Author Topic: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?  (Read 18498 times)

Wolfpack Mustachian

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 74
Explain it however you like, but only watching men's sports is sexist.

If you want to watch the best weightlifters in the world (for example) you will only watch men.  Women just cannot physically compete at the same level.  Sure it can be interesting to see how people people with a physical disadvantage do in competition . . . but there's naturally going to be less draw to that than watching the best of the best.  That's the same reason why the special Olympics aren't watched as much as the real Olympics.
             
The top women in any sport are the best women in that sport.  The top men in any sport are the best men in that sport.  So if you don't want to watch the best women then you don't want to watch women.   You aren't watching the best weight-lifters, you are watching the best male weight lifters.  There is a difference. So do you only watch heavy-weight wrestling or boxing, and ignore all the other weight categories?                                                                                                     

Interesting thread. A few thoughts on this.

First, this is quite a ridiculous statement. As GuitarStv said, the best men weight lifters are the best weight lifters period. They lift the most. Is this even debatable?

It reminds me of my first humanities class in college. I was nervous and hadn't said anything several classes in until the question came up of "What are natural differences between men and women?" I gave the most bland fair answer I could think, "Men are generally, physically stronger than women." You'd have thought I had said women were the most evil things in the world or something. I got chewed out. I came out of that (being much more conservative then than now) thinking, man, feminists are dumb (it was my first real exposure to people of significantly differing opinions, and it set me up to not think very highly of them).... I think this is important to highlight for two reasons. One, can't we at least agree with basic principles of truth. We already have a ridiculous commander in chief that makes up whatever truth he wants; can't we at least as intelligent human beings admit a basic fact? The other reason why I think it's important to argue against statements like this is that they perpetuate the myth that "general traits" of men are better than "general traits" of women. Yes, men are generally physically stronger; saying they're physically stronger doesn't mean they're better. It means they have the ability often times to perpetuate huge evils by hurting their significant other, for example. It reminds me of an article I read about Wonder Woman, one of my favorite super hero movies. It commented about how she was motivated by her emotions and compassion to take action where the men in the movie didn't. I thought it was a great point. I have women I care about in my life that feel that their emotions are bad because they have been conditioned to believe that they are by society. It reminds me of how professions that are male dominated that turn to being female dominated go from paying higher than average to lower than average because they're dominated now by women. It's all shades of the same hue, that things more generally feminine are bad/less important. Brush aside this point if you will. It doesn't make it a pointless argument because you act like people are hiding behind sports or whatever it was that was said. There's actual repercussions for saying certain things.

Last thought/question. I personally like some women's sports because of things said here. Women's tennis, I like, for example. Women's volleyball, same. I've never watched the WNBA (don't watch much NBA either), but I watched a women's college basketball game, and the talent level was atrocious. I don't watch women's basketball because of that. One question that people haven't really taken up in regards to this is, what are we ethically/morally obligated or should be inclined to do? Is the right thing for me to do, to support with my time or money something I truly don't enjoy to even things out? Genuinely curious as to people's answers.

OneStep

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 37
  • Location: KC Metro
Is it ok to answer that I like what I like? I enjoy both men and women in sports and entertainment. I would say that I look up to more men because I am a man and I relate to men better. I have found that I have very few female friends outside of my wife and I's "couple" friends. I share a lot with my male friends and I fear that if I did that with a female friend then that could be considered emotional cheating on my wife. I just don't know where to draw that line and I choose to, out of respect for my wife, not attempt to build strong friendships with other women one on one. I'm sure I've missed out on some possible good friendships, but I find that it is a worthy trade off in my case.

use2betrix

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1315
Explain it however you like, but only watching men's sports is sexist.

If you want to watch the best weightlifters in the world (for example) you will only watch men.  Women just cannot physically compete at the same level.  Sure it can be interesting to see how people people with a physical disadvantage do in competition . . . but there's naturally going to be less draw to that than watching the best of the best.  That's the same reason why the special Olympics aren't watched as much as the real Olympics.
             
The top women in any sport are the best women in that sport.  The top men in any sport are the best men in that sport.  So if you don't want to watch the best women then you don't want to watch women.   You aren't watching the best weight-lifters, you are watching the best male weight lifters.  There is a difference. So do you only watch heavy-weight wrestling or boxing, and ignore all the other weight categories?                                                                                                     

Interesting thread. A few thoughts on this.

First, this is quite a ridiculous statement. As GuitarStv said, the best men weight lifters are the best weight lifters period. They lift the most. Is this even debatable?

It reminds me of my first humanities class in college. I was nervous and hadn't said anything several classes in until the question came up of "What are natural differences between men and women?" I gave the most bland fair answer I could think, "Men are generally, physically stronger than women." You'd have thought I had said women were the most evil things in the world or something. I got chewed out. I came out of that (being much more conservative then than now) thinking, man, feminists are dumb (it was my first real exposure to people of significantly differing opinions, and it set me up to not think very highly of them).... I think this is important to highlight for two reasons. One, can't we at least agree with basic principles of truth. We already have a ridiculous commander in chief that makes up whatever truth he wants; can't we at least as intelligent human beings admit a basic fact? The other reason why I think it's important to argue against statements like this is that they perpetuate the myth that "general traits" of men are better than "general traits" of women. Yes, men are generally physically stronger; saying they're physically stronger doesn't mean they're better. It means they have the ability often times to perpetuate huge evils by hurting their significant other, for example. It reminds me of an article I read about Wonder Woman, one of my favorite super hero movies. It commented about how she was motivated by her emotions and compassion to take action where the men in the movie didn't. I thought it was a great point. I have women I care about in my life that feel that their emotions are bad because they have been conditioned to believe that they are by society. It reminds me of how professions that are male dominated that turn to being female dominated go from paying higher than average to lower than average because they're dominated now by women. It's all shades of the same hue, that things more generally feminine are bad/less important. Brush aside this point if you will. It doesn't make it a pointless argument because you act like people are hiding behind sports or whatever it was that was said. There's actual repercussions for saying certain things.

Last thought/question. I personally like some women's sports because of things said here. Women's tennis, I like, for example. Women's volleyball, same. I've never watched the WNBA (don't watch much NBA either), but I watched a women's college basketball game, and the talent level was atrocious. I don't watch women's basketball because of that. One question that people haven't really taken up in regards to this is, what are we ethically/morally obligated or should be inclined to do? Is the right thing for me to do, to support with my time or money something I truly don't enjoy to even things out? Genuinely curious as to people's answers.

This reminds me of a college sociology class I took. Our professor asked about differences between black and white people. The class was split about 50/50. No one said anything, so I finally chimed in, ďwhite people tend to get sunburnt easier.Ē

Like your situation, you would think I just let out a string of racist slurs. Man some of those black women just started going off about how theyíve ďbeen sunburnt.Ē

I am white and freckle with light eyes and can get sunburnt in 70 degree weather well before an hour rolls by. I have had skin cancer in my 20ís. Did I say black people cant get sunburnt? No. I just said white people tend to get burnt easier. It is a proven fact, and even skin cancer is far more prevalent in white people.

Itís insane. They argued so hard you would think being sunburnt was a good thing...

marty998

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5921
  • Location: Sydney, Oz
I have tried to stay away from reading any of this thread but curiosity finally got the better of me.

Explain it however you like, but only watching men's sports is sexist.

If you want to watch the best weightlifters in the world (for example) you will only watch men.  Women just cannot physically compete at the same level.  Sure it can be interesting to see how people people with a physical disadvantage do in competition . . . but there's naturally going to be less draw to that than watching the best of the best.  That's the same reason why the special Olympics aren't watched as much as the real Olympics.
             
The top women in any sport are the best women in that sport.  The top men in any sport are the best men in that sport.  So if you don't want to watch the best women then you don't want to watch women.   You aren't watching the best weight-lifters, you are watching the best male weight lifters.  There is a difference. So do you only watch heavy-weight wrestling or boxing, and ignore all the other weight categories?                                                                                                     

Interesting thread. A few thoughts on this.

First, this is quite a ridiculous statement. As GuitarStv said, the best men weight lifters are the best weight lifters period. They lift the most. Is this even debatable?

