Why do women need female only competitions in everything?
Scroll to see replies
Original post by Ben_Dover
Can you honestly not read? My argument has been based on the premise that men will not play their natural game in the fear of inflicting harm on women. At no point did I say women can't handle pain.
The fact that you are failing to appreciate this point clearly demonstrates your lack of knowledge of the game. Don't post a reply until you play cricket with a hard ball....I can't spend my limited free time educating you
The fact that you are failing to appreciate this point clearly demonstrates your lack of knowledge of the game. Don't post a reply until you play cricket with a hard ball....I can't spend my limited free time educating you
How about you think about the implications you are making. And what you are saying is that women shouldn't play because the male players work on some double standards thinking that women can't handle themselves and that inflicting legitimate sporting injuries is somehow wrong. Does this mean that women shouldn't be allowed to compete in sport at all? After all, in their own women's divisions they can still get badly hurt, in other sports that they play they can still get badly hurt, the fact that the injury would be slightly worse with a male bowler vs a female bowler should be irrelevant.
Original post by Jammy Duel
How about you think about the implications you are making. And what you are saying is that women shouldn't play because the male players work on some double standards thinking that women can't handle themselves and that inflicting legitimate sporting injuries is somehow wrong. Does this mean that women shouldn't be allowed to compete in sport at all? After all, in their own women's divisions they can still get badly hurt, in other sports that they play they can still get badly hurt, the fact that the injury would be slightly worse with a male bowler vs a female bowler should be irrelevant.
No self respecting man would intentionally inflict a sporting injury on a female like they do to men. I can't say I can speak on your behalf
Original post by Ben_Dover
No self respecting man would intentionally inflict a sporting injury on a female like they do to men. I can't say I can speak on your behalf
Are you saying that whenever men get injured in sport it is intentional? Well then, should most professional sportsmen not be banned for this? I'm not proposing you go along and throw the balls in their face on purpose to break their nose, rather to let them play given that they will be well aware of the risks involved, especially if they have been playing anyway with other women.
Original post by Jammy Duel
Are you saying that whenever men get injured in sport it is intentional? Well then, should most professional sportsmen not be banned for this? I'm not proposing you go along and throw the balls in their face on purpose to break their nose, rather to let them play given that they will be well aware of the risks involved, especially if they have been playing anyway with other women.
On occasions it's intentional. The Ashes displays a lot of these hostilities as do matches between India and Pakistan. Aggressive fast bowlers tend to do bouncers to the body in an attempt to unsettle the batsman. No fast bowler would do that to a lady
Original post by Ben_Dover
No self respecting man would intentionally inflict a sporting injury on a female like they do to men. I can't say I can speak on your behalf
No self respecting man would intentionally injure another man in sport. Initially you may have men going easy on the women but once they have shown they can stick it in the mens leagues I think men would accept it
Original post by MattBerry96
I would imagine it happens more than people would expect
Do you have any evidence? I'd have thought if you controlled for the exact job, it would be very unlikely, since it would open them up to accusations of discrimination. (Sorry, slightly off topic.)
Original post by MattBerry96
No self respecting man would intentionally injure another man in sport. Initially you may have men going easy on the women but once they have shown they can stick it in the mens leagues I think men would accept it
Why should you go easy on them? It ruins the enjoyment of the game.
Original post by Ben_Dover
On occasions it's intentional. The Ashes displays a lot of these hostilities as do matches between India and Pakistan. Aggressive fast bowlers tend to do bouncers to the body in an attempt to unsettle the batsman. No fast bowler would do that to a lady
ON OCCASION. And if they wouldn't do it to somebody playing at a professional level for ANY reason they don't want to win, it's like saying "I shouldn't do it to this person because they are 40 and so not at their physical prime."
Original post by Ben_Dover
Why should you go easy on them? It ruins the enjoyment of the game.
Exactly. You're the one saying that they will, and you give the impression that you think that they should.
Original post by Chief Wiggum
Do you have any evidence? I'd have thought if you controlled for the exact job, it would be very unlikely, since it would open them up to accusations of discrimination. (Sorry, slightly off topic.)
Read something about Goldman Sachs i think the other day but cba to find it at the minute as I'm busy. Off the top of my head I think they have been found to be paying new female associates 8% less than their male counter parts.
Original post by Ben_Dover
Why should you go easy on them? It ruins the enjoyment of the game.
