Women on top

[Forty Two]

What on earth sort of point are you trying to make? If it is just that men are stronger than women physically - then on average they are. So what?

He's bravely sticking it to the libs and/or PC crowd. So courageous...

Has he said that? I'm not sure how discussing sports where women perform better than men is "sticking it ot the libs and/or PC crowd." A liberal would have no problem discussing this issue, as a liberal is often defined as someone with an open mind, open to new and alternative ideas, etc. And, also there is something to be said for being able to entertain an idea without accepting it. Now the PC crowd is not particularly liberal, but I'm also not sure how this ought to be categorized as something of a non-PC topic. I get why it's touching some nerves, but, I think that's a function of what the popular TV-show Seinfeld once addressed in the "I don't think we should be talking about this..." episode... there are just certain third-rail topics, and it's interesting to try to figure out why such topics engender such a reaction.

[Sean Hayden]

Look, this is how assholes act. They say something shitty, and then when you get shitty back they try to go all hyper-rational --best as they can manage anyway-- and ask, why you mad bro? You must be getting shitty cause you're not on my level regarding rational discourse.

[Forty Two]

What on earth sort of point are you trying to make? If it is just that men are stronger than women physically - then on average they are. So what?

That it isn't just strength. It's any sport at all. Speed, strength, decision-making, collaboration...the skills exemplified in sport are overwhelmingly dominated by men.

The intersectional feminist response to that is that the structure and rules of sport were designed in a patriarchal society to test and utilize the features of CIS hetero males, and as such they are structurally created in a way which favors such features or qualities. If sports, as the social constructs they are, were created in fair society, then the rules and structure of the sport would test the features and qualities of all genders equally, and then, of course, the results would not favor CIS males.

I was looking for examples of the contrary, because I DO want to celebrate female athletes, and I definitely want to know where they outperform men.

Ultra marathon swimming. There is a race that people swim that's 28.5 miles of swimming. One such race goes around the entire perimeter of the island of Manhattan. There is some evidence, apparently, that the "average" woman participant beat the "average" male participant. So, that might be one sport. I also mentioned some gymnastics competitions and maybe figure skating. I think in the latter, women have to perform more difficult maneuvres, often backwards. Which leads me to another example, perhaps dance competitions, if that can be a sport. Ginger Rodgers did everything Fred Astaire did, backwards, and in high heels, the old quote goes...
/

If we can't figure one single example out, it kind of changes my view a bit. |Just one sport, where females clearly have (and use) their superiority...

A weird example from my hazy memory...there was this kind of test, where you place an armchair against a wall. Have both males and females try to lift it a certain way, and only females can. (I think it had to do with different hip shape or something)

Anyway, it looks an awful lot like I won't find an example here. I'm reluctant, but I may look for one on /fit/. They are (more openly) assholes, but at least they might have an answer...

I'm told over and over that this doesn't mean that men are superior, and to hold that women are every bit as good on the job as men, but the broad variety of demands of the different sports are far from limited to the physical...it just seems like a better performer in sport, would be likely to be a better performer in many other ways. That's not hard to wrap your head around (because it is about one individual)

You've illustrated a serious flaw in identity politics. If we just view people as individuals, then there is no issue here. Individual men and women are qualified or unqualified for given jobs. Whether more men or women overall qualify says nothing about an individual candidate. If the goal can be for employers to simply consider candidates on an equal basis, so that qualified people can get hired even if they are members of a group that overall doesn't produce many qualified candidates, then that would seem to pass the fairness "smell test." IMO.

But where does it start to apply to groups? Should we shame the (physically demanding) cement finishing industry because they don't employ more women? Or accept that it is going to mean women don't have as many opportunities (because their competition for jobs is stronger/faster)?

The crowd that talks most about the fairness of "inclusion" in certain jobs are rarely, if ever, talking about the particularly physical, demanding or unpleasant jobs. I've never heard a feminist activist suggest there needs to be change in the garbage collection industry. I've never seen a female trash collector, even in towns where the trucks pick up the cans/bins for the trash collector.