It reminds me of my first humanities class in college. I was nervous and hadn't said anything several classes in until the question came up of "What are natural differences between men and women?" I gave the most bland fair answer I could think, "Men are generally, physically stronger than women." You'd have thought I had said women were the most evil things in the world or something. I got chewed out. I came out of that (being much more conservative then than now) thinking, man, feminists are dumb (it was my first real exposure to people of significantly differing opinions, and it set me up to not think very highly of them).... I think this is important to highlight for two reasons. One, can't we at least agree with basic principles of truth. We already have a ridiculous commander in chief that makes up whatever truth he wants; can't we at least as intelligent human beings admit a basic fact? The other reason why I think it's important to argue against statements like this is that they perpetuate the myth that "general traits" of men are better than "general traits" of women. Yes, men are generally physically stronger; saying they're physically stronger doesn't mean they're better. It means they have the ability often times to perpetuate huge evils by hurting their significant other, for example. It reminds me of an article I read about Wonder Woman, one of my favorite super hero movies. It commented about how she was motivated by her emotions and compassion to take action where the men in the movie didn't. I thought it was a great point. I have women I care about in my life that feel that their emotions are bad because they have been conditioned to believe that they are by society. It reminds me of how professions that are male dominated that turn to being female dominated go from paying higher than average to lower than average because they're dominated now by women. It's all shades of the same hue, that things more generally feminine are bad/less important. Brush aside this point if you will. It doesn't make it a pointless argument because you act like people are hiding behind sports or whatever it was that was said. There's actual repercussions for saying certain things.

Last thought/question. I personally like some women's sports because of things said here. Women's tennis, I like, for example. Women's volleyball, same. I've never watched the WNBA (don't watch much NBA either), but I watched a women's college basketball game, and the talent level was atrocious. I don't watch women's basketball because of that. One question that people haven't really taken up in regards to this is, what are we ethically/morally obligated or should be inclined to do? Is the right thing for me to do, to support with my time or money something I truly don't enjoy to even things out? Genuinely curious as to people's answers.

This reminds me of a college sociology class I took. Our professor asked about differences between black and white people. The class was split about 50/50. No one said anything, so I finally chimed in, ďwhite people tend to get sunburnt easier.Ē

Like your situation, you would think I just let out a string of racist slurs. Man some of those black women just started going off about how theyíve ďbeen sunburnt.Ē

I am white and freckle with light eyes and can get sunburnt in 70 degree weather well before an hour rolls by. I have had skin cancer in my 20ís. Did I say black people cant get sunburnt? No. I just said white people tend to get burnt easier. It is a proven fact, and even skin cancer is far more prevalent in white people.

Itís insane. They argued so hard you would think being sunburnt was a good thing...

I agree - I don't think these discussions about strength and sunburn have anything to do with listening to objective fact. People are conditioned now to basically take an opposing view to set up a diametrically opposed argument, which sometimes leads to questioning EVERYTHING including objective fact.

Yes (if you plot the muscular strength of all men and all women) objectively the physical strength of a random man will more than likely be more than that of a random woman.

Regarding sunburn - yes my dark skin burns but I am certainly not as likely to have my skin peel off after 10 minutes in the sun as a freckled, white skin person.

Now on the flip side, objectively women are much better at articulating points of view and arguments (provided they can be heard over the top of a louder man who doesn't insult her first by calling her shrill).

I'll bet women are much better networkers and socialisers too.

And I've never seen a man put their hand up to want to experience a 48 hour labour before either. I recall seeing a piece of research that women's pain tolerance is much higher than that of men and perhaps related, they make better ultra-marathoners than men (apart from the very elite).

I guess for every ying there is a yang.

And I realise none of this answers the OP question. Sorry.

Cressida

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2504
  • Location: Sunset Zone 5
  • gender is a hierarchy
Yes (if you plot the muscular strength of all men and all women) objectively the physical strength of a random man will more than likely be more than that of a random woman.

That's actually not true. The collective strength of men is greater than the collective strength of women. That doesn't mean that a random man will "more than likely" be stronger than a random woman. The bell curves overlap quite a bit.


objectively women are much better at articulating points of view and arguments.

"Objectively"? Source?


I'll bet women are much better networkers and socialisers too.

On what basis?


Being imprecise and repeating tropes isn't helpful. It's true that there are physical observable differences between men and women. Nothing can change that. But observed differences* in any other category of comparison are not inherent, and therefore can and should be changed if we're ever going to get anywhere near equality and justice. I've had this argument in this forum before. The evidence just isn't there for inherent male/female differences that aren't physical.


*For example: women and men tend to express different emotions in public spaces. Observably true? Yes. Inherent? No.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 12357
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Male athletes are stronger.  Some sports just don't have the same depth of talent in the women's divisions as the men's (why this is the case is a whole other topic and likely related to structural sexism and normative gender streaming), so the level of competition is not as high.  It doesn't make you sexist to prefer to watch men in sports because you want to see the strongest person in the world, or because the sport you're watching tends not to draw as many women.

That said, there are several sexist comments I've read in this thread that make me sad to be a man.

"It commented about how she was motivated by her emotions and compassion to take action where the men in the movie didn't. I thought it was a great point. I have women I care about in my life that feel that their emotions are bad because they have been conditioned to believe that they are by society."

FFS.  No, women are not ruled by their emotions.  This is an old, stupid, stereotype that won't die.

"objectively women are much better at articulating points of view and arguments"

Seriously?  No, women are not inherently better at arguing.
« Last Edit: November 27, 2018, 08:27:36 AM by GuitarStv »

Wolfpack Mustachian

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 74
"It commented about how she was motivated by her emotions and compassion to take action where the men in the movie didn't. I thought it was a great point. I have women I care about in my life that feel that their emotions are bad because they have been conditioned to believe that they are by society."

FFS.  No, women are not ruled by their emotions.  This is an old, stupid, stereotype that won't die.


Wow, strawman much, GuitarStv? I neither explicitly nor implicitly said women were ruled by their emotions. I said in that situation, she was motivated by those emotions and compassion. Motivated, not ruled, and linking emotions to specifically the emotion of compassion. The fact that even the broadest brush touching on the fact that women are generally, not specifically in all instances, but generally more in touch with their emotions and more moved by compassion than men in this positive example triggered you so much you had to for f**'s sake emphasize women aren't ruled by their emotions is a slice off of the same pie I am talking about here. Yes, women tend to be more in touch with their emotions. Yes they tend to be more motivated by compassion. I'm not even going to argue whether or not it's inherent (to address the comment above), but it's there. At least in part because there's the association between women and emotions (that we can all agree is there in stereotype if nothing else), emotions themselves and being in touch with emotions are denigrated. Feeling compassion about something to the point of deeply stirring you is looked down on in society enough that it makes people I'm close to afraid to cry even with people they're close to even when they're crying about a deep hurt they themselves experienced or one they saw with someone else because "emotions are bad", and apparently it triggers you enough you have to make up things for me to say to berate me for.

Edit to add: I wish men would be better about not avoiding their emotions. It's a pretty crappy situation all around, but it's not helped by being so afraid of emotions that if the concept of women and emotions are ever linked together that we recoil like it's a snake. Attack the problem - people attacking women for showing emotions.
« Last Edit: November 23, 2018, 07:59:58 PM by Wolfpack Mustachian »

use2betrix

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1315


That's actually not true. The collective strength of men is greater than the collective strength of women. That doesn't mean that a random man will "more than likely" be stronger than a random woman. The bell curves overlap quite a bit.


Itís rather surprising that a statement like this could even be made. There is very little overlap, even vs women who workout a lot vs men who workout very little.

I have been weightlifting more frequently than probably 99.9% of the population for over a decade. Iíve lived in over 8 states and a dozen cities at that time and been a regular at 20+ gyms. So I understand ďaverageĒ pretty well.

For upper body strength, I could maybe count on one hand how many women I have ever seen bench press 135 lbs for reps. As for men, probably 80% of regular gym goers can do that pretty easy.

Iím not ďthatĒ strong compared to plenty of men at the gym, but I can bench 275x6 and squat 335x8. Itís only been in the last few decades that the strongest woman on earth could bench 300lbs. I can do that, and see people do it on a weekly basis on gyms all over the country.

In all of our times at the gym, I could count on one hand how many women I have seen squat more than my wife. She squats 225 for a handful of reps. Women really focused on powerlifting can do that, but itís pretty rare. I see men warm up with that again, virtually every time o ever go to the gym.

Your statement is a vastly incorrect statement by someone who must have no experience with weightlifting. The amount of genetic difference in strength is HUGE and it doesnít even require the weight room to be obvious.

Cressida

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2504
  • Location: Sunset Zone 5
  • gender is a hierarchy


That's actually not true. The collective strength of men is greater than the collective strength of women. That doesn't mean that a random man will "more than likely" be stronger than a random woman. The bell curves overlap quite a bit.


Itís rather surprising that a statement like this could even be made. There is very little overlap, even vs women who workout a lot vs men who workout very little.

I have been weightlifting more frequently than probably 99.9% of the population for over a decade. Iíve lived in over 8 states and a dozen cities at that time and been a regular at 20+ gyms. So I understand ďaverageĒ pretty well.

