Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
males and females are different
grayman scores!
(01-08-2018, 12:00 AM)Di Wundrin Wrote:  Depends on the sport a bit.  The women's cricket is getting a fair audience, same with the womens AFL.

Women's AFL, I can fully understand and support - a bunch of scantily-clad, tall, fit women getting sweaty.

I've applied to eight clubs so far for the masseur job. No idea why they won't hire me.

Women's cricket is terrible. They can't hit or bowl.

(01-08-2018, 12:00 AM)Di Wundrin Wrote:  Women can play cricket at a fairly high level and with finesse if not with equal bowling power.
They can play AFL at a level that is highly skilled and thus, entertaining.

No and no.

Their skill level will always be miles behind the male game and much like athletics, they will never catch up. Quite why women have to take on men's sports when they have one of the best games ever invented - netball - is well beyond me.

(01-08-2018, 12:00 AM)Di Wundrin Wrote:  But they can't match the sheer brute neanderthal boofiness of Rugby Union no matter how fugly they are.  
Soooo, point granted.

I was only using rugby as the most extreme example, and where the pay gap is greatest in NZ. Lydia Ko earns twice any All Black and doesn't even need to raise a sweat. She gets paid enormous money because women's golf has an enormous audience.

The pay should be determined by the ability to earn, just like every other human endeavour.

(01-08-2018, 08:30 AM)grayman Wrote:  Would there be a market for a male version of Lingerie Football?

NO!!!! A thousand times no!

(although there is a NZ nude rugby team)

Lingerie anything is good if they're women, though.
Love is... that one person whose freshly-warm toilet seat you don't find disgusting.
You've probably guessed I don't watch cricket, just going on the figures I've heard and the women won more international matches than the men did last year.

Otherwise though we're pretty much in agreement that they should be paid according to their value to the sponsor.

Pity in a way but that's how things go.
I'd like to try to jack this thread up a notch.
Please bare with me for a moment as i think on the fly:

those that know me know that i'm a disgusting sjw snowflake bambi-ass liberal.
true, i'm a straight white male from America...but if I wasn't, i'd be a transgender lesbian. probably vegan...from Bangladesh or at least Hondurans.

That said, what really makes a male or a female?
And how does modernity effect that?

There's 3 points to this i'd like to number....from one to three:

1. There is a strong sociological aspect to the differences between males and females.
we are taught to be different. from birth. i was given toy guns and dump trucks while Judy got baby dolls that pissed their diapers. (Betsy-Wetsy)
Clearly, public schools of me era (and today) favor male centered sports programs.
Even professional female athletes work for much less pay than male counter-parts.
They don't draw the same 'gate money' as the boys do...but that could be a sociological effect.

2. There are real physiological differences between males and females. One that may be less obvious is that male red-blood cells can carry more oxygen than female red-blood cells...and (coincidentally) the discrepancy reflects the superiority of males in all sports.
Males are typically larger and stronger than females. It's true among all manner of mammalia species.
(The opposite is true among many species of animals. Insects and fish come to mind.)

3. So,

what's the deal?

Now that transgendering is mainstream, we're faced with a deeper dig into male and female.
If a female athlete takes male hormones, is she likelier to run faster than her competition?

So part two:

Imagine this scenario:

You're a young pregnant woman.
(C'mon guys, we can do this.)

And you get a sonogram of your fetus...and you learn that it is a female.
(Or a male; either one works in this thought experiment.)

And you decide that you want that girl to be a boy.
And you adjust the hormones; you play against the sociological shit, and you raise dear Judy as Johnny.

Would she be able to run as fast as Usain Bolt?

Even though she still had a vagina?

(Btw, for the females here, keep in mind, having balls and a dick do not help the speed of male sprinters. They're kind-of in the way.)

I'm not alienating anyone , right? In discussing this stuff?
No, I've never had a problem at accepting the bleeding obvious that men are physically better equipped than women.
I only play around with the bias against female intellect,  so go for your life ... or are you finished?

But even with all the steroids and hormonal enhancements that produce people like that Castor chick who is a bloke to every observable form of evidence, she still can't match Bolt.  But then 99999999.999999% of males can't come close either.

Did you see those Chinese chicks at the Olympic swimming comps a few years back??   Christ, Marvel comics couldn't draw physiques like that,  but they still didn't come close to the men's best times.