[Forty Two]

You are trying to prove that men are better than women in other words. Again - what on earth for?

A bit obsessive and a irrelevant.

I was trying to find evidence that women were better than men in some way. Any measurable, clear way. Sport would be an easy place to show it.

Rum asked a fair question. What on Earth for? Why are you trying to prove this? Why are you seeking this evidence that women were better than men in some way?

[Forty Two]

What's the whole obsession with "winners" about?

Sounds like a bad case of Social Darwinism to me...

Unloading the question here... it seems you've alleged he has an "obsession" with "winners."

Well, the loading the question with the assumption of an obsession almost guarantees a defensive reaction, because it's an accusation.

The heart of your questions is: what does the sex of the average winner in sports have to do with anything? What does it have to do with? If you found sports where women measurably beat men, what would that demonstrate to you? What's the relevance to what? i.e., what does this have to do with the price of tea in China?

Fair question, albeit tangential.

[Forty Two]

It's because we don't care, and don't want to validate your exercise in bigotry.

If you didn't care, you'd not bother continually reading and posting in the thread. Plainly you do care, in some respect.

[Forty Two]

Again, we (well at least I) don't care if women do or don't dominate men in one or many areas. The vast majority of jobs use technology that largely eliminates any differences (both ways) that might exist. As I said earlier, it appears that only bigots care about these sorts of things, as it is an attempt to validate their own preconceived views.

I don't care about the thread "Favorite Queen Songs" so I go there and post repeatedly, telling participants that the thread is irrelevant and a waste of time, and that the thread is otherwise something I do no not like or approve of. I badger and namecall the creator of the thread, imply that he has an obsession with the topic, suggest that he harbors some sort of negative qualities, and repeatedly post off-topic and other posts to derail the conversaion. Even where I've already made a point "earlier", I care so little about the topic that I go on to repeat points over and over, in the thread about which I do not care, because I do not care soooooo much that I make sure to tell people repeatedly how much I do not care. Because, heck, if I don't care about the thread, then nobody should care about the thread, and the thread must be stopped.

[Forty Two]

Have we talked about Reverse Cowgirl yet?

It's better in theory than practice.

[Forty Two]

Why the fuck should we answer your idiotic quest for examples, when time and time again we've demonstrated that your quest for competitive differences between male and female is utterly fucking irrelevant?

Demonstrated? Said, yes. But "demonstrated?" How was the irrelevancy of the quest for competitive differences been "demonstrated" to be irrelevant?

You've posed a question here, though: Why should we answer Cunt's idiotic quest for examples?

O.k., answer -- first, it's not "we" as Cunt is part of "we" given that he is a member here in good standing - if you are referring to a subgroup of members, then specify the we (is there a subgroup consisting of some Rationalia members that you're speaking for here?). So, let's properly state the question -- "why should I answer Cunt's idiotic quest for examples?"

Answer - nobody knows but you. You would have to answer that question, not Cunt. From Cunt's perspective, he can have no answer to that question. Why should you participate? The universe of possible answers would seem to include: (a) you're interested in the topic, (b) you can name some examples, (c) you think it might present some interesting discussion around sex and gender differences and the issue of equality, etc. (d) to take down Cunt's arguments, or (e) for any number of other motivating reasons to participate.

If your answer is "none that I can think of," and you really don't want Cunt to continue on posting stuff like this, then I can tell you the quickest way for the thread to die would be for those of you going on and on posting this kind of thing in response to his commentary would be to just say - "there are no examples of sports that I can think of where women on average excel over men...so what?" That would pretty much solve it.

Or, if you can think of one or more - as I believe I have, and I posted them. Just post - here are my examples. In doing either of those response options, has anyone died? Have we increased the level of systemic oppression of women? Has the patriarchy been strengthened by the conversation? What's the problem?

What do you care if Cunt posts politically incorrect questions on threads?

[Forty Two]

Look, this is how assholes act. They say something shitty, and then when you get shitty back they try to go all hyper-rational --best as they can manage anyway-- and ask, why you mad bro? You must be getting shitty cause you're not on my level regarding rational discourse.

