|
|
|
Subjectmatter
Skeptic Friend
173 Posts |
 Posted - 11/23/2005 : 06:07:57 [Permalink]
|
quote:
So because girls who are exceptional at sport are better than the average guy (who'd have thought!) we should mix them? Being a guy can have some significant advantages, so the top end is divided by sex, we structure junior sport for this that's all.
So why not divide by performance instead? The poor sportsmen among the boys are most likely more comfortable playing with others of their calibre, as are the exceptional girls.
And what does you mean by "something you could not safely discuss with women"?
And who are you to judge what they would want to discuss? Make the social group open to whomever wishes to take part and it will naturally divide itself according to the interest of the people involved. Interest is the relevant characteristic is this case. not gender. |
Sibling Atom Bomb of Couteous Debate |
 |
|
|
Bunga
Skeptic Friend
Sweden
74 Posts |
Posted - 11/23/2005 : 06:28:31 [Permalink]
|
| I agree with Subjectmatter. Sports classes should be no differently divided that maths classes or language classes: by ability. Not gender, not ethnicity. Just because "most girls are better at grade school maths" doesn't mean we should be dividing maths classes according to gender. Just because Belgians are better than English at foreign lanugages doesn't mean we should divide highschool German classes by nationality. Just because "most boys" are better at football than girls doesn't mean we should divide that class by gender either. |
|
|
|
Robb
SFN Regular
USA
1223 Posts |
Posted - 11/23/2005 : 06:41:10 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Subjectmatter
I disagree vehemently with the practise of separating boys and girls for the purposes of sport as well. I have seen plenty of girls that are better at sports than the average boy, and I have seen plenty of boys that simply can't perform in some sports at all. When I was 14 and we played rugby in school I would sometimes watch the boys practise. It was painfully obvious that a fair number of them would much rather be somewhere else. Why should a sporting girl not play sports with the boys? This in iteslf is a form of discrimination, let alone what it causes later in life.
The reason is that boys generally are stronger than girls. (yes there are exceptions). Would you want a 16 year old girl to play football for the varsity team with 16 year old boys? Some girls may have the skills but not the physical strength to play. The best women athletes are not as good as the best mens athletes. In professional sports there have been few women to play. Money and winning rules these sports and if there was a woman that could play with the men and help them win they would play. There have been two women to play in the NHL, but both were gone in a few weeks. Just by saying that girls and boys are equal in all areas does not make it so.
quote:
And why should social groups be formed according to gender?
And what would a group of men discuss with each other which they couldn't equally well discuss in a mixed group of genders? The appendage between their legs? "Yup, my penis is a little sore today. How is yours?" "Oh, its fine. Except I have developed an odd bulge which worries me..." "You should have that seen to" "Yup".
This statement is very simplistic and demeaning to men. Men's groups are benefitial and most men do talk about more than just their penis. Men talk about being a father, a husband, emotions that men have that women do not understand. Talk about struggles that men have that women do not understand such as pornography.
quote:
Nothing riles me up more than being classed according to my gender rather than being treated as an individual. My gender is only one of a myriad of characteristics which together form my identity.
This is true, we are more than our gender, but our gender is the first catagory we put people into when we meet them. I have never met a person and later not known what gender they were.
|
Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master. - George Washington |
|
|
|
woolytoad
Skeptic Friend
313 Posts |
Posted - 11/23/2005 : 07:21:57 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Subjectmatter
quote:
So why not divide by performance instead? The poor sportsmen among the boys are most likely more comfortable playing with others of their calibre, as are the exceptional girls.
Because in some sports women are never going to perform as well as men at the top end even if they have the skill. For example with archery (my sport of choice), at the very top end the men are pulling over 50lbs. The women typically peak around 42lbs (there are a few exceptions but none pull as much as the men). This extra poundage gives significant advantage to the archer. We measure performance by score. So now the top division is entirely made of men. Which is kinda lame as the most skilful archers are predominantly women (at the moment). The gender division is fair, easy, makes sense and probably gives women the recognition they deserve better than a purely performance based system where they may end up stuck in a lower class.
