Women on top

[Brian Peacock]

Why should our emotions not inform our opinions, our reasoning, and our debate of same? Or, putting it in a more focused manner: how can our emotions not inform our opinions, and through that our action.

Remember that scene in AI with Will Smith, where he explains that the child should have been rescued from the watery depths instead of our here, despite the fact he was deemed to have a better chance of survival by the logic of the rescuing robot?

My rational objection to the OP was clearly expressed. As I pointed out, I though it was seeking to measure the skills and competences of women in general, against the particulars of men's physical attributes and capacities. As I said, this is no different to comparing the difference between female and male penis size or rate of beard growth. As I also said, men have a tendency to judge women by their own ideas of what attributes and capacities denote 'manliness', and which (to a great extent) secure the social status of men both within groups of men and within the wider group of society - direct competition in which those manly attributes and capacities are tested (e.g. sport) is but one facet of this kind of misplaced presumption. The implications are clear as far as the argument against equality goes - men and women are not equal: men are stronger, faster, more competitive, and take more risks; therefore women are inferior to men, not just in their physical attributes and emotional drives, but generally. It's not a stretch to characterise the argument in this way because not only have the ideas of 'gender equality' and an 'equality of attributes and capacities' been freely conflated but the declared historical superiority of men in all areas of human endeavour was also invoked to justify that initial leading question. I put forward my point in reasonable terms and was repeatedly accused of being emotional and/or angry, and of not playing the game properly by not answering the question. Only after that did I become sarcastic, which nonetheless is still informative of my basic points - none of which have been remotely addressed by the OP.

[Cunt]

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?

Just like I said...I don't mind accepting (supporting!) that everyone be treated fairly - whatever comes of this thread.

What I want is evidence of positive examples of where women dominate regularly over male competition. In sport I can't find it (though I admit I lack knowledge of dance)

I deliberately, and with much benefit, include female heroes and role models in every aspect of my life. It isn't changed by the fact that the fastest female runners are MUCH slower than their male counterparts. In the racing I like best, it's pretty much over before the start. (long races are won in training)

There is something difficult to define and quantify around running, where I think women do excel. This is clumsy, but I would say that they can get more of their peers to the start line. Or maybe even to the finish line. (this is a MUCH more relevant and important skill than winning races, at least to me)

I don't know how to see that skill-set compete, or even to define it carefully, but it looks pretty clear in my experience. Something about running together...

No evidence of biological or inherent traits has been presented to back this view up

I'm asking for evidence to the contrary, in clear competition. If you have none, I suggest posting anyway, with enthusiastic indifference to the topic, and a lot of insults.

In other words, GREAT JOB!!!

Absolutely. I'd also like to acknowledge Cunt's admiration of one or two females in the world. I suspect, similarly to myself, that he isn't a misogynistracist because some of my best friends are womenblack.

I accepted a long time ago, based on your words, that no evidence would ever change your mind about whether I am racist or misogynist. Your judgement is valued appropriately here, and GREAT job on posting again!

Women have a lot to make up. Only since the 60's were they acknowledged as being equal.

Did someone hi-jack your account to post idiocy?

Holy shit - check your passwords!

They have not at all been acknowledged as 'being equal', except a few choice countries. It sounds like you live in one of the areas where women ARE treated equally, which shouldn't blind you to the fact that they are still property in some modern, respected countries.

Your 'argument' is dogshit, too. Kenyans have a lot to make up. Only since the 60's were they acknowledged as being equal.
Oh, but they win ALL the races anyway. Hmmm...well, maybe they made a deal with the patriarchy to allow them to dominate one sport.

Cunt and co

There is NO 'and co'. Don't lump me in with a group I didn't choose, and I'll try to not lump you in with pErvinalia.

expect them to make good the damage of thousands of years that has been inflicted on them in 50 years?

No. More like instantly. I would expect that if women had clear advantages over men in some sport competition, they would dominate already. Regardless of who allowed them to.

Cunt should expect have shitty treatment in retaliation.

To be honest, I did.

