Women on top

[Cunt]

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.

Now, if you were just posting that to stare at hotties, I approve, but it still doesn't show you even understand the question.

[Joe]

The fucking topic? What was that again?

I'm not sure why you are posting the half-naked, tattooed lady, but thanks. She's pretty hot for a teen/tween.

Of course, you are probably doing this to show that one woman CAN overcome the odds, and beat guys. Trouble is, that's not the subject.

I was looking for a field where they dominate, not where one occasionally does almost as well as the leading males.

I guess this must be your fan base, pErvinalia. You should be proud to have attracted anyone, considering your contribution.

Still no examples, but LOTS of people irritated by their inability to understand the difference between a single example, and a field dominated.

Let me offer a reverse example. Powerlifting is completely dominated by men. The top woman would likely be about 60-70% (performance-wise) of the top man. This is a field clearly dominated by men, and pretty much unattainable to women.

So can you find a sport where women hold the same kind of commanding lead?

Or even a regular, slightly less dramatic lead?

Powerlifting, by the way, is open to everyone. Weights are standard, and women are not prevented from participating. Nothing in the way of their dominating this field except superior athletes (men) crowding the upper reaches.

It's pretty much a total sausage-fest in the higher weights. With men being allowed to change into women by fiat, this may change, but at the moment, it is clear.

No Cunt, look closer. She's no child. She's a veteran of the United States Navy and and open water ultra endurance swimmer, but it appears you need a little eye candy to get your attention.

I have posted on this earlier, but you clearly missed it among the, uh, other discussion.

Here is the link: http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.p ... 6#p1760316 for your consideration.

[Forty Two]

Cunt, I also posted a link to the ultra-endurance swimming, and data was collected which appeared to show that not just the top women, but the average women beat the average male participant in the sport. There seems to be some advantage that women have in that sport. Perhaps their light weight, body fat, boyancy and endurance all come together to provide an advantage over time.

So, I think you've got your example, so -- what of it?

[Cunt]

I see it now. That one woman IS doing well! Wow, that's great.

But as to whether the field is dominated, well, the gold-medal 10k swimmer at the 2016 olympics (a woman) would have finished in 23rd place if she were forced to compete against the men. Is that what you mean when you say 'for your consideration'? Or was I not supposed to look to the most competitive event on earth to see where the strongest competitors meet?

I did see that a coach had observed (but not recorded) that he thought women were better competitors. Maybe I should have just accepted that as fact without checking the Olympic swim results...

[Cunt]

I looked a bit more, and I have to ask...

If women are stronger at swimming, why is it that they continually allow men to have all the fastest times during competitions? All those fast women, slowing down during their olympic performances. Not just that, but slowing down so carefully as to appear to be competing against each other.

That's one WILD conspiracy. Wow!

[Seabass]

You get ridiculed by pretty much everyone, because pretty much everyone thinks you are giant joke.

In his defense, I don't think Tyrannical ridicules him.

[Joe]

I looked a bit more, and I have to ask...

If women are stronger at swimming, why is it that they continually allow men to have all the fastest times during competitions? All those fast women, slowing down during their olympic performances. Not just that, but slowing down so carefully as to appear to be competing against each other.

That's one WILD conspiracy. Wow!

So that's your counter-argument? 10K's and conspiracy theories?

We're talking about evidence from 20, 21, and 28.5 mile events, gathered over many decades, that these people are using to make their claim. These swims are 3 to 4 times longer than a 10K.

Weak!

[Svartalf]

You really are a phenomenon. You've demonstrably tone policed (I listed the examples nicely) and you still have the audacity to claim that you didn't. I'm finished with your derail. Go and be dishonest with someone else.

Notice all the people cheering you on for your efforts?

By the way, great job posting with spelling AND punctuation included. A real big win for you!

well, I do cheeer, I just don't post every time as it would end up quite boring.

[Cunt]

It's funny how busy this topic is, with no clear competitive sport offered with 'Women on top'.

Its almost like pErvinaila et al are here for something other than the thread topic...maybe just here to declare their lack of respect for questions about sex difference facts.

Hilarious how firmly you all oppose without any evidence. Heck, even digging up a coach who said he figgured women were better, was a crap try.

I expect Forty Two might be on to something with his comments about dance, but without expertise in the field, I'm unwilling to say. I have been fooled about it before.