[quote]And what does you mean by "something you could not safely discuss with women"?
I'll rephrase that. There are topics, we don't want to discuss with women. But Robb has a point. But I was not thinking that carefully about it. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 11/23/2005 : 07:34:42 [Permalink]
|
Yea! Let's get those co-ed wrestling classes going!
Forcryingoutloud, these are kids we're talking about. While there will generally not be problems in non-contact sports (baseball, track - heck, I took a co-ed fencing class in 10th grade), the idea that boys and girls are going to be little ladies and gentlemen on the basketball court or rugby field and not play grab-ass inappropriately is insane.
What would happen is this: things would be fine for a few days or weeks until the kids get used to the new order of things, and then you'll start having "incidents," and finally enough parents will complain that gym classes will, once again, be segregated by sex.
I'm all for allowing kids without ability or desire for sports to opt out of such classes (I was one of them), but that's a completely separate issue from tossing irresponsible kids with raging hormones together in activites in which they're expected to touch each other. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 11/23/2005 : 11:49:02 [Permalink]
|
Back when I was in college, the school paper used to run a section titled "News of the Weird," which were a few paragraphs about strange or humorous goings-on in the world.
I remember one story about a teenage girl who sued her high school to be allowed to play on the boys varsity football team. After months of costly litigation, the school relented and she was allowed to play. In her first game of the new season, the girl suffered three cracked ribs and a broken collar bone. She then re-sued the school--this time for "failing to inform her what a dangerous sport football is."
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 11/23/2005 14:48:11 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
|
|
ronnywhite
SFN Regular
501 Posts |
Posted - 11/23/2005 : 18:38:42 [Permalink]
|
[quote]Originally posted by Subjectmatter
I disagree vehemently with the practise...
I agree with it. Due to the differences in upper-body strength man have a ridiculous advantage over most women. The idea of sports is to encourage fun and fair competition- making women compete on a grossly uneven playing field for the purpose of encouraging an illusion of equity between the sexes in all respects would be unfair to women, make sports less-fun and less-competitive for them overall, and hence ultimately defeat the purpose you suggest this for. Add to that DaveW's mentioned youth sexuality issues, and it's an ill-formulated idea.
And being a jerk is not a neccessary consequence of being a sexist...
Of course not, there are many brotherhoods and sisterhoods of jerkhood- I was referring to the racist/sexist variety (I half-suspect religious elitists are just another virulent strain of the same creepy mutation.)
The worst sexists are the 'gentlemen'...
You're being too picky.
and some of the scum that call themselves 'feminists', like the new 'Feministiskt Initiativ' political party...
These are small collections of extremist nuts, or individuals with various common and sundry psychological anomolies and sexual abberations who somehow all found their way to a common socio-pathological territory thanks to modern communications and media, where they are attempting to stake a political claim, if saying it that way seems less-offensive (I'm making it a point to stop using nasty names in posts so as not to be a hippocrit, but sometimes they can save some typing : )
|
Ron White |
| Edited by - ronnywhite on 11/23/2005 18:48:27 |
|
|
|
Maverick
Skeptic Friend
Sweden
385 Posts |
Posted - 11/24/2005 : 01:47:51 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Subjectmatter
And being a jerk is not a neccessary consequence of being a sexist. The worst sexists are the 'gentlemen' and some of the scum that call themselves 'feminists', like the new 'Feministiskt Initiativ' political party which has formed here in Sweden recently.
I agree about the FI party, and that's the image I have of feminists. Indeed, it's pretty much the only kind of feminists I've ever seen, which is probably why I'm against them in general. I can't stand them.