For upper body strength, I could maybe count on one hand how many women I have ever seen bench press 135 lbs for reps. As for men, probably 80% of regular gym goers can do that pretty easy.

Iím not ďthatĒ strong compared to plenty of men at the gym, but I can bench 275x6 and squat 335x8. Itís only been in the last few decades that the strongest woman on earth could bench 300lbs. I can do that, and see people do it on a weekly basis on gyms all over the country.

In all of our times at the gym, I could count on one hand how many women I have seen squat more than my wife. She squats 225 for a handful of reps. Women really focused on powerlifting can do that, but itís pretty rare. I see men warm up with that again, virtually every time o ever go to the gym.

Your statement is a vastly incorrect statement by someone who must have no experience with weightlifting. The amount of genetic difference in strength is HUGE and it doesnít even require the weight room to be obvious.

I'm not sure why you're taking such a dismissive tone. Your comment is focusing on people who go to the gym and lift weights. I'm talking about the population of the world. That's not the same sample. In my sample, yes, the bell curves overlap quite a bit. That's all I said and I stand by it.

yakamashii

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 100
  • Location: Japan

That's actually not true. The collective strength of men is greater than the collective strength of women. That doesn't mean that a random man will "more than likely" be stronger than a random woman. The bell curves overlap quite a bit.


Itís rather surprising that a statement like this could even be made. There is very little overlap, even vs women who workout a lot vs men who workout very little.

I have been weightlifting more frequently than probably 99.9% of the population for over a decade. Iíve lived in over 8 states and a dozen cities at that time and been a regular at 20+ gyms. So I understand ďaverageĒ pretty well.

For upper body strength, I could maybe count on one hand how many women I have ever seen bench press 135 lbs for reps. As for men, probably 80% of regular gym goers can do that pretty easy.

Iím not ďthatĒ strong compared to plenty of men at the gym, but I can bench 275x6 and squat 335x8. Itís only been in the last few decades that the strongest woman on earth could bench 300lbs. I can do that, and see people do it on a weekly basis on gyms all over the country.

In all of our times at the gym, I could count on one hand how many women I have seen squat more than my wife. She squats 225 for a handful of reps. Women really focused on powerlifting can do that, but itís pretty rare. I see men warm up with that again, virtually every time o ever go to the gym.

Your statement is a vastly incorrect statement by someone who must have no experience with weightlifting. The amount of genetic difference in strength is HUGE and it doesnít even require the weight room to be obvious.

I'm not sure why you're taking such a dismissive tone. Your comment is focusing on people who go to the gym and lift weights. I'm talking about the population of the world. That's not the same sample. In my sample, yes, the bell curves overlap quite a bit. That's all I said and I stand by it.

You said more than that. You said that this statement:

Yes (if you plot the muscular strength of all men and all women) objectively the physical strength of a random man will more than likely be more than that of a random woman.

was "actually not true," which is actually not true. The fact that the bell curves overlap a lot makes the difference less significant, and certainly increases the number of cases where the randomly selected woman is physically stronger than the randomly selected man. However, I don't see how you can argue that a random selection from the set of men on the planet is _unlikely_ to be physically stronger than a random selection from the set of women on the planet.

use2betrix

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1315


That's actually not true. The collective strength of men is greater than the collective strength of women. That doesn't mean that a random man will "more than likely" be stronger than a random woman. The bell curves overlap quite a bit.


Itís rather surprising that a statement like this could even be made. There is very little overlap, even vs women who workout a lot vs men who workout very little.

I have been weightlifting more frequently than probably 99.9% of the population for over a decade. Iíve lived in over 8 states and a dozen cities at that time and been a regular at 20+ gyms. So I understand ďaverageĒ pretty well.

For upper body strength, I could maybe count on one hand how many women I have ever seen bench press 135 lbs for reps. As for men, probably 80% of regular gym goers can do that pretty easy.

Iím not ďthatĒ strong compared to plenty of men at the gym, but I can bench 275x6 and squat 335x8. Itís only been in the last few decades that the strongest woman on earth could bench 300lbs. I can do that, and see people do it on a weekly basis on gyms all over the country.

In all of our times at the gym, I could count on one hand how many women I have seen squat more than my wife. She squats 225 for a handful of reps. Women really focused on powerlifting can do that, but itís pretty rare. I see men warm up with that again, virtually every time o ever go to the gym.

Your statement is a vastly incorrect statement by someone who must have no experience with weightlifting. The amount of genetic difference in strength is HUGE and it doesnít even require the weight room to be obvious.

I'm not sure why you're taking such a dismissive tone. Your comment is focusing on people who go to the gym and lift weights. I'm talking about the population of the world. That's not the same sample. In my sample, yes, the bell curves overlap quite a bit. That's all I said and I stand by it.

Iím taking such a dismissive tone because you are clearly talking about something you are entirely unfamiliar with. It doesnít matter gym goers in the US or Singaporeans, in basically every single comparable group of men and women, the men are substantially stronger. You have posted zero examples, or even anecdotal evidence. In this thread I have brought facts of high school boys vs Olympic womenís track and field times, testosterone levels of men vs women, and my vast personal experience in the weight lifting community.

You made a baseless statement with nothing to back it up. I canít even believe I am engaging in this discussion. Weightlifting or not doesnít matter. Iíd bet that 25% of men aged 18-35 can bench press 135 lbs. Iíd also bet that less than 1 in 200 women can do the same. My experience may be more US related (although Iíve lifted at gyms in 7 more countries) and the strength differences would merely be on a sliding scale for other countries as well.
« Last Edit: November 23, 2018, 10:02:52 PM by use2betrix »

Cressida

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2504
  • Location: Sunset Zone 5
  • gender is a hierarchy
Guys, can we play nice? I'm not saying anything controversial or ridiculous. Here's what marty998 said:

"objectively the physical strength of a random man will more than likely be more than that of a random woman."

Here's what marty998 did not say:

"objectively the physical strength of a random 30-year-old physically fit middle-class male weightlifter in America will more than likely be more than that of a random 30-year-old physically fit middle-class female weightlifter in America."

At the risk of stating the obvious, the reason this matters is that not everyone on the planet is a 30-year-old physically fit middle-class American.

Putting aside the thing that marty998 did not say: The thing that marty998 actually did say is not true; the bell curves overlap quite a bit, as I continue to point out. If you want to parse "more than likely," knock yourselves out, but I'm not going to be drawn into an argument about something I'm not claiming.

Also, the people responding to me are edging pretty close to violating forum rule #1, so if you guys want to be reported, please continue in this vein.

Grog

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 294
This talk of strength is ridiculous, it is only but just an aspect. Flexibility agility reflexes dexterity are all part of the athletic effort, why focus on strength
Here in Switzerland we have fan club, predominantly male, for a lot of female sports star. A lot for skiers like Lara gut or Dominique gisin or orienteering legends like simone niggli luder. You literally see bare chested men on snow track painting their names in big letters on their chest.
No one blinks an eye. And it really doesn't seem sexual or anything but true respect.
I remember as a kid looking up to vreni Schneider, another ski legend, and how happy we were when we randomly met her and got a signed postcard.


Sent from my Hisense A2T using Tapatalk


use2betrix

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1315
Guys, can we play nice? I'm not saying anything controversial or ridiculous. Here's what marty998 said:

"objectively the physical strength of a random man will more than likely be more than that of a random woman."

Here's what marty998 did not say:

"objectively the physical strength of a random 30-year-old physically fit middle-class male weightlifter in America will more than likely be more than that of a random 30-year-old physically fit middle-class female weightlifter in America."

At the risk of stating the obvious, the reason this matters is that not everyone on the planet is a 30-year-old physically fit middle-class American.

Putting aside the thing that marty998 did not say: The thing that marty998 actually did say is not true; the bell curves overlap quite a bit, as I continue to point out. If you want to parse "more than likely," knock yourselves out, but I'm not going to be drawn into an argument about something I'm not claiming.

Also, the people responding to me are edging pretty close to violating forum rule #1, so if you guys want to be reported, please continue in this vein.

As I have already asked.

Give some examples of where that strength bell curve overlaps between genders. Like I also said, it doesnít matter if we look at 15 year olds, 30 year olds, 60 year olds, Americans, or Singaporeans. There is very little overlap of that bell curve.

Men have around 10x the natural testosterone levels of women. In weightlifting, testosterone and all the substances that increase it, are the most popular banned substances. Why? Because they increase strength exponentially. As such, it makes no difference of what demographics you consider. Unless youíre trying to state other countries or demographics have significantly different hormone levels..

