Splendour I put a GAZILLLION dollars women are NEVER going to win more medals than men in the events we currently have at the Olympics.

Sounds rather arrogant to suggest they might, or that they've "made progress." Doesn't matter if they made progress, it'll never be unisex because men are superior when it comes to physical capabilities.

The end. Of course some feminists are in total denial of this and even suggest women be put on the front lines of battle - I'd like to see some research on how well they'd do there. We've only seen data from one side of the issue. Perhaps it's just that most people don't even have to look up the data to know these things, while feminists are reaching for straws. Trying to hang on to their futile position in regards to "equality"?


It reminds me of the Israel/Palestine issue. It's not really about a piece of holy land is it? I mean... If you think it is, that's because you're only looking at male/female wages and don't see the bigger picture. The real reason is, as usual, money. Why the war in Chechnya? Money. Why war in Iraq? I'll bet you a gazillion it is money driven.

So how is this any different? I don't believe inequalities, even if they are there and significant, are going to be solved by hurling money at them. Look at the USA school system. They've been hurling money at that. Look at the war on drugs, been hurling money at that. Does it solve anything? No.

So it goes with feminism or any other social issue - the trouble is almost never the money - but the way people treat one another. So gotta come from the heart and do what's right and all shall be well

If you take someone who has never lifted weights before and start training him even remotely well, he will make huge leaps in performance. He may increase how much weight he can lift by 50% or more in the span of a year. But that doesn't mean that he will be stronger than Olympian weightlifters because those guys may be lucky to increase their lifts by 2 or 3% per year.

This has nothing to do with arrogance. In truth it seems clearly a flaw in the person asserting that it does rather than the person the charge is leveled at.

Of course women won't win against men. I'll assert as well that no two year old, boy or girl, will ever beat me playing one-on-one hoops. However, when I'm older and more enfeebled than I am now, we may play to a tie.

However, others think women can beat men:

Women may outrun men in the 2156 Olympics

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

News
30 September 2004

By the middle of the next century the fastest person in the world could be a woman, according to Dr Andrew Tatem of Oxford’s Department of Zoology and colleagues. They predict that the women’s 100-metre sprint at the 2156 Olympics will for the first time be won in a faster time than the men’s event.

In a paper published on 30 September in Nature the scientists plot the winning times of the men’s and women’s Olympic finals over the past 100 years against the competition date. They found that over the years the difference between the winning times of men and women has been steadily shrinking. Extrapolation of these trends indicates that in 2156 the women’s 100-metre sprint will be won in 8.079 seconds and the men’s in 8.098 seconds – the first time ever that the women’s race is won with a faster time than the men’s.

The authors admit that this simple analysis overlooks numerous factors that could have an influence on athletes’ performance, such as timing accuracy, environmental variations, national boycotts and the use of legal and illegal stimulants. However, their findings are defended by the fact that despite all these influences, the winning times of both men and women have followed a remarkably strong linear trend over the last century. Many commentators feel that we have reached a plateau in winning times as athletes hit the peak of physical performance, but the authors found no evidence that this is the case.

The findings are likely to be controversial among those who believe that basic differences in male and female physiology mean that men will always have an advantage in strength and endurance sports. However Dr Tatem is confident that he will not be proved wrong in his lifetime. ‘I should be happy to stake my reputation on the predicted date,’ he said. ‘If I’m wrong anyone is welcome to come and question me about the result after the 2156 Olympics’

Is that an article from the Onion? Very subtle parody, I like it.

so, was that a refusal to answer my question, or what? how is it arrogant? i see it as the truth. would it still be arrogant if i was a woman?

Only when dealing with a group as blind and irrational as feminists can simple matter of fact statements such as "Men are typically taller than women" get somehow 'controversial' to them.

I know in feminist eutopia land men and women are 100% identical in every possible aspect, mentally, physically, emotionally and I deeply sorry millions of years of evolution decide to make this a non-reality.

QTF.

There is an inherent aggressiveness to modern day women's lib that is part of the aggressiveness I was getting slammed for pointing out is very much a part of women's nature and mentality just as it is of men's. Often it's simply front and center and no looking is necessary, but even if not showing that side at any particular moment, you really only have to sit and wait for women's lib to show it. It will rarely take long.

And the people that aggression is vented on are often strongly to blame too, for so often giving that sort of aggression and gainsaying a free pass or nodding gamely and blindly along, perhaps hoping to stay out of the way while the poor sap one seat over gets to eat it.

It's kind of funny when it overreaches so far as to claim physical equality.

Except of course when it leads to things like women firefighters being hired, where public safety is a concern.

Some stats showing men vs. women in some track and field events.

http://members.cox.net/kdrum/Menwomensports.htm

Blarg lol yeah. I am just waiting for someone to ask me to provide STUDIES for how exactly, men are physically more fit than women Because it's not obvious at all. *Grins*

Or someone to quote "So you think you can dance" Sabra, a woman, winning last season. Clearly that's progress women are making, right? LOL

These feminists really bug you guys don't they. Lol. Do you guys really know any hard core feminists? I don't.