The gentleman thing is confusing. Some women seem to be insulted by men being gentlemen, others are insulted when we're not being gentlemen. Women would do well to make up their minds or at least inform us men in advance what they want us men to do. I wouldn't want to hold the door open to a feminist and get the evil eye, or not pay for both of us and get a slap in my face.
quote:
People who hold doors open for women or argue that men should pay more tax because most crimes are committed by men should be shot! Hold doors open for people as a mark of respect for the individual, but holding the door open a woman is offensive.
But how do I know in advance? What you find offensive may not be offensive to others. |
"Life is but a momentary glimpse of the wonder of this astonishing universe, and it is sad to see so many dreaming it away on spiritual fantasy." -- Carl Sagan |
| Edited by - Maverick on 11/24/2005 02:12:19 |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 11/24/2005 : 02:00:25 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I disagree vehemently with the practise of separating boys and girls for the purposes of sport as well.
That is dangerously foolish.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Subjectmatter
Skeptic Friend
173 Posts |
Posted - 11/24/2005 : 03:44:26 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Women would do well to make up their minds...
See, that's precisely the kind of sexist comment that upsets me. There is no centralised 'Committee for Women' that decide how women think and behave. Women do not neccessarily have the same opinions as each other. No more than they neccessarily have the same opinions as men. The issue is not whether or not you hold a door open, the problem is holding the door open for a woman. Do hold doors open for people, if that makes you happy, but specifically targeting women - or men for that matter - is sexist, pure and simple.
Just be fair in the way you treat people, not based upon their gender except in such cases as that is actually warranted. Such instances are rare and usually medical.
And the archery argument is also poor. Clearly then people should be classed accourding to whether they pull 50lb or 42lb, surely there are men who are incapable of pulling 50lbs? So exactly how is it fair to make them compete with the men who can? Certainly no more unfair than making the women compete with them.
Nor do I buy the 'grab-ass' argument. Dancers have no problem with contact and some of the physical contact involved in for example ballet is very intimate. Why should other activities be any different? I have actually played mixed rugby (touch, which is a waste of time, but still...) and there were no problems. Football (not the american kind, I know nothing about that) is certainly no problem, and basketball isn't even a contact sport...
quote:
I agree with it. Due to the differences in upper-body strength man have a ridiculous advantage over most women. The idea of sports is to encourage fun and fair competition- making women compete on a grossly uneven playing field for the purpose of encouraging an illusion of equity between the sexes in all respects would be unfair to women, make sports less-fun and less-competitive for them overall, and hence ultimately defeat the purpose you suggest this for. Add to that DaveW's mentioned youth sexuality issues, and it's an ill-formulated idea.
Then group people according to upper body strength! Then the issue of it being uneven is no longer an issue. Granted, there will be more men in the games where the people with a lot of upper body strength play and fewer in the less-upper-body-strength games, but that is irrelevant. The important thing is that nobody should be left out due to qualities which have no relevance in the context.
I will illustrate my point with an example: let's say that people who play computer games are in general weaker than other people (I don't know if this is true, but for the purposes of the experiment lets say that that is so).
Would it then be fair to put all of the people who play computer games in one class of sportspeople and all the others in another? Of course not, some of those who don't play computer games will be very weak and some who do play computer games will be very strong. Why is the issue different for men and women?
quote:
This statement is very simplistic and demeaning to men. Men's groups are benefitial and most men do talk about more than just their penis. Men talk about being a father, a husband, emotions that men have that women do not understand. Talk about struggles that men have that women do not understand such as pornography.
You misunderstand me Robb, I'm not suggesting that men don't talk of anything other than their penises, I am saying that that is the only thing that they could possibly talk about which cannot be shared with women. Why could you not have discussions such as the one you describe above in a mixed gender group? What makes you think that a woman does not understand these emotions? We are all humans, after all. And if you are suggesting that women are uninterested in pornography then you are sorely mistaken and rather naive... |
Sibling Atom Bomb of Couteous Debate |
| Edited by - Subjectmatter on 11/24/2005 03:46:44 |
|
|
|
Maverick
Skeptic Friend
Sweden
385 Posts |
Posted - 11/24/2005 : 05:32:18 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Subjectmatter
quote:
Women would do well to make up their minds...
