Why do women need female only competitions in everything?

stop crying and counter the points made

As you have said, natural childbirth is well.. Natural. Females will endure this pain for the birth and survival of their children, whereas I'd doubt they would endure 90mph cricket balls flying into their heads, ribs, thighs, wrists etc. It's incomparable, one results in life and the other results in bruised or even broken bones.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Ooooh found one already

I agree with this to an extent. Yes, people want equality so we should have it in everything, from sports to education. However there are some females complaining they want equality that aren't satisfied with just equality, want more than their male counterparts or revel in certain things that aren't up to equality standards yet. This isn't all women, but is an overwhelmingly disproportionate amount of them that are like this.

Especially in sports, if women want to be come equal they need to play on the same field. There have been quite a few sports women who have said they know they aren't nearly the same skill level of their male sports counterparts and wouldn't like to play against them. Their lack of skill is because they don't play against them. If you want to be the best you need to play against the best as that will be how you grow. For the women that do want this though, the other 75% of them are ruining it for them by having this kind of attitude. This thing happened before, in an elite army unit (Can't remember if it was Britain or USA) but they had a trial run in which women could attempt the trials to enter the unit, all kinds of men usually go into it and even the worst of them still made it to the finish line, even though they didn't make it in time. The women however, several gave up before it had even started and all but two of them gave up half way. The two who did pass, then refused to join and when all the women were asked what they thought about it, they asked for a more lenient trial for them.

Women do train with male athletes all the time. WNBA players train with uni level male players and get whooped, the best female football teams play mediocre teenagers and get beaten by huge margins and the top female tennis players only have male coaches who, even though they've never achieved anything in male pro tennis and are decades older, still beat them with ease in practice. And the athletes in all those examples are midgets compared to the top male athletes in those sports. Yes, playing male players will make them better but there is a natural limit that they just can't overcome because of biology.

So by that logic I could beat the top female cyclists in a race? No, of course I couldn't. I took part in a time trial last week and a women came in second place beating men so just because does not mean she shouldn't bother competing because she isn't as good as a man


Posted from TSR Mobile

No, what I mean is a half decent male athlete who trained for all his life would beat the best of the women even though he wouldn't have a prayer against the male pros. If you take 1000 average healthy men who aren't physically handicapped somehow (too short, too tall, physical defects or conditions etc) and train them since childhood , a huge percentage of them would beat the best women in the world. And yes, in many cases even amateur men are better than the top women. Like for example I remember the female 800m olympic race time was something many men across the UK can run, sometimes even during practice and on par with the fastest, amateur under 18 boys. A decent pub league team would demolish the most elite female football teams since sometimes they even beat or draw pro male teams (look at all the giant killing in the FA cup). And an amateur male boxer would easily destroy a pro woman much heavier than him. Quite pathetic, really.

Yet when a woman (Sarah Taylor) wants to make the jump to real cricket, the powers that be deny her that right. Ridiculous. It's happened in football too. Unfortunately we'll probably need a girl Messi or something for the clubs to put enough pressure on the authorities to allow it.

Wow. The majority of males on TSR are pathetic. So far the one female who has posted is speaking the most sense. And the guy who's grating her for 'emotions' is also pathetic.

Women need female only sports because they cannot perform at the same level as males, as is obvious. Imagine if everything was mixed and therefore only a couple of women competed with many thousands of men. What do young girls have to look up to? My younger sister is extremely sporty and has the fighting ability to beat the **** out of most guys her age. She wants to become a professional footballer and has the potential to be, but if women did not have separate football leagues, etc, she would not be going anywhere in that direction.

The problem with the regular guys on TSR is that most of them are massive introverts who don't speak to many women and so cannot understand things from their viewpoints.

if you take 1000 men and train them from childhood you would end up with a lot of elite level athletes who would quite possibly be the best in the world so of course they would beat female athletes. I would hardly call the top female athletes pathetic, that is just insulting to them and the work they do - I don't think you would make it a month following their training and competing schedule. What makes it more ridiculous that your calling them pathetic is the fact you are making all these threads complaining about women on a online forum, isn't that more pathetic??

1
: having a capacity to move one to either compassionate or contemptuous pity
2
: marked by sorrow or melancholy : sad
3
: pitifully inferior or inadequate
4
: absurd, laughable

I said a huge % of the 1000 would beat the best women in the world and they would be far from elite, since pub leaguers in decent shape could slap around the best female teams much like teenage boys from ****ty U17 teams do.


As for pathetic:



... which women are when it comes to sports. It's not an insult, just reality.

How is it ridiculous?

If women have their own competitions, I don't think it's unreasonable that they shouldn't be able to compete in the men's competitions. Would you let a man compete in the women's tournaments?

Well I would say anyone who can the beat the best female athletes in the world is a fairly elite level athlete. People have commented that the William's sisters lost the the 200th best man in the world - if he isn't an elite level athlete then surely your criteria is too strict.

That list just highlights your sexist attitudes frankly. Saying female sports are absurd or laughable is very sexist. Sure, they women may not be as physical as men but that doesn't mean the sport is pointless. Womens sport is far from pointless.

Do you think women should be banned from careers such as building, finance, law, industry because you view them as inferior to men?

Are you saying that women can't possibly handle a bit of pain? Do you need introducing to the concept of natural childbirth?

Pub league blokes who play on sundays then have 5 pints after the match are elite ? Guys who run in amateur athletic clubs on the weekends are elite? These are regular guys with regular jobs who are fit enough and have their sports as weekend hobbies. Just about any fit male would be a top elite athlete and dominate without any problems in just about any female sport. I could go to my local park right now and find 11 teens who would maul the best adult female teams in the world with 6 months of intense team/tactical practice.

I don't think women should be banned from anything, they just have to perform at the same level as men to get paid the same money or earn the same respect. And I want people who organize female only chess tournaments and maths olympiads to kick the elephant out of the room and admit they do it because only a tiny number of women have the brain power that would allow them to compete against the very best men, not because they want to attract more women and the 99/1 ratio only occurs because not enough women participate. Scrabble and bridge are very female dominated games in terms of participation, but guess who makes up 90%+ of the top players? Yes, it's men.

So if you agree with women earning the same as men based on performance, i am guessing you find the fact that a lot of employers still do not pay women an equal salary to men as disappointing?

No, what I mean is a half decent male athlete who trained for all his life would beat the best of the women even though he wouldn't have a prayer against the male pros. If you take 1000 average healthy men who aren't physically handicapped somehow (too short, too tall, physical defects or conditions etc) and train them since childhood , a huge percentage of them would beat the best women in the world. And yes, in many cases even amateur men are better than the top women. Like for example I remember the female 800m olympic race time was something many men across the UK can run, sometimes even during practice and on par with the fastest, amateur under 18 boys. A decent pub league team would demolish the most elite female football teams since sometimes they even beat or draw pro male teams (look at all the giant killing in the FA cup). And an amateur male boxer would easily destroy a pro woman much heavier than him. Quite pathetic, really.

I can't imagine that that is the case when you control for the exact job and job performance.