Women's Cycling Champion is a Man

[Ziggurat]

Because historically women weren't allowed to participate in the newly organised sports because of the cultural and societal values of the time, women who wanted to participate in sport were forced to participate only with one another.

We still see the result of this discrimination today with female versions of even professional sports being much less popular than the male versions, the prize purses being substantially lower and so on.

Female sports are often less popular because female competitors just aren't as good as the male competitors (for example, NBA vs. WNBA). The male version is more exciting because of the higher skill level. The money involved is generally lower for women because the fan base is generally smaller. Neither of these factors has anything to do with past historical discrimination. You could describe the preference of viewers for male competitors as present discrimination, but people have every right to prefer whatever the hell they want to, and preferring better competitors to less good competitors is entirely reasonable.

 

[luchog]

And then we get to the psychological effects. While people can indeed be very excited to be the best in tier 12, it's certain to dim enthusiasm if that's the best fully half the population can hope for. We're all aware that sex segregated sports exist because men and women aren't competing at the same level, but quantifying exactly how much lower the women's level is, and identifying the levels they can reasonably compete in by labels that specify how much lower they are then the top is going to seriously kill the excitement.

That isn't really an artifact of the sport, but of culture, and Anglo-American culture not really valuing women in sports. As has been noted by myself and others, women's sports at any tier are overall nowhere near as popular as men's sports even at lower tiers, they don't have the exposure, money, or popular acclaim that the upper tiers of men's sports have, and likely never will without huge changes to the culture.

In the US at least, men's collegiate sports are much more popular, and bigger business, than their professional female equivalents. Continued segregation isn't really going to change that.

The problems with a mixed-gender tier system are not notable worse than the current female sporting ghetto, and may actually improve things a bit by allowing the best female athletes into the higher tiers dominated by men.

As a matter of full disclosure, I'm not particularly a fan of professional sports as a whole, sport should be more participatory, and less spectacle.

 

[Ziggurat]

That isn't really an artifact of the sport, but of culture, and Anglo-American culture not really valuing women in sports.

I see zero evidence to support the contention that a preference for men's sports over women's is in any way peculiar to Anglo-American culture.

As has been noted by myself and others, women's sports at any tier are overall nowhere near as popular as men's sports even at lower tiers, they don't have the exposure, money, or popular acclaim that the upper tiers of men's sports have, and likely never will without huge changes to the culture.

Given that male competitors are just plain better in general, and thus a competition between top male players is just more exciting than a competition between top female players for the same reason that a top tier male competition is more exciting than a lower tier male competition, the change you seem to want is... unlikely. The fact that we even have professional female athletes at all is basically an artifact of lots of people actually preferring female players over male players on the basis of sex rather than talent.

In the US at least, men's collegiate sports are much more popular, and bigger business, than their professional female equivalents.

In many cases, the men's collegiate sports competitors are simply better than the women's professional female equivalents. The US women's soccer team regularly scrimmages against highschool teams for practice, because even at the highschool level the boys are competitive against the women. This isn't even mentioning the additional popularity that collegiate team sports such as football and basketball get because they feed players into the men's professional sport.

The problems with a mixed-gender tier system are not notable worse than the current female sporting ghetto, and may actually improve things a bit by allowing the best female athletes into the higher tiers dominated by men.

That's fanciful thinking.

 

[xjx388]

I think I understand. For reasons of fairness, rules should be made to ensure people have an equal chance at winning. Intervention should be made to prevent accidents of nature from creating unfair advantage that would prevent whole classes of people from achieving success. A certain number of contests should only be open to classes of people so they have the opportunity to win one, even if the winners are not the best in the overall field. The competitions are too important to many people to leave unregulated and at the mercy of chance and the unfeeling happenstance of nature. Is that right?






I'm just wondering why those precepts should apply to sporting events but not to politics or the economy. Sports should be regulated heavily but not businesses. Women should make up a certain number of bicycle race championships but not political office or CEOs. Fairness demands compensating for nature in racing but affirmative action is unjust. Bicycle racing is important but everything else can be left to chance and market forces. Fairness is a principle for games but nothing else.

Men have no inherent biological advantage over women in the economy or politics. Men have systemic advantages in that the barrier to entry is artificially limited by irrational biases. "Women don't have leadership skills." "Women aren't good at math and science." ******** like that.