Didn't know about that oxygen capacity thing, explains a lot really.
Men seem to have evolved as sprinters, women as stayers, women store (healthy) fat reserves better than men do.
Men carry it in their guts, women on their hips.  Women needed to outlast the bad times better than men to keep the next generation alive.  The men were expendable.  It all seems fairly simple from an evolutionary viewpoint but I'm pretty sure it's a lot more complicated than that.

How much of the difference is hormonally driven?  and how much is down to something even more than that?

Not all men and women are equally strong or weak either, it varies wildly between individuals within the genders.
That makes it harder to pinpoint reasons too.  
I doubt you could take your average lazy fat fuck 8 year old and turn him into Bolt.  Or her into a ballet dancer.  

I was shite at every sport ever invented.  The only physical talent I had that not everyone could do was ... siiigh, I shouldn't even admit this ... Blush  I could do a really good belly dance. Had all the moves, not just stand there wriggling and not just a hula either, I could do all the bump and grind stuff.

No training, it just came natural due to loose joints.
 That's what's giving me all the problems now, wonky joints that pull out of alignment and stretch ligaments and tendons and hurt like a bitch!  

But shit, it was worth it.  Before it all started to fall apart,  I could stun 'em at a party! Big Grin

But I couldn't run, couldn't jump, used to puff out faster than the rest.  Couldn't hit a ball with bat except by accident, couldn't throw anything far enough to do any good, couldn't catch things. 

Just bloody physically useless and always the left over when teams were chosen.  I overcame that by not giving a shit about sports and soon found that not being picked meant you got to sit in the shade and watch the others getting bruised up and sweaty and got to read lots of novels.
Silver lining.

The sociological argument is a good one, especially when it comes to spectator sports.  Take darts or lawn bowls or billiards where physical strength isn't a factor there would never be the audience for a women's comp as they'd get for a men's.   Why?  Buggered if I know, but if had to choose I too would probably opt to watch the men's competition and for no other reason than as you suggested, because we're imprinted to assume that men are better at everything and we want to see the best performances.             

I wish you hadn't raised that really, now i have to think about why I think that way .. siiiigh.

The one thing Aussies will watch about equally is the swimmers.  I can't think of anything more boring than watching other people swim, but Aussies get really hero worshippy over the girl swimmers equally with the boys.
You're a dear sweet human.

and male swimmers still crush the girls.

But yeah..swimming...

and more so, gymnastics.

female gymnasts exceed males now, in media attention.

We know about Simone Biles...who knows the name of her male equivalent?
so that's pretty cool, i guess.

even though male tumblers actually kick her ass.
Women Gymnasts, Volley ball players, AFL players in short shorts ... all down to sexism, nothing to do with their sporting prowess.

I only got interested in AFL for the same reason, except it was for the men in those short shorts. Heart
 God there are some beautiful specimens play that game. Angel
(01-08-2018, 08:37 PM)stanky Wrote:  You're a young pregnant woman.
(C'mon guys, we can do this.)

Mares perform amazing feats in the early stages of pregnancy - I've often wondered if women would be the same.

Even menstruation works for chicks. A famous Aussie female sprinter in the '70s, Raelene Boyle, used to time her periods for her events (100 & 200m) and she sure as hell used to win a lot.

(01-08-2018, 10:57 PM)Di Wundrin Wrote:  Women Gymnasts, Volley ball players, AFL players in short shorts ... all down to sexism, nothing to do with their sporting prowess.

Sex rather than sexism - if you show a beautiful young female body in tight clothes, guys will watch.

If you've ever watched women's gymnastics at the Olympics you should have seen Jack Nicholson in the front row every time.
Love is... that one person whose freshly-warm toilet seat you don't find disgusting.
Female Footballer Wins Historic Award, Is Promptly Asked If She Can Twerk
..-. ..- -.-. -.- / - .-. ..- -- .--.
The transgender issue in sports is amusing. Should a male that becomes female be allowed to compete against natural females?
Especially combat sports or weight lifting?

This is an interesting intersection of social justice vs common sense.

If Bruce Jenner had transitioned back in his day, and it was allowed, Caitlyn would have crushed at almost every sport there is...competing as a female.

I wish someone like Brock Lesner would transition and compete as a female in MMA.

The flip side of this would be a non-issue.

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)