RetiredAt63

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 9803
  • Location: Eastern Ontario, Canada
Lifting a heavy weight is just one aspect.  What about stamina?  What about dexterity?  What about flexibility?  What about stability?  And coming back to bell curves, since the men's strength bell curve is to the right of the women's strength bell curve, of course the strongest men are going to be stronger than the strongest women, you are at the far right of the bell curve for both.  Same for median.  But in a random sample, it would be quite common to get a woman who is stronger than a man.  Plus we have to come back to the nurture side - we are still living in a culture that encourages strength in men (especially upper body) and not in women.  In fact, given the helicopter aspect of parenting these days, I have to wonder if it is worse now than when I was a kid - I could stop at the playground on the way home from elementary school and do lots of dangling and moving on the monkey bars.  Are monkey bars even a thing these days?  So unsafe /s



RetiredAt63

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 9803
  • Location: Eastern Ontario, Canada
This talk of strength is ridiculous, it is only but just an aspect. Flexibility agility reflexes dexterity are all part of the athletic effort, why focus on strength
Here in Switzerland we have fan club, predominantly male, for a lot of female sports star. A lot for skiers like Lara gut or Dominique gisin or orienteering legends like simone niggli luder. You literally see bare chested men on snow track painting their names in big letters on their chest.
No one blinks an eye. And it really doesn't seem sexual or anything but true respect.
I remember as a kid looking up to vreni Schneider, another ski legend, and how happy we were when we randomly met her and got a signed postcard.


Sent from my Hisense A2T using Tapatalk

Thank you for posting - so nice to see a non-American (using American in the broader sense, lots of Canadians posting here) viewpoint.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 12357
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
This talk of strength is ridiculous, it is only but just an aspect. Flexibility agility reflexes dexterity are all part of the athletic effort, why focus on strength
Here in Switzerland we have fan club, predominantly male, for a lot of female sports star. A lot for skiers like Lara gut or Dominique gisin or orienteering legends like simone niggli luder. You literally see bare chested men on snow track painting their names in big letters on their chest.
No one blinks an eye. And it really doesn't seem sexual or anything but true respect.
I remember as a kid looking up to vreni Schneider, another ski legend, and how happy we were when we randomly met her and got a signed postcard.

There's nothing wrong with cheering for and enjoying competition between women athletes.  Anyone who devotes a big portion of their life to a sport is going to develop skills worthy of respect.  It's been mentioned a few times that in some circumstances it can be more excititing to watch women's rather than with men's sport.  Watching a woman do stuff that I'm not physically able to do is as impressive as watching a guy do something I'm not physically able to do.  That said . . .

We have been focusing on strength.  With regards to being the best in the world at a sport flexibility/agility/reflexes/dexterity are all great too.  The thing is, top women athletes either don't surpass male athletes in these aspects, or these aspects are not as important.  That's why there's a very small percentage of female sports stars who hold records that best those of men.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 12357
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
"It commented about how she was motivated by her emotions and compassion to take action where the men in the movie didn't. I thought it was a great point. I have women I care about in my life that feel that their emotions are bad because they have been conditioned to believe that they are by society."

FFS.  No, women are not ruled by their emotions.  This is an old, stupid, stereotype that won't die.


Wow, strawman much, GuitarStv? I neither explicitly nor implicitly said women were ruled by their emotions. I said in that situation, she was motivated by those emotions and compassion. Motivated, not ruled, and linking emotions to specifically the emotion of compassion. The fact that even the broadest brush touching on the fact that women are generally, not specifically in all instances, but generally more in touch with their emotions and more moved by compassion than men in this positive example triggered you so much you had to for f**'s sake emphasize women aren't ruled by their emotions is a slice off of the same pie I am talking about here. Yes, women tend to be more in touch with their emotions. Yes they tend to be more motivated by compassion. I'm not even going to argue whether or not it's inherent (to address the comment above), but it's there. At least in part because there's the association between women and emotions (that we can all agree is there in stereotype if nothing else), emotions themselves and being in touch with emotions are denigrated. Feeling compassion about something to the point of deeply stirring you is looked down on in society enough that it makes people I'm close to afraid to cry even with people they're close to even when they're crying about a deep hurt they themselves experienced or one they saw with someone else because "emotions are bad", and apparently it triggers you enough you have to make up things for me to say to berate me for.

Edit to add: I wish men would be better about not avoiding their emotions. It's a pretty crappy situation all around, but it's not helped by being so afraid of emotions that if the concept of women and emotions are ever linked together that we recoil like it's a snake. Attack the problem - people attacking women for showing emotions.

You implied that emotions are more important to women than men.  To the best of knowledge, this is not true.

At the core of your statements here you're discussing stereotypes.  The stereotype of the emotionless man and hysterical woman appear to form the basis for much of what you're arguing.  This stereotype is wrong.  There are plenty of women who exhibit better control of their emotions than I do.

I also don't believe that women are naturally more compassionate than men, or that men are naturally more emotionally withdrawn than men.  In my own anaecdotal experience this is not the case.  What research do you have to show it to be true?

KBecks

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1473
I would not confess this in public, but my husband sings along with nearly all the female singers on the radio.  I wouldn't call him a fanboy, but he enjoys female singers' music.

Kris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3467
I would not confess this in public, but my husband sings along with nearly all the female singers on the radio.  I wouldn't call him a fanboy, but he enjoys female singers' music.

Funny, isnít it, how this is seen as something to be embarrased by?

Nick_Miller

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 772
@Nick_Miller are you still listening? This thread has somewhat predictably led to sexist tropes being trotted out. A lot of people (mostly women) are having to read them and reply to them, which is emotionally difficult, to answer your question. It would be nice to know that you're still here and at least reading...

Well it is a holiday weekend, so no I wasn't keeping track over the past two days, but tagging me got my attention..

I'd ask that we refocus on the central question as to why men don't follow women to the same extent women follow men.

Some possible answers that have been raised thus far...(I'm sure I missed some)

1) men are distracted by women's attractiveness and thus don't focus on other attributes as much
2) women have only really been "out there" in the entertainment arena for the past 50-60 years or so, and are just now starting a foothold
3) men are socialized to view women's songs/stories/music as "girly" and inappropriate for manly men (see @KBecks 's comment above as an example)
4) systemic issues and big money make most entertainment arenas "boys clubs" where women are just not welcomed
5) women are socialized to be more open to entertainment from all genders and will happily read boy-centric stories whereas boys will not.
6) sometimes men follow women BECAUSE they are sexy...see Paige Spiranac (golf) as an example. Looks = followers
7) people who simply desire to see the fastest/strongest can always argue that it will be men
8) "women's" stories are seen as a niche, not as the default (see "womens" as a specific genre in publishing)
9) sometimes you just relate better to an entertainer of the same gender (but this doesn't explain why women are more accommodating than are men)

Again, there are probably countless others we have discussed.

I'm as guilty as anyone of perhaps stepping on toes with my comments, but I can promise they were not made to offend or sadden anyone; I just thought a conversation like this called for a good amount of honesty and candor, and I felt that needed to start with being brutally honest with myself. That being said, please don't intentionally try to push others' buttons just for the sake of pushing buttons. That doesn't get us anywhere.
« Last Edit: November 24, 2018, 08:19:38 AM by Nick_Miller »

Wolfpack Mustachian

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 74

You implied that emotions are more important to women than men.  To the best of knowledge, this is not true.

At the core of your statements here you're discussing stereotypes.  The stereotype of the emotionless man and hysterical woman appear to form the basis for much of what you're arguing.  This stereotype is wrong.  There are plenty of women who exhibit better control of their emotions than I do.

I also don't believe that women are naturally more compassionate than men, or that men are naturally more emotionally withdrawn than men.  In my own anaecdotal experience this is not the case.  What research do you have to show it to be true?

Look at what you actually said versus what I actually said (thus the strawman). The word I used was motivated. The word you used was ruled. It's not even just a connotation thing, ruled by definition means "exercise ultimate power or authority over." Nothing in my example or any stretch of implication of what I said would mean that emotions have ultimate power and authority over women. You reiterate the point again by using the word hysterical, which I never used nor used anything like. I'm trying to talk nuance, and you're assuming I'm going to the extreme stereotypes of emotionless men and hysterical women, which, again, nothing I've said has stated implicitly or explicitly. You have to make big assumptions to get there that are incorrect for how I believe. That's why I got so frustrated.

Yes, I am saying that women tend to be more in touch with their emotions than men and more compassionate than men. It's not a novel concept that women bring something different than men to the table so to speak. It's one of the best arguments, imo, for being even more intentional than for simple fairness to include women in board rooms, leadership teams, etc. I think women in aggregate tend to be able to empathize with people better among other positive qualities. Again, you may not agree that it's compassion or whatever, but I would say many people feel that women bring things to the table men don't. Having women adds something to the discussion. All that being said, I admit it's anecdotal, so I'm not going to argue it much more than to say it fits what I've seen, and I haven't seen anything disproving it.