Well, Cunt raised a topic, he didn't get shitty with anyone. Then people got shitty TO HIM. That's different. Controversial topics are allowed here. That doesn't mean you have to discuss them or participate. But, "getting shitty back" at a person whose only shitty move was to post a topic that certain people find objectionable, is childish, stupid and against the rules. Cunt did not violate the rules, but calling him names and insulting him is against the rules.

And if someone wants to make a thread about the question of whether white people are humans or if people should be imprisoned for being women, men or other -- that's o.k., and well within the rules, and there is something to be said for open discussion of shocking or non-PC topics.

The most disturbing aspect of all this, to me, is how hypersensitive discussion boards - not just Rationalia - became. During the rise of the New Atheist movement in the early 2000s and when youtube started, etc., we had a spirit of open discussion, and an overall view among atheists, freethinkers and rationalists, that offense to people was not relevant part of discussion forums, science, and freethough. Somehow, over the past 5 years, mainly, it seems that an orthodoxy has set in and discussion has become more about power and politics than intellectual discourse.

[Sean Hayden]

Thanks for a perfect example 42. I knew you wouldn't disappoint. He didn't say nothing shitty, we're just being super-rational. I can see why you'd be sensitive, but if you'd just check your feelings and deal with the topic rationally we could discuss it.

I've been wondering which fields of human endeavor are dominated by women.

All my life, everyone has been saying that women are equal to men, but in any measured way, it's tough to find that. Everywhere, men dominate with their bigger muscles, bones and cognitive power, so if women really are equal, there should be plenty of areas where they dominate the field.

I'm trying to think of clearly measurable traits here, by the way. Real, measurable and tangible things.

So far, all I have is that they live longer, and usually can get someone to lift heavy things, or reach the top shelf for them (maybe those things are connected...)

Of course, trolls are welcome, as always.

--the OP

[pErvinalia]

It's because we don't care, and don't want to validate your exercise in bigotry.

If you didn't care, you'd not bother continually reading and posting in the thread. Plainly you do care, in some respect.

non-sequitur. I don't care whether one sex is better than the other in some sphere, particularly when the question and the person asking it appears to be coming from a position of bigotry. But I do care about calling out apparent bigotry. As I think I've already said to you in this thread.

[pErvinalia]

Again, we (well at least I) don't care if women do or don't dominate men in one or many areas. The vast majority of jobs use technology that largely eliminates any differences (both ways) that might exist. As I said earlier, it appears that only bigots care about these sorts of things, as it is an attempt to validate their own preconceived views.

I don't care about the thread "Favorite Queen Songs" so I go there and post repeatedly, telling participants that the thread is irrelevant and a waste of time, and that the thread is otherwise something I do no not like or approve of.

Can you not read properly? I didn't say the thread is irrelevant and a waste of time. See my reply above for the distinction.

I badger and namecall the creator of the thread, imply that he has an obsession with the topic, suggest that he harbors some sort of negative qualities, and repeatedly post off-topic and other posts to derail the conversaion. Even where I've already made a point "earlier", I care so little about the topic that I go on to repeat points over and over, in the thread about which I do not care, because I do not care soooooo much that I make sure to tell people repeatedly how much I do not care. Because, heck, if I don't care about the thread, then nobody should care about the thread, and the thread must be stopped.

You really are a giant man baby, aren't you?

[pErvinalia]

O.k., answer -- first, it's not "we" as Cunt is part of "we" given that he is a member here in good standing

- if you are referring to a subgroup of members, then specify the we (is there a subgroup consisting of some Rationalia members that you're speaking for here?).

Everyone but you and Cunt. As per usual.

[Sean Hayden]

When given a few examples of women performing better than men in their field this was the response:

So they somehow outperformed men?

Are you saying that women are better at physics, chemistry and medicine? Is that by published works? Or pounds of output? Crowd acclaim?

Or is this just your virtue signalling to your peers?

I'm just trying to have a rational discussion with you baby!