Women on top

[pErvinalia]

Well let's here him say why he's interested in this.

[devogue]

Well let's here him say why he's interested in this.

If it can be established that men are unequivocally superior to women in all physically competitive arenas then the stage is set for the next question: is it purely physicality or is there a degree of masculine mental prowess that also exists?

Roger Federer at the top of his game would thrash Serena Williams, but what if Serena's mental prowess could be transferred to a body as physically strong as Roger Federer's? Would the match be more even, would he win, would she win?

Moreover, if the minds of the top 1000 male and top 1000 female tennis players could be implanted in identical gender neutral bodies, I wonder which would win in match offs?

[Hermit]

That's just telling us what he thinks flows on from a conclusion that men are better performers in sport.

Yes, and that's why he is asking us to provide evidence of a sport where women perform better than men. It would destroy his thesis that "everywhere, men dominate with their bigger muscles, bones and cognitive power". That really is not difficult to figure out. I see no need for him to serve it to you on a platter. Hopefully he won't. Your sustained tantrum might stop, depriving me, and possibly others, of much entertainment.

[pErvinalia]

You act like I'm the only one asking for him to explain his position. Brian, Jim, Sean (I think), 42 and I have all asked for him to explain why this matters to him. I'm happy for you that you are satisfied with a wishy washy answer and bucketload of trolling as a response. But we aren't. Are you going to be ok with that? And there's no tantrum involved. 42 is the one who is having a tantrum because the rest of us aren't acting "civilly" towards poor old Cunty balls. The rest of us can see what's likely driving his questions and views, and opposing bigotry isn't have a "tantrum".

[pErvinalia]

Well let's here him say why he's interested in this.

If it can be established that men are unequivocally superior to women in all physically competitive arenas then the stage is set for the next question: is it purely physicality or is there a degree of masculine mental prowess that also exists?

Roger Federer at the top of his game would thrash Serena Williams, but what if Serena's mental prowess could be transferred to a body as physically strong as Roger Federer's? Would the match be more even, would he win, would she win?

Moreover, if the minds of the top 1000 male and top 1000 female tennis players could be implanted in identical gender neutral bodies, I wonder which would win in match offs?

I don't see a way that we could find out. The real issue is - why is it important for Cunt to apparently cement the notion that men are competitively superior to woman? Does he think that would equate to some sort of natural law that should be accepted across most/all areas of society? It seems to me that he's arguing against strawmen. He, being ideologically simplistic like Seth, thinks that because most of us here are lefties, we therefore agree with the views of all feminists and all social justice warriors, and therefore must automatically think that women are the equal to men in all spheres. I don't know about the others, but I have absolutely no problem with accepting that on average men are stronger and more aggressive than women. The point is, it doesn't really matter (other than the aggression being a problem). Most employment uses machines, tools and techniques that increasingly level out the differences in strength. And it's far from agreed that being ultra-competitive/aggressive is the best approach to employment, social and international relations. So what's left to generate such a question? I and others strongly suspect it's bigotry.

[Sean Hayden]

So what? Lots of people creat lots of threads that other people think are shitty. There is nothing wrong with discussing shitty topics, making shitty jokes, pushing the line of political correctness, or discussing controversial topics while harboring improper motivations.

I don't give a shit 42. Just don't get all I'm trying to have a rational discussion after you've been a dick, unless you admit you were a dick. Or ignore that and do whatever you want. I don't care. I decided to say something about this time. I might not next time. Jesus f'ckn christ with you sometimes.

It was no surprise to learn you have degrees in engineering btw.

[JimC]

Well let's here him say why he's interested in this.

If it can be established that men are unequivocally superior to women in all physically competitive arenas then the stage is set for the next question: is it purely physicality or is there a degree of masculine mental prowess that also exists?

Roger Federer at the top of his game would thrash Serena Williams, but what if Serena's mental prowess could be transferred to a body as physically strong as Roger Federer's? Would the match be more even, would he win, would she win?