Finally, to respect Nick's request to get back on point (not dismissing any comment you may have in the future, feel free of course), I would like to reiterate my question from earlier and actually restate it:

What's the practical implications of this? Open mindnedness and an attempt to go out of your way to look for other things you may like that aren't in the male stereotype, or is the feeling in general that we should do more?

rdaneel0

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 685
Lots of stuff to think about in this thread, but to the people who say that men are superior at all athletics and that the elite level is why you only watch male sports...can you please comment on gymnastics and figure skating? In gymnastics all the events are different for men and women. You could even say that men "can't" do what the women gymnasts are doing because the men are too heavy, not flexible enough, and slower. In figure skating women can typically do things the men can't do as well, they can jump higher with more rotations, lift their legs much higher, spin faster, be thrown, etc.

I realize this complicates the arguments being made here, because in figure skating and gymnastics (where women dominate) the women's divisions are more popular than the men's. All I know is I definitely disagree with the idea that men are better athletes in general. Consider that most of the athletic pursuits we have now were created primarily for men and by men, so of course they are tailored to men's bodies. But other athletic areas are absolutely female dominated, like contortion (women dominated), ballet (women dominated), acro/trapeze/rings/silks (women dominated). If a sport were invented that utilized flexibility, balance, and agility as the primary skills, women would dominate nearly every time.   

ETA: Oh, and rhythmic gymnastics! There isn't even a male version, it's completely female dominated at the elite level.
« Last Edit: November 24, 2018, 10:52:39 AM by rdaneel0 »

jessmess

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 11
Explain it however you like, but only watching men's sports is sexist.

If you want to watch the best weightlifters in the world (for example) you will only watch men.  Women just cannot physically compete at the same level.  Sure it can be interesting to see how people people with a physical disadvantage do in competition . . . but there's naturally going to be less draw to that than watching the best of the best.  That's the same reason why the special Olympics aren't watched as much as the real Olympics.

Wow.
What's offensive here?

Women are behind men, at all competitive levels, in virtually every sport ever invented. Even in golf, they are behind because of inherent biological disadvantages. Unless humans change dramatically, it's not going to change.

I have no trouble "admitting" that I don't watch women's tennis. I find it too slow and don't feel like I'm watching the best that the sport has to offer. Of course any woman good enough to appear on TV would absolutely destroy me on the court, but that's beside the point. I don't decide which movies to watch based on my own acting skills either.

@Paul der Krake I HAVE to disagree with you. We are behind men because we are encouraged to be behind men. We are encouraged to trail behind. A woman in competitive sports is treated as though she cannot achieve certain goals. women in sports are given screen time if they are beautiful.

In fact, you statement is false, as women have surpassed men in certain sports. You might not know this because it is rarely publicized. Some places where this has been true has been rock climbing, tree climbing, tennis among others. It isn't celebrated. Men don't like it. The media doesn't give the time of day.

We see muscleless models modelling women's sportswear because the value women are supposed to bring is tied to their looks. Who models mens sportwear? why athletes do, of course. Men are taught that their value is to be strong. 


Let me give you some back story.
I am a female tree climber. This field is my chosen field and I treat it both as a profession and a professional sport. I work daily in this field and I also compete.
Breaking into this field was incredibly difficult. Tree companies aren't interested in hiring a tiny woman. I was able to score a job in a company that treated me well. I transferred though, to a place where turnover was much higher. That's when I learned that I wasn't valued. My boss knew I was capable, as he would have me train men newer to the company, but once these men were trained they would be promoted as my superiors.
My husband and I both run our own business now, and I am often treated as an inferior even though we have similar skills and experience, and work as a partnership. This is before anyone sees me work, of course. I have customers asking what the heck I'm going to do on the job, if I am going to come with, my friends and family still call the business my husbands business. I contribute no less than he does, to be clear.

Actually, when work is finished, and the tasks are done, I often have men express that they are ashamed to have been "outworked by a woman". This isn't said to make me feel good. It's said behind my back to my husband. In fact a lot of sexist things are said behind my back (and sometimes to my face, as our employees cat call other women, solidifying the fact that they see women as objects). I have had to remind people I am their superior, also.

As for the athletic part of things, I was always very physically capable compared to others, but was always discouraged from seriously pursuing an athletic or physical. Boys my age were treated as though this was a reasonable goal. I was always graded by a different measure. I was taught to think of myself as a less capable specimen. this continues to this day. I make a point to surround myself with positive people but it doesn't change the facts.

Cressida

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2504
  • Location: Sunset Zone 5
  • gender is a hierarchy
Give some examples of where that strength bell curve overlaps between genders. Like I also said, it doesnít matter if we look at 15 year olds, 30 year olds, 60 year olds, Americans, or Singaporeans. There is very little overlap of that bell curve.

I feel I should point out that you haven't brought any proof other than anecdote, either, so I'm not sure why you feel you're in a position to imperiously demand evidence from me.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 12357
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Lots of stuff to think about in this thread, but to the people who say that men are superior at all athletics and that the elite level is why you only watch male sports...can you please comment on gymnastics and figure skating? In gymnastics all the events are different for men and women. You could even say that men "can't" do what the women gymnasts are doing because the men are too heavy, not flexible enough, and slower. In figure skating women can typically do things the men can't do as well, they can jump higher with more rotations, lift their legs much higher, spin faster, be thrown, etc.

I realize this complicates the arguments being made here, because in figure skating and gymnastics (where women dominate) the women's divisions are more popular than the men's. All I know is I definitely disagree with the idea that men are better athletes in general. Consider that most of the athletic pursuits we have now were created primarily for men and by men, so of course they are tailored to men's bodies. But other athletic areas are absolutely female dominated, like contortion (women dominated), ballet (women dominated), acro/trapeze/rings/silks (women dominated). If a sport were invented that utilized flexibility, balance, and agility as the primary skills, women would dominate nearly every time.   

ETA: Oh, and rhythmic gymnastics! There isn't even a male version, it's completely female dominated at the elite level.

If a sport only exists for women, then I'd say that we don't know who is superior in the sport.  (The same is true for sports that only exist for men.)  I also don't believe that men are better at every sport, but as you mentioned most sports come from male roots and there may be implicit bias in the sports most commonly watched today.

Sport is competitive.  Several examples you've given of female dominated 'sports' include things that are non-competitive (contortion, ballet).  I'd be interested in watching any sports created where a mixed field of men and women can be competitive with each other on a relatively level playing field.  That would be great to watch.

Paul der Krake

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4397
  • Age: 10
  • Location: USA
In fact, you statement is false, as women have surpassed men in certain sports. You might not know this because it is rarely publicized. Some places where this has been true has been rock climbing, tree climbing, tennis among others. It isn't celebrated. Men don't like it. The media doesn't give the time of day.
Super interesting that there are now women as world-class climbers (and not just in their category), but that doesn't invalidate my claim, and  from some googling it appears the playing field is now basically even. I don't know enough about climbing to determine whether that qualifies as "surpassing", but let's assume it does. So now there's a handful of sports where women are competing at the same level or better than men. Do you really think that it's just a matter of time until that's the case for all sports? That it's just the patriarchy holding young women back, and the current women at the top of their sport just aren't motivated enough?

And in what world have women surpassed men in tennis? Didn't we have this whole debate last year when McEnroe said Serena Williams would be ranked 700 or something? As far as tennis is concerned, it's not up for debate, at all.

And sorry Cressida but the bell curve thing is just nonsense. The whole point of doing statistical analysis is to:
1) run experiments on large sample sizes
2) isolate characteristics, to the furthest extent possible

This is why we self-segregate into categories that we think are fair. We do this in a bunch of ways:
- age
- gender
- how much effort are you willing to put into it, through leagues and divisions systems

The last one is important too! I'm a casual swimmer who swims 3-4 miles a week. When I went to swim meets, I wasn't measuring myself against professional swimmers, or my cousin Danny who swims 50 yards at the beach every other summer.

Of course you can find millions and millions of women who are better than millions and millions of men at sports at time T. We have incredible variance and follow training regimens to push ourselves.

Okay, let's do a thought experiment. Let's assume we can entirely boil down athleticism to a super simple task: tug of war. It requires strength, but a skilled team can win against a disorganized or unprepared opponent. Let's assume each side has 100 humans, entirely randomly selected from the pool of humans currently alive, pulling on that rope like their life depends on it. That's a number high enough to smooth out any luck of the draw in case you happen to draw a large number of 5 year olds or people without limbs.