When I thought this question through, I considered trying to word in in a least-offensive way, and gave up. There may be some who say it's because I asked it in a shitty way, but if anyone does, I ask them to tell me how to ask the question in a non-shitty way.

You're full of shit 42. Why even pretend that what we have here is an attempt at a debate over controversial topics in the same vein as Oxford Union's debate? Anyone can go to Youtube to look that up btw.

The OP was shitty. Responding to it with sarcasm and ridicule is fine. Unfortunately, assholes of a certain bent nearly always fall back to "but I'm just trying to have a rational discussion!" despite their original comments suggesting otherwise. Hell, sometimes the asshole even acknowledges or hints at their knowingly being shitty in their opening comments. But then, as if they've lost all sense, they try to convince everyone else that they're just being emotional. How can anything difficult be discussed when everyone's so emotional? We're missing so much important rational debate by being such irrational progressives!

Look, forget what I said, or rather how I said it. I'm trying to have a rational discussion here. So yeah, I said that. Yeah, I knew it would piss you off. But let's focus on what I meant to say, what this discussion could lead to.

I admit I asked it shitty. I decided it wasn't worth trying to make it a better phrasing, because no matter who phrased this question, even you, it would be attacked the same way.

Might as well lean into the wind.

As I said, this is no different to comparing the difference between female and male penis size or rate of beard growth. As I also said, men have a tendency to judge women by their own ideas of what attributes and capacities denote 'manliness', and which (to a great extent) secure the social status of men both within groups of men and within the wider group of society - direct competition in which those manly attributes and capacities are tested (e.g. sport) is but one facet of this kind of misplaced presumption. The implications are clear as far as the argument against equality goes - men and women are not equal: men are stronger, faster, more competitive, and take more risks; therefore women are inferior to men, not just in their physical attributes and emotional drives, but generally. It's not a stretch to characterise the argument in this way because not only have the ideas of 'gender equality' and an 'equality of attributes and capacities' been freely conflated but the declared historical superiority of men in all areas of human endeavour was also invoked to justify that initial leading question. I put forward my point in reasonable terms and was repeatedly accused of being emotional and/or angry, and of not playing the game properly by not answering the question. Only after that did I become sarcastic, which nonetheless is still informative of my basic points - none of which have been remotely addressed by the OP.

It's very different to comparing penis size or beard growth.

If women invented a sport which was fair, and open to male competitors, and women continued to dominate, that would be a good example (even though not invented by your imaginary patriarchy)

I genuinely think people should be treated equally. Now tell me, with it being clear that men physically outperform women in every competitive way, why would I still think that? Is it just barely possible that you have me figured wrong?

[JimC]

Cunt wrote:

I genuinely think people should be treated equally. Now tell me, with it being clear that men physically outperform women in every competitive way, why would I still think that?

Now I have a clearer picture of your bullshit misogynist argument, which is nice. For a start, you seem to think that because we haven't danced to your tune, and scurried around like obedient mice to find examples, that you have proved that "men physically outperform women in every competitive way". I've got news for you, sunshine; you haven't...

Secondly, even if that absurd bit of male braggadocio were true, or even partly true, it has absolutely no connection to your "I genuinely think people should be treated equally" (and I rather doubt the "genuinely"...)

A rather classic example of the naturalistic fallacy...

[Cunt]

Cunt wrote:

I genuinely think people should be treated equally. Now tell me, with it being clear that men physically outperform women in every competitive way, why would I still think that?

Now I have a clearer picture of your bullshit misogynist argument, which is nice. For a start, you seem to think that because we haven't danced to your tune, and scurried around like obedient mice to find examples, that you have proved that "men physically outperform women in every competitive way". I've got news for you, sunshine; you haven't...

No I haven't. I've been looking for examples to the contrary.

Secondly, even if that absurd bit of male braggadocio were true, or even partly true, it has absolutely no connection to your "I genuinely think people should be treated equally" (and I rather doubt the "genuinely"...)

That's what I said. If it is true that men dominate regularly in every competitive field, then I still believe people should be treated equally. (with the qualifier that it is also worth offering more support to some of us)

Why would you not believe it? Because it doesn't fit your straw-Cunt?