You are suggesting that men should go easy on the women though? I would agree that it hinders the enjoyment of the sport but in pretty much every instance of women being included into more things men have gone easy on them until the women have shown that they can stick it with the men.
Original post by Jammy Duel
ON OCCASION. And if they wouldn't do it to somebody playing at a professional level for ANY reason they don't want to win, it's like saying "I shouldn't do it to this person because they are 40 and so not at their physical prime."
Exactly. You're the one saying that they will, and you give the impression that you think that they should.
Exactly. You're the one saying that they will, and you give the impression that you think that they should.
Put a lady in a match between India Pakistan or the Ashes and we see what end result is.
With respect to your second point, did you read what my comment was in response to?
Clearly not since the tsr user was proposing men should take it easy on women for an initial period. My point is not that that they should take it easy due to the difference in skill but they WOULD in the fear of harming them.
I'm not going to continue this any further since you have never competed at a high level with a woman in the opposing team. When you're in that situation, then respond. Otherwise don't bother
Original post by MattBerry96
You are suggesting that men should go easy on the women though? I would agree that it hinders the enjoyment of the sport but in pretty much every instance of women being included into more things men have gone easy on them until the women have shown that they can stick it with the men.
Read my previous posts...I can't be bothered to explain the same point to another person.
Original post by Ben_Dover
Put a lady in a match between India Pakistan or the Ashes and we see what end result is.
Probably very different to what you think, especially if the male players retain a bit of professionalism about them.
With respect to your second point, did you read what my comment was in response to?
Clearly not since the tsr user was proposing men should take it easy on women for an initial period. My point is not that that they should take it easy due to the difference in skill but they WOULD in the fear of harming them.
Clearly not since the tsr user was proposing men should take it easy on women for an initial period. My point is not that that they should take it easy due to the difference in skill but they WOULD in the fear of harming them.
Did you even read it, because you seem to be adding words into it. They said "Initially you may have men going easy..." Which is in no way the same as saying "I think that initially men should go easy...". They're stating a fact, the men may well start off giving them an easy ride, then you find out how it actually goes: Either the women will be removed from the team, or the men will have to step their game up and stop being so sexist.
I'm not going to continue this any further since you have never competed at a high level...
And you have?
...with a woman in the opposing team.
Again, and you have?
When you're in that situation, then respond. Otherwise don't bother
So why don't you shut up too?
I haven't read the full conversation, but I compete in showjumping at low national level.
It's seen as a girly sport, but the majority of professionals I know are men; women are generally perceived as weaker and I've been told on more than one occasion that I shouldn't be riding a horse for no reason other than 'it's a man's horse.' In racing, male jockeys stand out at the racing schools, so owners remember them and they end up with the jobs at the end in the better racing yards. The same trend is visible in showjumping and this is reflected in world rankings - there are only two women in the world top ten, and 649 of the 2550 riders in the world with ranking points are female. There are competitions specifically for ladies, but these are only as CSI1* level, which can only go up to 1.40m and no classes at CSI1* level are ranked.
Dressage and eventing are different - eventing is much more dangerous than SJ, whereas dressage is regarded as being very girly, with 9 of the world top ten being female. Eventing is pretty much equal between the sexes - 4 of the world top ten are female. The main difference between showjumping and dressage is the calendar - only 6 events at top level in eventing, meaning that it is possible to work and ride at the same time. In the 2008 Olympics, the double gold medallist for eventing worked as a dentist full time. Dr Steph Croxford, a British pharmacist, competed at top level dressage as an amateur and also as a mother (a lot of eventers, like Mary King, Izzy Taylor and Zara Phillips have children as well as the career of my dreams) with her horse, Mr President. A big difference with dressage is that a rider needs only one horse to reach the top. In fact, this may even be beneficial for the purpose of national representation. This means that there is marginally less reliance on owners, as riders can fund themselves at low levels and it's easy enough to find a horse who will go to CCI1*, which will get you recognition required for owners and sponsors etc. In showjumping you need connections or to stand out to get the same, although it is much less expensive (£15/class as opposed to £100/class in eventing). In dressage, if you're scoring 70%+ at elementary level (the fourth level of dressage), people will want you to ride their horse.
I'll write more if prompted, but that's all for now.