Moreover, if the minds of the top 1000 male and top 1000 female tennis players could be implanted in identical gender neutral bodies, I wonder which would win in match offs?

The colourised part needs a comment first. What really happens here is that the high extremes of the normal curves for male and female athletes are different in most sports; no one is arguing with Cunt on that basis. However, it is misleading to use the generalised terms "men" and "women" in that phrase; the top 100 female tennis players would thrash the vast majority of good, male amateur tennis players the world over, and the same would be true of all other sports.

Your other point about the mental vs physical is a little weird, but an interesting thought experiment, I grant you, even if one that could never be answered.

What anybody seeking to defend Cunt's position must realise is that it does not just involve the asking of a simple question about male vs female prowess, largely in sport. If you go back to many of his posts, you can see the links he consistently makes to the ability of women to succeed in the work place. He also is constantly emphasising winning, and the whole competitive thing of being superior to someone else. His OP and all his posts are ridden with ulterior motives; he is not, as he seems to want to be, the observant little boy pointing out that the Emperor has no clothes.

Comparisons by gender of the extremes of physical prowess, typically demonstrated in sport, have absolutely nothing to say about gender issues in the workplace.

[rainbow]

Well let's here him say why he's interested in this.

If it can be established that men are unequivocally superior to women in all physically competitive arenas then the stage is set for the next question: is it purely physicality or is there a degree of masculine mental prowess that also exists?

If you take the top players then all you can say is that some men are better than some women. Really not much of a useful observation, is it?

Those some women would absolutely wipe the court with the average man.

This is what emasculates those poor sensitive males with an inferiority complex.
Strong women threaten them. Diddums, and they should be allowed to cry off their delicate emotional state.

[Brian Peacock]

Looks like she is a coach/athlete in triathlon.
Mens record
1st, gold medalist(s) 30 Alistair Brownlee Great Britain 17:04 59:08 29:07 1:46:25
Womans record
1st, gold medalist(s) 43 Nicola Spirig (SUI) 20:04 1:06:03 33:41 1:59:48
Looks like the world record holders are men, and by a clear margin.

The male world record holders are all men, that's for sure.

[Joe]

BTW, I read up on dressage and you're completely right. Women own that sport.

[pErvinalia]

Yeah but it's not a real sport. If it was, men would dominate it.

[Joe]

Yeah but it's not a real sport. If it was, men would dominate it.

Men did dominate dressage as a sport derived from the training of military horses that can be traced back to 400 BCE or so. It became an Olympic sport in 1912 and only military men were allowed to compete until the 1952 Olympics when non-military men and women were allowed to compete.

Women took it over because they were better than the men.

[Forty Two]

Well let's here him say why he's interested in this.

If it can be established that men are unequivocally superior to women in all physically competitive arenas then the stage is set for the next question: is it purely physicality or is there a degree of masculine mental prowess that also exists?

Roger Federer at the top of his game would thrash Serena Williams, but what if Serena's mental prowess could be transferred to a body as physically strong as Roger Federer's? Would the match be more even, would he win, would she win?

Moreover, if the minds of the top 1000 male and top 1000 female tennis players could be implanted in identical gender neutral bodies, I wonder which would win in match offs?

The colourised part needs a comment first. What really happens here is that the high extremes of the normal curves for male and female athletes are different in most sports; no one is arguing with Cunt on that basis. However, it is misleading to use the generalised terms "men" and "women" in that phrase; the top 100 female tennis players would thrash the vast majority of good, male amateur tennis players the world over, and the same would be true of all other sports.

This is an interesting question on the tennis front. It depends what you're considering the "vast majority of good, male amateur tennis players." If you're going by ranked players, then John McEnroe is probably not far off the mark when he says that the best female tennis player in the world would be ranked about 700 among the males. He said that when answering a question from a reporter why Serena williams would be called the best "female" tennis player, and not just unqualifiedly the best tennis player in the world. I mean, even people taking the rank of 700 as seeming too low (and I think McEnroe is a better judge than a blogger or reporter, since McEnroe has been steeped in professional tennis for 40-50 years), have to admit that Serena would be ranked in the hundreds. So, the 100th ranked female tennis player, where would she be ranked among male tennis players?