See, that's precisely the kind of sexist comment that upsets me. There is no centralised 'Committee for Women' that decide how women think and behave. Women do not neccessarily have the same opinions as each other. No more than they neccessarily have the same opinions as men. The issue is not whether or not you hold a door open, the problem is holding the door open for a woman. Do hold doors open for people, if that makes you happy, but specifically targeting women - or men for that matter - is sexist, pure and simple.
Just be fair in the way you treat people, not based upon their gender except in such cases as that is actually warranted. Such instances are rare and usually medical.
But, as I said, how do I know in advance what women expect of me? Some say men should behave in a certain way and others say the opposite. Some women do want men to be like this or that, including specifically targetting women, and there's no way of knowing, as I said.
I can ease your mind a little by saying that I'm not very good at being a gentleman, since I barely know the rules anyway. Hopefully much of the old traditions will go away soon, to eliminate at least some confusion. I'm not sure why it's sexist of me to do certain things differently in the presence of women. I would guess it's some sort of natural isntinct or something, like, to sit up, not swear, etc. Also, regarding to sports, if I was a hockeyplayer I would probably find it much more difficult to keep up the rough play against female players. Not because I'm a sexist, actually I don't know exactly why. I don't think I've been taught to be different in such regards. Also, why is it not sexist to be a feminist? Why single out women like that? |
"Life is but a momentary glimpse of the wonder of this astonishing universe, and it is sad to see so many dreaming it away on spiritual fantasy." -- Carl Sagan |
| Edited by - Maverick on 11/24/2005 05:37:02 |
|
|
|
Subjectmatter
Skeptic Friend
173 Posts |
Posted - 11/24/2005 : 06:16:36 [Permalink]
|
Just because the word singles women out doesn't mean the concept does. The definition of feminist that I use is 'someone who is opposed to sexism' where sexism is defined as 'treating a person as though they have certain characteristics which are not necessary characteristics of their gender on the basis of their gender', or put more simply, 'Sexism is commonly considered to be discrimination against people based on their sex rather than their individual merits' (Wikipedia).
quote:
But, as I said, how do I know in advance what women expect of me? Some say men should behave in a certain way and others say the opposite. Some women do want men to be like this or that, including specifically targetting women, and there's no way of knowing, as I said.
What you're saying illustrates my point. You seem to think that just because women are a set of people you should have a specific kind of behaviour towards this set. You have to treat women on an individual basis, but of course treat women, as well as men, as people. That means respecting their desires within reason. So if someone, woman or man, asks you to hold their door open for them then it is perfectly fair to do so. But holding the door open for women to the exclusion of men is sexism. Do you see?
quote:
I'm not sure why it's sexist of me to do certain things differently in the presence of women. I would guess it's some sort of natural isntinct or something, like, to sit up, not swear, etc. Also, regarding to sports, if I was a hockeyplayer I would probably find it much more difficult to keep up the rough play against female players. Not because I'm a sexist, actually I don't know exactly why.
That sounds like cultural conditioning to me. It is sexism, unless you are using a drastically different definition than is normally employed. |
Sibling Atom Bomb of Couteous Debate |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 11/24/2005 : 08:46:38 [Permalink]
|
So much of sexism, no, all of sexism is a social construct. Once you can wrap your mind around that one it becomes easier to sort out what is sexist behavior and what is not. We, men and woman alike, carry a whole lot of cultural baggage that makes it hard for us to understand what it is about us that is sexist.
I guess what I am saying is that we first need to understand how our culture affects our attitudes and behaviors in order to figure out how to change what we have learned. Often that means we have to consciously question who we are, how we got that way and how what we do affects others.
I can tell you that I struggle with this almost daily.
Subjectmatter is right.
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 11/24/2005 : 12:29:44 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Subjectmatter is right.
Not about not segregating sports by sex.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