It's the hypocritical combination of victimhood and favoritism that annoys me. The idea that men and women *should* have everything equal, and where they don't, it's because of poor women suffering at the hands of the patriarchal social structure. This leads to many ridiculous positions, like some in this thread and many in academia, backed up by a healthy dose of nastiness. For example, prominent feminists have written and published scholarly papers that claim men studied solid dynamics over fluid dynamics because of a preference for a rigid penis over vaginal secretions (the real reason is the applicability to real world applications, and the difficulty of the partial differential equations used for fluid flow).

There are many examples of feminism that's not based around a loser's mentality...see this for example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indepen...omen%27s_Forum

Oxford.

Or as some might call it, Fox News Feminism. Geesh.

I know, it was kind of a rhetorical question.

Surely you appreciate how ridiculous and unscholarly such an opinion is? There is nothing in that article except a completely unfounded extrapolation, with no regard to causative mechanisms, or discussion of why women haven't yet caught up, given that professional female athletes receive comparable, science based training to men.

The reason for the discrepancy in improvements is likely due to two things:

- The elite group of men were historically fitter than elite women, and hence there was less room for improvement as science based training methods became available, athletes became professionals and training became a full time occupation for both sexes.
- Population explosions in the 20th century, combined with women's increasing role in sport, have meant that females with superior natural abilities were finally partaking in sports, where before, many weren't able.

Both of these things will level off long before the middle of this century, if they haven't already. None of these things are going to continue linearly into the middle of next century, which the self admittedly simplistic analysis requires.

I believe the term is "equity feminism", as opposed to "gender feminisim", which asserts that gender roles are 100% a result of the patriarchy, and seeks to eliminate genders altogether.

Please tell me you don't subscribe to the second.

Simple questions, so feminists think women are oppressed and held back by men but women are also 100% equal in every single way.

So how is that situation even possible? How did it come to pass that men were in a position to do this to women? Why wasn't it the other way around? If men and women are so equal, how come men have ruled the planet for as long as recorded history goes back?

There are several answers but the main reason is simply that men are on the average much physically bigger and stronger.

I find it half hillarious / half astonding that anyone can even attempt to try to contest this.

Denial is very, very powerful thing it would seem. People decide how they think things should be and any information that doesn't fit that view no matter how blatently obvious is simply dismissed or ignored.

This thread just won't die. I take the blame for it. I never should have mentioned the Women's Rights movement when I correlated it to modern attitudes towards women.

LOL at people actually think this percentage difference becoming smaller means that it will eventually end in 0.

It is much easier to improve percentagewise when you start from zero.
Also when people bring up women nor running as fast as men did in year X. This is just as much a matter of technology and profesionalisme (is that a word?) that todays contestants benefit from. Both men and women are much better at getting the maximum out of there effort now a days.

Perhaps you missed the first part of my post in which I stated my opinion concerning women beating men in Olympic events. (I did use an analogy, however, of playing a two year old in basketball.) Simply, I'm not sure what a woman beating a man in a sprint would prove. However, men's dominance against women in sports hardly proves anything either--except that men are superior in sports. Water is also wet.

I posted the article because I found someone who disagrees with me, but I didn't judge the rationale of his claims. Had I done so, I would have found it lacking for reasons much like yours.

Q.E.D.

John yeah. It proves NOTHING. NOTHING AT ALL...

John do you want women fighting front lines during wars btw? If not, why not?

And can you also explain how this sports examples have NOTHING to do with rendering "equality" attempts meaningless? What I said was - if women are equal to men. I want unisex Olympic events. Are you cool with this?

If you think separate events are ok in sports, why do you think they're not ok elsewhere? Say... in workplace?

Of course it is ok to hit a woman because James Bond (Sean Connery) says so!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3FgMLROTqJ0

anything you poker nerds say that most of you never even touched a woman has no importance!

I'm all for separate sporting events in the work place.

I have no problem with women fighting on the front lines. My student who left at the end of the semester for Afghanistan had no problem with it either, and I think she could do a better job of fighting on the front lines than most of the men in the class.

Your message and the message of many other men who have posted here seems to be that men are indeed superior; therefore, they deserve superior treatment, along with submissive, meek, humble, and subservient women. Sorry, but the "Angel in the House" disappeared a long time ago (c.f., Coventry Patmore and the ideal Victorian Woman). You ain't getting her back, and if you have half a brain (and I'm giving you credit for that), you wouldn't want her in the first place.

You seem to think I'm arguing that everyone should be the same, but that's a misreading of what I'm saying. I'm advocating for equal treatment and opportunity. I am not proposing some "Harrison Bergeron" version of the world in which the strongest are given handicaps to make everyone equal. It's not a horse race.

Eh? Where is that coming from?

Humility is pretty attractive in both men and women, so if there's some conspiracy going on to wipe it out, count me out.

Also, I think you make the common feminist mistake here of decrying things that should only be decried if they are not voluntary.

I say let who wants to be bold be bold, let who wants to be meek be meek; service is never a dirty word inside the house or our and no matter who is doing it; everyone should be subservient sometimes and there's nothing inherently wrong with that, and let's all take at least the occasional crack at humility either way.

I think you and Alex are arguing about less than the way the talk is turning here recently would indicate.