That's not a slam on female players. They play what amounts to a different style or class of tennis. They play fewer games in their competitions. They don't hit as hard or serve anywhere close to as fast. Average first serve speed for men in major professional competitions is about 185 km/hr for men and 158 km/hr for women, and second serve speeds is like 150 km/hr for men and 133 km/hr for women. Maximum serve speeds for men are likewise much faster for men than women. Men serve more aces and fewer double faults, and men have fewer unforced errors than women.

I followed tennis for decades and McEnroe's ranking estimate of Williams didn't surprise me. It surprised me that he said it out loud.

Your other point about the mental vs physical is a little weird, but an interesting thought experiment, I grant you, even if one that could never be answered.

What anybody seeking to defend Cunt's position must realise is that it does not just involve the asking of a simple question about male vs female prowess, largely in sport.

I'm not really sure what Cunt's "position" is other than that men, on average, perform better at most sports, which is not so much an argument as it is a fact. I and others gave him examples of sports where women seem to beat men, overall, and he's not really clarified what his position is, now that he has that info.

If you go back to many of his posts, you can see the links he consistently makes to the ability of women to succeed in the work place. He also is constantly emphasising winning, and the whole competitive thing of being superior to someone else. His OP and all his posts are ridden with ulterior motives; he is not, as he seems to want to be, the observant little boy pointing out that the Emperor has no clothes.

On this I think you have a point. He does seem to use sport as a measuring stick for doing other activities. He's looking for objective criteria to explain certain other differences between men and women. Sport provides a lot of objective criteria because distance, speed, acceleration, points, etc. are all measurable. However, these measurements would only seem to translate in terms of relevance to jobs which require the qualities at issue in those sports. So, like, strength - men do perform better at jobs requiring people to physically lift stuff, because, overall, men can lift heavier objects than women. That does explain, for example, why men are dominant in certain jobs or job tasks - like, firefighters, where part of the job is a requirement to pick incapacitated people up and carry them, and break through barriers requiring use of physical strength etc.

Comparisons by gender of the extremes of physical prowess, typically demonstrated in sport, have absolutely nothing to say about gender issues in the workplace.

In most modern workplaces, I think you're right. Now, if your local trash collection service does not have machines helping people lift the bins or cans or bags, then I think an argument can be made that strength will play a role.

[Scot Dutchy]

Especially Dutch women: Adelinde Cornelissen, Anky van Grunsven and Elaine Pen.

In Dutch the female riders are called Amazons.

[Forty Two]

You act like I'm the only one asking for him to explain his position. Brian, Jim, Sean (I think), 42 and I have all asked for him to explain why this matters to him. I'm happy for you that you are satisfied with a wishy washy answer and bucketload of trolling as a response. But we aren't. Are you going to be ok with that? And there's no tantrum involved. 42 is the one who is having a tantrum because the rest of us aren't acting "civilly" towards poor old Cunty balls. The rest of us can see what's likely driving his questions and views, and opposing bigotry isn't have a "tantrum".

Not "the rest of us." You and a couple others. And you personally attacked him again here.

Opposing bigotry is not NECESSARILY having a tantrum, but you are opposing what you claim to be bigotry through the use of a tantrum. You could do it without a tantrum, and without namecalling and personal attacks, but you have opted to namecall and personally attack him. That's against the rules.

I think it's hilarious that you describe my opposition to your behavior as a tantrum, but then you try to claim that your behavior in personally attacking Cunt in the name of opposing his alleged bigotry to be not a tantrum. It's just so ... you.

Yes, I asked him to explain his position, after I clearly and directly answered his question and gave him the info he asked for on sports women seem to excel over men at. He hasn't directly addressed that, and I'd appreciate it if he did.