So clearly, you still don't have examples to present, and continue to try to paint me as the problem. I am open to examples, and used to being insulted when someone disagrees with me about something.

But I'm not even sure what you disagree with me on? Is it something that can be whittled down to one sentence, that we can both agree on? Or do you just want to be vaguely disagreeable?

[Cunt]

...you have proved that "men physically outperform women in every competitive way". I've got news for you, sunshine; you haven't...

I don't know why I find this part of your post so funny, but I think it is because every fair and clear competition example I can think of, has males dominating over females. It doesn't mean any given man can outperform any given woman, of course that's pretty clear, but it's hilarious how insistent you are that I haven't proved that.

I'm not trying to prove that, I'm looking for evidence to contradict that kind of statement.

If you really want to screw me over, don't provide examples. That'll show me!

Hang around and insult me for fun, for added prestige.

[Brian Peacock]

...

...[My rational objection to the OP was clearly expressed. As I pointed out, I though it was seeking to measure the skills and competences of women in general, against the particulars of men's physical attributes and capacities.]... As I said, this is no different to comparing the difference between female and male penis size or rate of beard growth. As I also said, men have a tendency to judge women by their own ideas of what attributes and capacities denote 'manliness', and which (to a great extent) secure the social status of men both within groups of men and within the wider group of society - direct competition in which those manly attributes and capacities are tested (e.g. sport) is but one facet of this kind of misplaced presumption. The implications are clear as far as the argument against equality goes - men and women are not equal: men are stronger, faster, more competitive, and take more risks; therefore women are inferior to men, not just in their physical attributes and emotional drives, but generally. It's not a stretch to characterise the argument in this way because not only have the ideas of 'gender equality' and an 'equality of attributes and capacities' been freely conflated but the declared historical superiority of men in all areas of human endeavour was also invoked to justify that initial leading question. I put forward my point in reasonable terms and was repeatedly accused of being emotional and/or angry, and of not playing the game properly by not answering the question. Only after that did I become sarcastic, which nonetheless is still informative of my basic points - none of which have been remotely addressed by the OP.

It's very different to comparing penis size or beard growth.

If women invented a sport which was fair, and open to male competitors, and women continued to dominate, that would be a good example (even though not invented by your imaginary patriarchy).

Your assumptions about "my imaginary patriarchy" are neither here nor there. What I am curious about is what this fair and open female-invented and female-dominated sport would actually exemplify. Any ideas?

For instance. Do women need to invent sports to compete on a level playing field? Does the invention of a sport confer a kind of ownership of that activity upon the gender of its creator? Do you feel that male-invented sports confirm some innate gender-specific attributes and capacities that sets men above women in more than mere SI units? In what way is there a necessity for mixed sporting competition in the measurement and/or implementation of gender equality, something that goes beyond the equivalent selective elements of sport like weight divisions or handicapping? And what does male dominance of an open sport actual signify? What does it say about gender, for example, or the nature of male and female social relationships, or the role of sporting success in informing or modelling wider attitudes to gender? And how does any of this relate to the notion of equality?

I genuinely think people should be treated equally. Now tell me, with it being clear that men physically outperform women in every competitive way, why would I still think that? Is it just barely possible that you have me figured wrong?

I'm all ears. Share your pain with me brother. It will cleanse you, I am sure of that.

[Cunt]

Your assumptions about "my imaginary patriarchy" are neither here nor there. What I am curious about is what this fair and open female-invented and female-dominated sport would actually exemplify. Any ideas?

No, but some suggest that the sports invented by men somehow favour men, and that is why men dominate (as opposed to their being more *something* in all the skills/strengths on display)

For instance. Do women need to invent sports to compete on a level playing field?

Nope. Just compete on a level playing field.

Does the invention of a sport confer a kind of ownership of that activity upon the gender of its creator?

I don't think so.

Do you feel that male-invented sports confirm some innate gender-specific attributes and capacities that sets men above women in more than mere SI units?

No.

In what way is there a necessity for mixed sporting competition in the measurement and/or implementation of gender equality, something that goes beyond the equivalent selective elements of sport like weight divisions or handicapping?