Experiment 1:
Side A pulls 100 random women from the 3.5B available women. Side B pulls 100 random men. Remember, 100 is a high-ish number but you could get lucky and get a huge advantage if you pull enough of the "right" people. How much money would you bet that side A wins, exactly once? Well actually there is a decent chance, not super high but decent. However, the odds become vanishingly small as the experiment is repeated enough times.

Experiment 2:
Same as experiment 1, except this time the women have an entire year to learn from the best tug of war coach in the world, and train full time for this. Their life depends on it after all. The men, on the other hand, have no idea what they will be asked to do until they are handed the rope.
What do you think the results will be? Personally, I'm betting all my life savings on the prepared women over the unsuspecting men.

Experiment 3:
Both sides are given a year and the best available coaching, and both train like mad because everyone's lives depend on it. Would you bet on the women in this scenario? If you run the experiment 1 million times with a different set of people every time, what do you think the final breakdown would look like?


Preemptive rebuttal: but tug of war is inherently biased because it rewards a quality that doesn't entirely define athleticism? What if we had chosen rock climbing or figure skating instead?

Right. Not all sports reward athleticism in the same way. I think tug-of-war is pretty damn universal and a good enough proxy for overall fitness, but it doesn't cover everything.


Frankly I'm amazed that this is even controversial. Of all the feminist topics that could elicit argument, this is the hill you've chosen for yourself?

jessmess

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 11

Frankly I'm amazed that this is even controversial. Of all the feminist topics that could elicit argument, this is the hill you've chosen for yourself?

who is this directed to?

Dollar Slice

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3986
  • Age: 41
  • Location: New York City
I'm fascinated that so many men in this thread have chosen to ignore most of the original post and focus solely on strength/sports, since it's the one area where you can sort of come up with a reason to defend the fact that you ignore women.

There's no defensible reason to ignore female singers, musicians, actresses, etc., so we're just... not going to ever talk about that because it makes a lot of men look like jerks. But we will yell about sports until we all hate each other because it gives us an opportunity to rag on feminists.

Paul der Krake

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4397
  • Age: 10
  • Location: USA

Frankly I'm amazed that this is even controversial. Of all the feminist topics that could elicit argument, this is the hill you've chosen for yourself?

who is this directed to?
Anyone in this thread downplaying the physical differences and/or over-emphasizing the societal aspects. Or anyone who seriously thinks that watching men's sports but not the equivalent women's sport is sexist.

Look, I don't mean to put you down, I think it's awesome you were able to choose a career and hobby that goes against traditional stereotypes. Not because it goes against the stereotypes, but because that's what you wanted to do. I hope you crush every goal you set for yourself.

It's the stuff not grounded in reality I push back on.

jessmess

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 11

Frankly I'm amazed that this is even controversial. Of all the feminist topics that could elicit argument, this is the hill you've chosen for yourself?

who is this directed to?
Anyone in this thread downplaying the physical differences and/or over-emphasizing the societal aspects. Or anyone who seriously thinks that watching men's sports but not the equivalent women's sport is sexist.

Look, I don't mean to put you down, I think it's awesome you were able to choose a career and hobby that goes against traditional stereotypes. Not because it goes against the stereotypes, but because that's what you wanted to do. I hope you crush every goal you set for yourself.

It's the stuff not grounded in reality I push back on.

thank you for your encouragement but everything I said was grounded in reality. The idea that watching something just because a certain gender is considered superior isn't grounded in reality. Men may pack muscle on easier but women have better balance don't they? In many sports these both play different roles.

What about bears? aren't they stronger than men? why aren't we watching bears in wrestling matches? is it because there is more to the match than simply physical strength? like the competitors ability to stay focussed on the task and come up with a match strategy?

what about male celebrity chefs? traditionally we like to see women at home cooking? how did this bear us male celebrity chefs? shouldn't we only be taking down the recipes of good old nonas who've been cooking meals for entire families for centuries?

The truth is it has very little to do with the fact that men are "physically superior" rather that they are physically different. telling women we wont pay attention to them because they were born to a different body discourages many from ever trying and limits the threshold in any sport. will women ever surpass men everywhere? probably not, but that definitely doesn't make it less interesting!

It's that we like to look at men as authority figures. We don't like to take word from a woman.

You aren't taking anything away from me. Believe me.

wordnerd

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1180
@Nick_Miller are you still listening? This thread has somewhat predictably led to sexist tropes being trotted out. A lot of people (mostly women) are having to read them and reply to them, which is emotionally difficult, to answer your question. It would be nice to know that you're still here and at least reading...

Well it is a holiday weekend, so no I wasn't keeping track over the past two days, but tagging me got my attention..

I'd ask that we refocus on the central question as to why men don't follow women to the same extent women follow men.

Some possible answers that have been raised thus far...(I'm sure I missed some)

1) men are distracted by women's attractiveness and thus don't focus on other attributes as much
2) women have only really been "out there" in the entertainment arena for the past 50-60 years or so, and are just now starting a foothold
3) men are socialized to view women's songs/stories/music as "girly" and inappropriate for manly men (see @KBecks 's comment above as an example)
4) systemic issues and big money make most entertainment arenas "boys clubs" where women are just not welcomed
5) women are socialized to be more open to entertainment from all genders and will happily read boy-centric stories whereas boys will not.
6) sometimes men follow women BECAUSE they are sexy...see Paige Spiranac (golf) as an example. Looks = followers
7) people who simply desire to see the fastest/strongest can always argue that it will be men
8) "women's" stories are seen as a niche, not as the default (see "womens" as a specific genre in publishing)
9) sometimes you just relate better to an entertainer of the same gender (but this doesn't explain why women are more accommodating than are men)

Again, there are probably countless others we have discussed.

I'm as guilty as anyone of perhaps stepping on toes with my comments, but I can promise they were not made to offend or sadden anyone; I just thought a conversation like this called for a good amount of honesty and candor, and I felt that needed to start with being brutally honest with myself. That being said, please don't intentionally try to push others' buttons just for the sake of pushing buttons. That doesn't get us anywhere.
Thanks for responding and for trying to redirect the conversation back on track.

I think something else that could be helpful coming out of this conversation is talking about how we could support women in artistic endeavors, sports, etc. Maybe people could identify a female author whose work they want to read, take their kids to a women's basketball game (cheaper!), etc. I don't think this thread is going to go in that direction, but I'm going to try. ;)

snacky

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8794
  • Location: Hoth
  • Forum Dignitary

What about bears? aren't they stronger than men? why aren't we watching bears in wrestling matches? is it because there is more to the match than simply physical strength? like the competitors ability to stay focussed on the task and come up with a match strategy?

what about male celebrity chefs? traditionally we like to see women at home cooking? how did this bear us male celebrity chefs? shouldn't we only be taking down the recipes of good old nonas who've been cooking meals for entire families for centuries?

I would watch bears wrestle male professional chefs all day long.

Isn't it great that in a thread about why women are ignored in many fields, the women are being ignored? Almost like sexism is systemic and deeply entrenched...

jessmess

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 11

What about bears? aren't they stronger than men? why aren't we watching bears in wrestling matches? is it because there is more to the match than simply physical strength? like the competitors ability to stay focussed on the task and come up with a match strategy?

what about male celebrity chefs? traditionally we like to see women at home cooking? how did this bear us male celebrity chefs? shouldn't we only be taking down the recipes of good old nonas who've been cooking meals for entire families for centuries?

I would watch bears wrestle male professional chefs all day long.

Isn't it great that in a thread about why women are ignored in many fields, the women are being ignored? Almost like sexism is systemic and deeply entrenched...

almost like that @snacky

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 12357
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
I'm fascinated that so many men in this thread have chosen to ignore most of the original post and focus solely on strength/sports, since it's the one area where you can sort of come up with a reason to defend the fact that you ignore women.

There's no defensible reason to ignore female singers, musicians, actresses, etc., so we're just... not going to ever talk about that because it makes a lot of men look like jerks. But we will yell about sports until we all hate each other because it gives us an opportunity to rag on feminists.

I chose to do so because I like male and female actors/musicians at about the same frequency, but tend to find myself watching men in sporting situations more often.

I've actually got a huge long list of women musicians who I've idolized for a long time.  Ani DiFranco (for example) not only is a kick-ass musician and excellent singer, but pretty much gave the finger to the traditional music path and has done really well self promoting/publishing.  She has done things on her own terms all the time, and has had the tenacity and talent to make it all work.  Ella Fitzgerald, Billie Holliday, Fiona Apple, Kim Deal, Stevie Nicks, Bjork, Courtney Love, Courtney Barnett, Betty Davis, Holly Cole, Sophia Urista . . . whatever style of music you listen to, there are a ton of strong and talented women who make great music.