It's seen as a girly sport, but the majority of professionals I know are men; women are generally perceived as weaker and I've been told on more than one occasion that I shouldn't be riding a horse for no reason other than 'it's a man's horse.' In racing, male jockeys stand out at the racing schools, so owners remember them and they end up with the jobs at the end in the better racing yards. The same trend is visible in showjumping and this is reflected in world rankings - there are only two women in the world top ten, and 649 of the 2550 riders in the world with ranking points are female. There are competitions specifically for ladies, but these are only as CSI1* level, which can only go up to 1.40m and no classes at CSI1* level are ranked.
Dressage and eventing are different - eventing is much more dangerous than SJ, whereas dressage is regarded as being very girly, with 9 of the world top ten being female. Eventing is pretty much equal between the sexes - 4 of the world top ten are female. The main difference between showjumping and dressage is the calendar - only 6 events at top level in eventing, meaning that it is possible to work and ride at the same time. In the 2008 Olympics, the double gold medallist for eventing worked as a dentist full time. Dr Steph Croxford, a British pharmacist, competed at top level dressage as an amateur and also as a mother (a lot of eventers, like Mary King, Izzy Taylor and Zara Phillips have children as well as the career of my dreams) with her horse, Mr President. A big difference with dressage is that a rider needs only one horse to reach the top. In fact, this may even be beneficial for the purpose of national representation. This means that there is marginally less reliance on owners, as riders can fund themselves at low levels and it's easy enough to find a horse who will go to CCI1*, which will get you recognition required for owners and sponsors etc. In showjumping you need connections or to stand out to get the same, although it is much less expensive (£15/class as opposed to £100/class in eventing). In dressage, if you're scoring 70%+ at elementary level (the fourth level of dressage), people will want you to ride their horse.
I'll write more if prompted, but that's all for now.
Original post by Ben_Dover
No self respecting man would intentionally inflict a sporting injury on a female like they do to men. I can't say I can speak on your behalf. Why should you go easy on them? It ruins the enjoyment of the game.
Original post by MattBerry96
No self respecting man would intentionally injure another man in sport. Initially you may have men going easy on the women but once they have shown they can stick it in the mens leagues I think men would accept it
Ben Dover has bit of a point. Many professional players do this to others and in some sports it's encouraged in certain situations, such as a possible buzzer beater in basketball so they get somebody to foul him so no chance at the 3 points needed. People go easy on other people because they have no need to go full out, wasting their time and energy and then also getting bad press while their at it. They would also be embarrassing the enemy team.
Original post by TolerantBeing
Emotions govern all of our decisions. That is one of their main purposes.... And an adaptive value.
Not true. Logic is a wonderful thing.
Original post by Sanctimonious
Not true. Logic is a wonderful thing.
Well unfortunately for you, humans are often quite illogical.
Original post by Sanctimonious
Not true. Logic is a wonderful thing.
But how often do people purely use logic and noy let emotion have any influence?
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by Den Haag
I believe it's discriminating and patronizing for women to have female only competitions in anything from sports or chess to female only maths olympiads. What kind of message does this send to girls? That they're only good enough for a girl? It's disgusting and humiliating.
My proposal is this : dismantle all female only competitions and make men and women compete together in everything. The best adult female football teams in the world lose to mediocre 15 yo boys by huge margins? So what? Not all men are better than all women at football. The fastest women in the world could be beaten by half decent high school teenage male runners? So what? Not all men are better than all women at running. There's only 1 woman in the top 100 best chess players in the world and only 3 in the top 100 of the IMO. So what? Not all men are better than all women at chess and maths. Female master titles in chess are an insult to women : ''oh, gratz hun, you're good enough for a girl!''
This would also solve the pay issue in sports since there would only be one competition for all.
My proposal is this : dismantle all female only competitions and make men and women compete together in everything. The best adult female football teams in the world lose to mediocre 15 yo boys by huge margins? So what? Not all men are better than all women at football. The fastest women in the world could be beaten by half decent high school teenage male runners? So what? Not all men are better than all women at running. There's only 1 woman in the top 100 best chess players in the world and only 3 in the top 100 of the IMO. So what? Not all men are better than all women at chess and maths. Female master titles in chess are an insult to women : ''oh, gratz hun, you're good enough for a girl!''
This would also solve the pay issue in sports since there would only be one competition for all.
Because they can't compete on the same level as the men, so in order for them to be able to have a meaningful competition they need there only competitions. I don't see the issue here.
Men would win in some sports due to their natural build, meaning biologically they are at a disadvantage. But for sports such as chess, I believe they should be uni-sex.
Quick Reply
Latest
Trending
Last reply 1 day ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 day ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 1 day ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 1 day ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 day ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 1 day ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