It would be up to the sports participants, and nothing could be said very broadly about it.

And what does male dominance of an open sport actual signify?

Competitive success.

What does it say about gender, for example, or the nature of male and female social relationships, or the role of sporting success in informing or modelling wider attitudes to gender?

It says that there are dramatic and serious differences in the abilities of men and women.

And how does any of this relate to the notion of equality?

I have plenty of examples of men to follow in sport, or multi-sport events. I wanted to find one kind of event where women are clearly at an advantage, in the way that men usually are. (such as in running)

I genuinely think people should be treated equally. Now tell me, with it being clear that men physically outperform women in every competitive way, why would I still think that? Is it just barely possible that you have me figured wrong?

I'm all ears. Share your pain with me brother. It will cleanse you, I am sure of that.

What pain?

I'm just pointing out that this subject doesn't change my attitude about treating people equally.

But thanks for the suggestion that I'm dirty somehow...I don't get that nearly as much as I should, being a member of the Patriarchy.

[pErvinalia]

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?

Just like I said...I don't mind accepting (supporting!) that everyone be treated fairly - whatever comes of this thread.

What I want is evidence of positive examples of where women dominate regularly over male competition. In sport I can't find it (though I admit I lack knowledge of dance)

I deliberately, and with much benefit, include female heroes and role models in every aspect of my life. It isn't changed by the fact that the fastest female runners are MUCH slower than their male counterparts. In the racing I like best, it's pretty much over before the start. (long races are won in training)

There is something difficult to define and quantify around running, where I think women do excel. This is clumsy, but I would say that they can get more of their peers to the start line. Or maybe even to the finish line. (this is a MUCH more relevant and important skill than winning races, at least to me)

I don't know how to see that skill-set compete, or even to define it carefully, but it looks pretty clear in my experience. Something about running together...

You didn't answer the question. Why are you seeking this evidence?

[Cunt]

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?

Just like I said...I don't mind accepting (supporting!) that everyone be treated fairly - whatever comes of this thread.

What I want is evidence of positive examples of where women dominate regularly over male competition. In sport I can't find it (though I admit I lack knowledge of dance)

I deliberately, and with much benefit, include female heroes and role models in every aspect of my life. It isn't changed by the fact that the fastest female runners are MUCH slower than their male counterparts. In the racing I like best, it's pretty much over before the start. (long races are won in training)

There is something difficult to define and quantify around running, where I think women do excel. This is clumsy, but I would say that they can get more of their peers to the start line. Or maybe even to the finish line. (this is a MUCH more relevant and important skill than winning races, at least to me)

I don't know how to see that skill-set compete, or even to define it carefully, but it looks pretty clear in my experience. Something about running together...

You didn't answer the question. Why are you seeking this evidence?

You must have missed the part where I said:

I deliberately, and with much benefit, include female heroes and role models in every aspect of my life.

Or maybe, because you have to maintain a caricature of me that you can understand, you read this:

I deliberately, and with much benefit, include female heroes and role models in every aspect of my life.

but didn't remember it.

If it will help, I'll remind you that back up the thread a bit, I said

I deliberately, and with much benefit, include female heroes and role models in every aspect of my life.

Of course, you are still doing a great job participating!

[pErvinalia]

Is English your 11th language? That has absolutely nothing to do with the question. Whether you have female heroes etc doesn't tell us anything about why you want to see evidence of females dominating males in some competitive endeavour.

[Cunt]

Because it would be heroic.

But go on insulting me! I see you even mastered an emoticon :yay:

[pErvinalia]

You still haven't answered the question.

[pErvinalia]

Are you saying that it would help you find more role models (which must be "heroic") in your life? I call bullshit, if that's the case. You've been offered a number of individual women that dominate men, and you rubbished those replies.

[Cunt]

I call bullshit

Of course you do, and so well, too!

Right now I'm looking for a whole field where they dominate, rather than individuals.

Good job on generating this quote though. I imagine you quacking this, over and over, rather than thinking or understanding.

Like a comic-book villain 'BullshitCaller', who creates such noise that none can ignore it!

[pErvinalia]

You are still avoiding the question.