As an aside, while it would be fascinating to watch bears trained to wrestle, or perform the clean and jerk, I'm not sure about the ethical implications of forcing animals to perform for us in this manner.  They're also not human, so the lure of watching athletes push the limits of what is humanly possible wouldn't really apply.  This isn't really a good analogy for the difference between men's and women's sport.
« Last Edit: November 24, 2018, 05:28:38 PM by GuitarStv »

Cressida

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2504
  • Location: Sunset Zone 5
  • gender is a hierarchy
And sorry Cressida but the bell curve thing is just nonsense. The whole point of doing statistical analysis is to:
1) run experiments on large sample sizes
2) isolate characteristics, to the furthest extent possible

You mention statistical analysis, but the problem is, that's not the way people tend to read marty998's statement. Again, here is what he said:

"objectively the physical strength of a random man will more than likely be more than that of a random woman."

Now, if you introduce controls (like picking a man and woman with similar age, fitness level, size, etc.), then the statement is probably true (as I stated several comments ago). And if you make the comparison thousands of times (as you just noted), then the statement is probably true. I'm not and have never been arguing that point.

But most people reading the statement aren't thinking that way; most people will read it and think it's saying, "most men are stronger than most women."* And that is not true. My dad died several years ago of COPD and I can guarantee that if we'd done a comparison on the day he went into the hospital, I'd have been stronger than he was.

This is all I've been saying this entire time (and if you go back and read all of my comments, they will bear this out). I've been making a very narrow claim. I'm saying that if all you know is that you've chosen one man and one woman from the population of the world, it is not true that the man will "more than likely" be stronger. There are way too many variables for that.


*If you doubt this, just check reddit. Lots of people believe this.

former player

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3874
  • Location: Avalon
I'd be interested in watching any sports created where a mixed field of men and women can be competitive with each other on a relatively level playing field.  That would be great to watch.

Equestrianism fits the bill for you.  Showjumping, three day eventing, and dressage.  All Olympic events in which men and women compete on equal terms and women win as much as the men.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 12357
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
I'd be interested in watching any sports created where a mixed field of men and women can be competitive with each other on a relatively level playing field.  That would be great to watch.

Equestrianism fits the bill for you.  Showjumping, three day eventing, and dressage.  All Olympic events in which men and women compete on equal terms and women win as much as the men.

'Any' was apparently a lie.  :P

Sitting on a horse isn't super interesting to me (same with sitting on a motorbike, or driving in a car), because it just doesn't seem all that athletic.  Someone mentioned that rock climbing records are currently being won by women over men, and that would be kinda cool to watch.  Are there rock climbing competitions?

RetiredAt63

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 9803
  • Location: Eastern Ontario, Canada
And the way strength is measured favours men.  And I can't say what measurements would favour women, because we haven't done those experiments - although the women ultra-marathoners do show up a lot.  And of course as mentioned before, women are generally trained to be weak.

The original question was "follow/fanboy/support" women so sports is only a small aspect - we can talk about musicians, actors, etc.

Money flows to audiences, so the more support women get from society in various activities,the more the money will also flow to them.  If advertisers see people coming to games, watching on TV, etc., they will pay for showing those activities.  The Olympics showcase women athletes and well as men athletes, and the networks sure bid for them.  And if you think women can't do amazing things, go watch women snowboarders in the half pipe.

Spoiler: show
And given the number of male posters who say their wives are SAH even without kids, and definitely with kids, how much support are they giving their wives to have a source of income that doesn't depend on the husband?  Apart from divorce, what if the husband became permanently disabled, or died, do they all have enough disability insurance and life insurance that their wives and children would be OK?  Not in a fanboy sort of way, but that would certainly be supporting women.

RetiredAt63

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 9803
  • Location: Eastern Ontario, Canada
'Any' was apparently a lie.  :P

Sitting on a horse isn't super interesting to me (same with sitting on a motorbike, or driving in a car), because it just doesn't seem all that athletic.  Someone mentioned that rock climbing records are currently being won by women over men, and that would be kinda cool to watch.  Are there rock climbing competitions?

It's deceptive.  Of course the house is a superb athlete, but the rider is too.  They just make it look easy.  Especially in dressage, all you see is someone sitting still on a horse, and the horse doing things - the rider is signalling the horse all the time, and in perfect balance, and with muscle tone and strong core strength.  And of course it is a team sport, the rider and horse are the team.  Just like in dog agility or flyball, the team is competing not just the dog.  Come to think of it, there are a lot of women competing in agility and flyball and rally, and they do well.  Not on TV much though, but fun to go watch on a nice summer day.

Sort of like curling - it looks easy until you try it.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 12357
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
'Any' was apparently a lie.  :P

Sitting on a horse isn't super interesting to me (same with sitting on a motorbike, or driving in a car), because it just doesn't seem all that athletic.  Someone mentioned that rock climbing records are currently being won by women over men, and that would be kinda cool to watch.  Are there rock climbing competitions?

It's deceptive.  Of course the house is a superb athlete, but the rider is too.  They just make it look easy.  Especially in dressage, all you see is someone sitting still on a horse, and the horse doing things - the rider is signalling the horse all the time, and in perfect balance, and with muscle tone and strong core strength.  And of course it is a team sport, the rider and horse are the team.  Just like in dog agility or flyball, the team is competing not just the dog.  Come to think of it, there are a lot of women competing in agility and flyball and rally, and they do well.  Not on TV much though, but fun to go watch on a nice summer day.

Sort of like curling - it looks easy until you try it.

I'm sure it's tough to do, it's just not interesting to me.  Much like curling.  Which, other than the yelling is not really athletic.  HURRY!  Hurry HARD!  Hard, hard, hard, SWEEP!  Woah.  WOAH!  *click*

RetiredAt63

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 9803
  • Location: Eastern Ontario, Canada
'Any' was apparently a lie.  :P

Sitting on a horse isn't super interesting to me (same with sitting on a motorbike, or driving in a car), because it just doesn't seem all that athletic.  Someone mentioned that rock climbing records are currently being won by women over men, and that would be kinda cool to watch.  Are there rock climbing competitions?

It's deceptive.  Of course the house is a superb athlete, but the rider is too.  They just make it look easy.  Especially in dressage, all you see is someone sitting still on a horse, and the horse doing things - the rider is signalling the horse all the time, and in perfect balance, and with muscle tone and strong core strength.  And of course it is a team sport, the rider and horse are the team.  Just like in dog agility or flyball, the team is competing not just the dog.  Come to think of it, there are a lot of women competing in agility and flyball and rally, and they do well.  Not on TV much though, but fun to go watch on a nice summer day.

Sort of like curling - it looks easy until you try it.

I'm sure it's tough to do, it's just not interesting to me.  Much like curling.  Which, other than the yelling is not really athletic.  HURRY!  Hurry HARD!  Hard, hard, hard, SWEEP!  Woah.  WOAH!  *click*

I sooo want to get you out on the ice.  ;-)  Perfect draw at Christmas and you get the turkey.

former player

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3874
  • Location: Avalon
'Any' was apparently a lie.  :P

Sitting on a horse isn't super interesting to me (same with sitting on a motorbike, or driving in a car), because it just doesn't seem all that athletic.  Someone mentioned that rock climbing records are currently being won by women over men, and that would be kinda cool to watch.  Are there rock climbing competitions?

It's deceptive.  Of course the house is a superb athlete, but the rider is too.  They just make it look easy.  Especially in dressage, all you see is someone sitting still on a horse, and the horse doing things - the rider is signalling the horse all the time, and in perfect balance, and with muscle tone and strong core strength.  And of course it is a team sport, the rider and horse are the team.  Just like in dog agility or flyball, the team is competing not just the dog.  Come to think of it, there are a lot of women competing in agility and flyball and rally, and they do well.  Not on TV much though, but fun to go watch on a nice summer day.

Sort of like curling - it looks easy until you try it.

I'm sure it's tough to do, it's just not interesting to me.  Much like curling.  Which, other than the yelling is not really athletic.  HURRY!  Hurry HARD!  Hard, hard, hard, SWEEP!  Woah.  WOAH!  *click*

What about sailing?  Not the Olympic events, which have different sized boats for men and women, but the Ocean sailing events, such as the single handed round the world race?  Women compete on equal terms in those.

EricL

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 874
'Any' was apparently a lie.  :P

Sitting on a horse isn't super interesting to me (same with sitting on a motorbike, or driving in a car), because it just doesn't seem all that athletic.  Someone mentioned that rock climbing records are currently being won by women over men, and that would be kinda cool to watch.  Are there rock climbing competitions?