A photo of a fat chick circulated awhile, where she was doing a difficult ballet pose. I thought it was pretty great, and showed a lot of strength, balance, etc...I thought she was doing a dancer pose. Then a dancer compared. First, with a reference image of the same pose, then a technical breakdown of the measurable elements of the pose which was on display. The fat lady was actually hilariously off the mark in most ways, and simply could not have done the pose, due to excess weight making it impossible.

Anyway, I learned that I don't know enough about dance to judge, other than whether I like it or not. For technical matters, I would need to defer to dance specialists.

So that's your counter-argument? 10K's and conspiracy theories?

We're talking about evidence from 20, 21, and 28.5 mile events, gathered over many decades, that these people are using to make their claim. These swims are 3 to 4 times longer than a 10K.

Weak!

My 'counter-argument' was to look to the most sought-after award in competitive swimming, and see if the field was dominated by women. It isn't, but marathon swim is harder to find stats on. The story of the coach who says he remembers thinking that women do better (but didn't make a formal study of it) is not really convincing to me. If it is true, then we will see top men beaten again and again by different women in that sport.

I doubt it, but I'm still looking for records and such.

Haven't found anything definitively showing 'women on top' in this field, but I find plenty of stuff like this...

Martin Strel - 47-year old Slovenian man in 2002 swam the length of the Mississippi river in a single attempt, improving his own world distance swimming record made on the Danube River two years ago. He took 68 days to swim the 2,360 miles from northern Minnesota to the Gulf of Mexico in Louisiana, swimming an average of 11 to 12 hours each day. Strel is also registered in the Guinness Book of Records as the first person to swim the entire length of the Danube River, covering 1,878 miles in 58 days in 2000. In addition, he was also the first man on record to swim from Africa to Europe across the Strait of Gibraltar in 1997. He also broke the world record for non-stop swimming when he covered 313 miles of the Danube in just 84 hours in 2001.

[Cunt]

Maybe it's the Patriarchy hiding their dominance. And as to the Olympic events remaining dominated by men, that's just part of the conspiracy to hide the superiority of women in endurance swimming.

From your 'study', the one who was obsessively studying is quoted as saying:

In just one of those events — open-water, ultra-distance swimming — women were “able to achieve a similar or better performance compared to men,” he said.

Also from the same article:
[/quote]Steven Munatones, considered one of the foremost experts on open-water swimming. A few years ago — purely to satisfy his own curiosity — Munatones analyzed the finishing times of men and women who participated in the biggest ultra-distance swims around the world. He did this for three years, keeping track of “12 or 13” races — he can’t remember exactly. He never intended to publish these results anywhere; again, this was for his own curiosity, as a coach and as an open-water swimming fan. Here’s what he found. “If you’re looking at the average times — the average woman is faster than the average man,” said Munatones[/quote]

I'll read you the whole article, if you couldn't be bothered...but it says clearly...

In contrast to Knechtle’s studies of the Manhattan Island Marathon Swim and the Catalina Channel Swim, Munatones’s data suggest that the fastest women are still slower than the fastest men. He suspects Knechtle and his colleagues arrived at their conclusion because the events they studied are relatively small, and don’t attract the caliber of athletes that, say, the English Channel does. (“You’re talking Olympians, fast pool swimmers, everybody,” Munatones said. “That’s where everybody goes.”) Several times over the past century, for example, a young woman or teenage girl has held the record for fastest English Channel swim. In 1926, 20-year-old Gertrude Erdele — the first woman to cross the Channel — beat the then-record by two hours; open-water champion swimmer Lynne Cox has held the record two separate times, when she was 15 and 16. But, mostly, men have been the fastest to cross the Channel. Indeed, the current record-holder for fastest swim across the English Channel is Australian Trent Grimsey, at 6 hours and 55 minutes; the fastest recorded time for a woman is Yvetta Hlaváčová, at 7 hours and 25 minutes.

It looks like the lower-body bouyancy might be a factor, but even with this advantage, they don't seem to translate that into olympic gold. Just better average-joe level performance.

Think again about powerlifting - it is VERY clearly male-dominated. If distance swimming were similarly dominated by female participants, it wouldn't be this hard to find the evidence.

[JimC]

Cunt wrote:

I was looking for a field where they dominate, not where one occasionally does almost as well as the leading males.

Again, why are you looking?

