calling it a "fool's fantasy" was a totally objective, fact-based assessment on which I expounded. Sorry you took it personally. Had you come up with something that made more sense, it likely would've prompted a different reaction.

 

[ivanvamp]

If you want to have those people compete at all then those restrictions are logistically essential.

This is a good point.

The simple fact is that whole bodied males are the clearest delineation we can realistically make where there's almost universally a physical advantage. No such thing exists with any of those other groups. I don't think anyone can honestly argue that they don't easily understand this can they?

You'll notice that nobody is arguing that healthy women should be able to compete in men's paralympics or for the inclusion of paralympians in the special olympics.

I understand what you're saying. But there are TONS of men who would get whipped by women in various sports. Serena Williams, for example, would crush me in tennis. So while the male gender has clear physical advantages in most sports, it is not necessarily true on a case-by-case basis.

As far as balance beam I don't know the history of it, but I imagine it has something to do with the testicles and wanting to keep them in tact. In general though, I agree that anything men want to compete in with each other they should be able to, but that's a question of leagues and sanctioning bodies and not gender.

Yes, I can think of a lot of reasons why men wouldn't want to do the balance beam! But the point stands: there is simply no male equivalent sport. If a man wants to compete in that, he cannot. There is no such sport in existence. Yes, they could form a men's balance beam league I suppose, but then again, women can form a women's football league.

 

[mgteich]

No, folks like you will get a brain transplant, or will simply mature.

It will take another generation for the even the first generation of women competing at top levels in college in various sports.

It will also take that generation before women athletes are generally accepted in open competition with men. Apparently, it is OK in NASCAR. This competition will also be OK in golf and tennis. I certainly agree that women are unlikely to be competitive anytime soon.

I have no clue why folks feels so threatened.

What's going to happen in the next couple of decades? Will the entire female species undergo some sort of mass hormonal mutation? Because short of that, nothing is going to change in the next couple decades or couple thousand decades.

 

[ivanvamp]

I understand what you're saying. But there are TONS of men who would get whipped by women in various sports. Serena Williams, for example, would crush me in tennis. So while the male gender has clear physical advantages in most sports, it is not necessarily true on a case-by-case basis.



Yes, I can think of a lot of reasons why men wouldn't want to do the balance beam! But the point stands: there is simply no male equivalent sport. If a man wants to compete in that, he cannot. There is no such sport in existence. Yes, they could form a men's balance beam league I suppose, but then again, women can form a women's football league.

For the record, I think there are two issues here: (1) the competitiveness of sports. Should any athlete be able to compete at the absolute highest level of their sport, and let the most skilled person win, regardless of gender? And (2) the sociological impact. Is it wise to have a team that shares locker space, hotel rooms, showers, etc., be made up of men and women? Is there a place for single-gender institutions, be it sports leagues, schools, etc.?

Those are, IMO, two separate issues, and people in this thread have been arguing on either side of both of these issues, often mistakenly conflating the two.

 

[Deus Irae]

I presume that -- which I am quoting in its entirety -- is the complete list of intelligent arguments you have in support of your viewpoint?

You think the obvious hypocrisy really needed to be slapped back in your face rather than its existence merely being noted? Are you truly that blind on the issue?

 

[Deus Irae]

No, folks like you will get a brain transplant, or will simply mature.

This is not a maturity issue. You surely know this.

I have no clue why folks feels so threatened.

It's not about feeling threatened. Acting as if it is does not become you, as it's just a method of cutting off discussion on a subject where you have the significantly weaker argument.

 

[TyronePoole]

I understand what you're saying. But there are TONS of men who would get whipped by women in various sports. Serena Williams, for example, would crush me in tennis. So while the male gender has clear physical advantages in most sports, it is not necessarily true on a case-by-case basis.

But you have the opportunity to play, you just aren't good enough. if you had been playing and training an equal amount of time then you'd most likely beat her. In other words, the women who can compete and beat you don't have an innate physical advantage over you, they are just more skilled.

Yes, I can think of a lot of reasons why men wouldn't want to do the balance beam! But the point stands: there is simply no male equivalent sport. If a man wants to compete in that, he cannot. There is no such sport in existence. Yes, they could form a men's balance beam league I suppose, but then again, women can form a women's football league.

I guess you've actually found a sport where men have a physical disadvantage so I say let them try to compete with 5'2 15 year old girls on the balance beam and see how that works out

But for pretty much all other sports men have an advantage and their league will be superior on the whole, so nothing is lost by "letting" women compete if a team wants to have them.

Which is another point, none of the professional leagues are expressly "men's" leagues, so I think this assumption that those advocating that a capable woman bear the burden of proof to persuade others that the a sports franchise is free to hire whoever they think will most benefit their team is mistaken.

 

[TyronePoole]

Deus doesn't make arguments, he makes one liners and quips. His entire game is to get people guessing about why their post is "the stupidest thing he's ever read" (or some similar iteration) and then look in the mirror and tell himself how smart he is while they flounder around trying to get to the point.

:bricks:

You keep posting this as if it's meaningful. It's not. The ship has no more "already sailed" than it had when the responses were


We DO NOT have female fighters.
We DO NOT have strong female athletes.
We DO NOT have female warriors.
We DO NOT have "tough" female politicians at the highest levels.
We DO NOT have female action heroes in fiction.

These are ongoing, important issues. Societies rise and fall, and they change and revert.

See, this is just a ridiculous notion, and it demonstrates an amazing level of hypocrisy.

You think the obvious hypocrisy really needed to be slapped back in your face rather than its existence merely being noted? Are you truly that blind on the issue?

This is not a maturity issue. You surely know this.



It's not about feeling threatened. Acting as if it is does not become you, as it's just a method of cutting off discussion on a subject where you have the significantly weaker argument.

Looooooool Deus

 

[Tunescribe]

No, folks like you will get a brain transplant, or will simply mature.

What's that got to do with the fundamentals of physiological gender differences?

It will take another generation for the even the first generation of women competing at top levels in college in various sports.

It will also take that generation before women athletes are generally accepted in open competition with men.

Where do you come up with this stuff? Women have been competing at high levels against each other (intercollegiately and internationally) for decades. You think that somehow they will "catch up" physically to men in another generation? Will men biologically regress somehow? What is this opinion based on?

Apparently, it is OK in NASCAR.

By default, because there is no female NASCAR. A poor example of "athletic" endeavor nonetheless.

This competition will also be OK in golf and tennis.

How, and why? It hasn't yet to this point.

I have no clue why folks feels so threatened.

And I have no clue why folks like you conclude that confronting bewildering perspectives with common sense equates to feeling "threatened."