It's deceptive.  Of course the house is a superb athlete, but the rider is too.  They just make it look easy.  Especially in dressage, all you see is someone sitting still on a horse, and the horse doing things - the rider is signalling the horse all the time, and in perfect balance, and with muscle tone and strong core strength.  And of course it is a team sport, the rider and horse are the team.  Just like in dog agility or flyball, the team is competing not just the dog.  Come to think of it, there are a lot of women competing in agility and flyball and rally, and they do well.  Not on TV much though, but fun to go watch on a nice summer day.

Sort of like curling - it looks easy until you try it.

I'm sure it's tough to do, it's just not interesting to me.  Much like curling.  Which, other than the yelling is not really athletic.  HURRY!  Hurry HARD!  Hard, hard, hard, SWEEP!  Woah.  WOAH!  *click*

What about sailing?  Not the Olympic events, which have different sized boats for men and women, but the Ocean sailing events, such as the single handed round the world race?  Women compete on equal terms in those.

Roz Savage

https://www.rozsavage.com
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xjIv4VWRTNQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dXqPaHQp4Xw
« Last Edit: November 24, 2018, 11:34:44 PM by EricL »

use2betrix

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1315
I'm fascinated that so many men in this thread have chosen to ignore most of the original post and focus solely on strength/sports, since it's the one area where you can sort of come up with a reason to defend the fact that you ignore women.

There's no defensible reason to ignore female singers, musicians, actresses, etc., so we're just... not going to ever talk about that because it makes a lot of men look like jerks. But we will yell about sports until we all hate each other because it gives us an opportunity to rag on feminists.

How so? I gladly and openly admitted that the last few concerts I went to were female singers. I have listened to Lana Del Ray more in the last few years than anyone else x10. Saw her in concert too. I saw Carrie Underwood a few years ago, love her music. One of the best concerts Iíve been to. Miranda Lambert is one of my most played Pandora stations. I do like some male artists as well.

I donít see anything wrong with men liking female musicians or actresses. IMO, most men are fine with it and I think a guy would come off as insecure to be ashamed of it.

Itís funny seeing these other sports brought up.. figure skating, gymnastics, etc. Iíd bet that at the very least, a lot of men enjoy watching womenís gymnastics. Their athletic ability is truly amazing. I donít recall really watching much menís gymnastics. Unfortunately, gymnastics is really only on mainstream every few years and Iím not ďthatĒ into it, to actively search out and watch it more often, same goes for most any sport.

I mentioned earlier in UFC Iím a huge Cris Cyborg fan. I used to enjoy Rhonda Rousey until she turned into basically the biggest embarrassment of the UFC and fell into every negative stereotype that strong women are trying to move past. I follow Cyborg on Instagram and she has both a heart of gold, and the heart of a lion. She embodies everything I would look for in any athlete, male or female. Granted, she hasnít lost, and how a champ loses completely makes or breaks them. You have true champions that come back hungrier than ever, or losers that lose once, quit in their prime, cry, and talk about contemplating suicide cause they canít handle losing. Thatís the final test for the ultimate athlete in my eyes.

Grog

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 294
This talk of strength is ridiculous, it is only but just an aspect. Flexibility agility reflexes dexterity are all part of the athletic effort, why focus on strength
Here in Switzerland we have fan club, predominantly male, for a lot of female sports star. A lot for skiers like Lara gut or Dominique gisin or orienteering legends like simone niggli luder. You literally see bare chested men on snow track painting their names in big letters on their chest.
No one blinks an eye. And it really doesn't seem sexual or anything but true respect.
I remember as a kid looking up to vreni Schneider, another ski legend, and how happy we were when we randomly met her and got a signed postcard.


Sent from my Hisense A2T using Tapatalk

Thank you for posting - so nice to see a non-American (using American in the broader sense, lots of Canadians posting here) viewpoint.
Well in all frankness we grow up both men and women reading Heidi, which is a positive figure regardless of gender.


Sent from my Hisense A2T using Tapatalk


rdaneel0

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 685
Lots of stuff to think about in this thread, but to the people who say that men are superior at all athletics and that the elite level is why you only watch male sports...can you please comment on gymnastics and figure skating? In gymnastics all the events are different for men and women. You could even say that men "can't" do what the women gymnasts are doing because the men are too heavy, not flexible enough, and slower. In figure skating women can typically do things the men can't do as well, they can jump higher with more rotations, lift their legs much higher, spin faster, be thrown, etc.

I realize this complicates the arguments being made here, because in figure skating and gymnastics (where women dominate) the women's divisions are more popular than the men's. All I know is I definitely disagree with the idea that men are better athletes in general. Consider that most of the athletic pursuits we have now were created primarily for men and by men, so of course they are tailored to men's bodies. But other athletic areas are absolutely female dominated, like contortion (women dominated), ballet (women dominated), acro/trapeze/rings/silks (women dominated). If a sport were invented that utilized flexibility, balance, and agility as the primary skills, women would dominate nearly every time.   

ETA: Oh, and rhythmic gymnastics! There isn't even a male version, it's completely female dominated at the elite level.

If a sport only exists for women, then I'd say that we don't know who is superior in the sport.  (The same is true for sports that only exist for men.)  I also don't believe that men are better at every sport, but as you mentioned most sports come from male roots and there may be implicit bias in the sports most commonly watched today.

Sport is competitive.  Several examples you've given of female dominated 'sports' include things that are non-competitive (contortion, ballet).  I'd be interested in watching any sports created where a mixed field of men and women can be competitive with each other on a relatively level playing field.  That would be great to watch.

There are lots of ballet/contortion competitions worldwide! I think female dominated sports get less screen time and have less of a fandom around them as someone else mentioned (re: climbing). This is where the historical sexism comes in, sports aren't natural they were invented, and they were nearly all invented to glorify men. I also think it's interesting that in fields where women dominate (figure skating, gymnastics), men compete with entirely different rules yet aren't seen as less able.

Fair enough on rhythmic gymnastics point, but by that logic I assume you agree that we don't really know if men or women are better at tackle football, correct?

koshtra

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 599
  • Location: Portland, Oregon, USA
  • massage therapist, database guy, worder
    • Mole
Well, statistical arguments tend to be tedious and unilluminating until there are actual numbers involved. I work out regularly, and I know women my age who are stronger than I am (can bench press & squat more than I can.) So there's an N=1 counterexample (if you trust my reporting). I suspect that the older the population gets, the stronger proportionally the women will be, if only because a larger proportion of the men will be at death's door.

The usefulness of discussing something like this in the absence of actual data and numbers -- which presumably are out there if anyone cares to dig them up -- is that we can look at our impulses and identify our biases. What are we trying to make those numbers be & mean? Is our hundred-man/hundred-woman tug-of-war team matchup a 99.999% slam dunk, or a 78%? And why do we care? What's our investment in it?

If we really wanted the answer, we'd just go find it. (Hint: the probability is some number between .5 and 1.0.)

And we can look at how we draw our categories. Are old people, people who are ill, people who are undernourished, babies, children, in our representative sample? Why or why not? Do they "count"? So much of our sense of human life depends on who counts as a real (ordinary, regular, standard) human being. But those judgments tend to get made long before we're conscious of them.)

marble_faun

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 256
Wow. Revisiting this thread after a few days and just feel incredibly bummed.

Somehow this turned into a conversation about sports. Fine, men tend to be physically stronger.  But the initial question raised larger issues than this.

My concern is that a subset of men just... don't see women as full people in the same way they see men. Such a man might not pick up a book with a female protagonist, or watch a movie starring all women, or even just hang out with women they know as friends. They see women as so different and alien that they can't relate to female experiences. 

Zooming out to society as a whole, we can see how this leads to discrimination.  Like even in this thread, the story about the well-liked female co-worker being pointedly excluded while the men hang out and build their old boys' network is so sad. I thought those days were going out with the baby boomers. 

I am married to a thoughtful man who views women as full equals in all the ways that matter in daily life. As he is my closest personal link to "the world of men," I had started to think his attitudes were normal.  This thread is a huge come-down.

Kris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3467
Wow. Revisiting this thread after a few days and just feel incredibly bummed.

Somehow this turned into a conversation about sports. Fine, men tend to be physically stronger.  But the initial question raised larger issues than this.

My concern is that a subset of men just... don't see women as full people in the same way they see men. Such a man might not pick up a book with a female protagonist, or watch a movie starring all women, or even just hang out with women they know as friends. They see women as so different and alien that they can't relate to female experiences. 

Zooming out to society as a whole, we can see how this leads to discrimination.  Like even in this thread, the story about the well-liked female co-worker being pointedly excluded while the men hang out and build their old boys' network is so sad. I thought those days were going out with the baby boomers. 

I am married to a thoughtful man who views women as full equals in all the ways that matter in daily life. As he is my closest personal link to "the world of men," I had started to think his attitudes were normal.  This thread is a huge come-down.

Yup.

Itís depressing as hell.