(and you say you are looking - well great, carry on, no need to demand that the rest of us do to...)

As to the reason, this is how I think your twisted internal argument goes:

"I'm pissed of with feminism, uppity women thinking that they're as good as men. I know, I'll try to show that women are naturally inferior to men, but I'll do it in a sneaky way, by demanding that other posters demonstrate clearly fields where women out-compete men, and when they can't, I've won! "

Your whole argument, other than sport, is utterly irrelevant to jobs, politics, everyday life and the principles of justice and fairness. It revolves purely around competition, as if that is an unchallengeable good, something that trumps all other human activities. Now, a little competition is good, here and there. Sporting contests, sure, but they are games, they are at the shallow end of the pool of human life. I always thought a little competition between my top maths students for marks was healthy, but for a few it became obsessive and counter-productive. Some competition between widget makers in free-enterprise systems assists the evolution of better widgets.

But here is the key - in the modern world of technology, physical strength is important only in a tiny number of occupations, and is irrelevant to any social arguments worth having, which none of yours are...

[Cunt]

Cunt wrote:

I was looking for a field where they dominate, not where one occasionally does almost as well as the leading males.

Again, why are you looking?

(and you say you are looking - well great, carry on, no need to demand that the rest of us do to...)

As to the reason, this is how I think your twisted internal argument goes:

Why imagine so hard about what I must be thinking?

You could ask, if what you wanted was my opinion. If, however, you want to support your notion of who I should be, then go ahead and imagine.

sport, is utterly irrelevant to jobs, politics, everyday life

So the excellence measured by the olympics doesn't matter, and is not of relevance to any real-world stuff.

OK.

Outlandish of you to claim such, but OK. It doesn't matter who is stronger, faster, or whatever else sports can measure. You would hire based on other factors.

I wonder though, if your experience included some physical work, if it would be the same.

Some competition between widget makers in free-enterprise systems assists the evolution of better widgets.

But here is the key - in the modern world of technology, physical strength is important only in a tiny number of occupations, and is irrelevant to any social arguments worth having, which none of yours are...

I didn't think I made a social argument. I'm just looking for where women excel.

If you want a social argument, you might have more fun with someone who wants social arguments.

Since you just assume what I'm thinking anyway (regardless of what I write) I'll assume you are just here to troll with pErvinalia et al.

I mean, if you had an answer to the OP, I might think differently, but you are just here whinging about not having an answer that satisfies you.

I'm pretty happy with what I have learned so far.

[JimC]

Cunt wrote:

So the excellence measured by the olympics doesn't matter, and is not of relevance to any real-world stuff.

OK.

It matters only within the confines of any given sport. Within that, sure, but it simply is not relevant to issues of social policy, justice, employment or any of the political debates which revolve around issues of gender, disadvantage and how to develop fairer societies.

Cunt wrote:

Outlandish of you to claim such, but OK. It doesn't matter who is stronger, faster, or whatever else sports can measure. You would hire based on other factors.

What employer, other than those hiring members of a sporting team, would give a flying continental fuck about athletic performance? You clearly know nothing about the actual job market today...

[Cunt]

What employer, other than those hiring members of a sporting team, would give a flying continental fuck about athletic performance? You clearly know nothing about the actual job market today...

It's funny you should say that. I do know about the actual job market today.

In education, government or 'hr', you would be absolutely correct. In most areas where real things are made, shipped or handled, the physical condition of the workers can play a vital role.

Of course the desk jobs don't matter. Real world stuff might, depending on the job.

Unless of course, JimC, by fiat, insists that physical tasks are not subject to physical advantages.

[JimC]

What employer, other than those hiring members of a sporting team, would give a flying continental fuck about athletic performance? You clearly know nothing about the actual job market today...

It's funny you should say that. I do know about the actual job market today.

In education, government or 'hr', you would be absolutely correct. In most areas where real things are made, shipped or handled, the physical condition of the workers can play a vital role.

Of course the desk jobs don't matter. Real world stuff might, depending on the job.

Unless of course, JimC, by fiat, insists that physical tasks are not subject to physical advantages.

Physical condition for a handful of jobs, sure, but only up to a point. Just being moderately strong, and moderately fit would do in virtually all jobs that require some physical activity; there is no requirement to be an elite athlete. Plenty of women would be able to demonstrate the physical condition required; you can see them in building sites all over Melbourne, these days...