A woman will never make it in the NBA. Skill for skill, ability to ability, a woman simply cannot out -jump, -maneuver or -muscle a male competitor in that sport. Oh sure, a female professional basketball player can surely beat the average joe like me, but not the average male professional basketball player. I can't think of any sport where men and women can compete on equal footing. Maybe car racing, but that isn't so dependent on pure athletic skill.

So to answer your question, because sport is relatively unimportant, we are OK with "separate but equal" tiers of competition for men and women. But in the economy and politics, which are extremely important, we are generally not OK with continuing the long tradition of effectively preventing women from competing on equal footing.

 

[Brainster]

In the US at least, men's collegiate sports are much more popular, and bigger business, than their professional female equivalents. Continued segregation isn't really going to change that.

Desegregation is going to end women's sports. If enough men decide they want to play on the LPGA tour, or women's tennis, they will start to dominate and you can kiss those sports goodbye. Some of the advantages are already cooked into an adult male--he is taller and heavier than most women. Even if you take the testosterone away, he's going to have big advantages. And if you don't take it away, fuggedaboutit.

 

[angrysoba]

Because historically women weren't allowed to participate in the newly organised sports because of the cultural and societal values of the time, women who wanted to participate in sport were forced to participate only with one another.

We still see the result of this discrimination today with female versions of even professional sports being much less popular than the male versions, the prize purses being substantially lower and so on.

So let’s combine them. What kind of prize money do you think Serena Williams would get in that situation?

 

[Meadmaker]

That's fanciful thinking.

I'm not sure "fancifiul" is the right word to describe it.

I'm also not sure "thinking" is the right word to describe it.



One of the things I've noticed over the years of debating this sort of thing is that anyone willing to entertain the notion of desegregated sports seems to not be a sports fan. People who actually like sports, either as spectators or participants, seem to think that men and women should compete separately, and there is overwhelming support for biological males to be confined to men's divisions.

 

[pipelineaudio]

Because historically women weren't allowed to participate in the newly organised sports because of the cultural and societal values of the time, women who wanted to participate in sport were forced to participate only with one another.

We still see the result of this discrimination today with female versions of even professional sports being much less popular than the male versions, the prize purses being substantially lower and so on.

Wow, seriously, just wow.

I remember back in the day when the people on this board seemed a bit slanted this way or that, but we were still all JREF. Didnt really always see eye to eye on the latest politics, but at least valued critical thinking.

Now it just looks like an echo chamber

 

[citizenzen]

Wow, seriously, just wow.

I remember back in the day when the people on this board seemed a bit slanted this way or that, but we were still all JREF. Didnt really always see eye to eye on the latest politics, but at least valued critical thinking.

Now it just looks like an echo chamber

But you didn’t addressed his argument. You just complained about it.

And I have no idea how it fits into the echo chamber.

Could you please help me understand why that post made you so sad?

 

[Ziggurat]

But you didn’t addressed his argument. You just complained about it.

And I have no idea how it fits into the echo chamber.

Could you please help me understand why that post made you so sad?

I can't speak for pipelineaudio, but I addressed some big problems with Darat's post quite directly in post 161.

 

[Cain]

Wow, seriously, just wow.

I remember back in the day when the people on this board seemed a bit slanted this way or that, but we were still all JREF. Didnt really always see eye to eye on the latest politics, but at least valued critical thinking.

Now it just looks like an echo chamber

This.

 

[pipelineaudio]

But you didn’t addressed his argument. You just complained about it.

And I have no idea how it fits into the echo chamber.

Could you please help me understand why that post made you so sad?

The factual issues with it were addressed by others. What makes me so sad is that ten years ago, we would have seen creationists react in such a predictably scripted, NPC manner. Its like we didn't learn from our fight with them, except to steal all their tactics.

 

[BrooklynBaby]

This is one of the absolutely dumbest things the left has ever embraced, and that includes mountains of dumb. I mean, the left has absolutely no bottom.

 

[citizenzen]

The factual issues with it were addressed by others. What makes me so sad is that ten years ago, we would have seen creationists react in such a predictably scripted, NPC manner. Its like we didn't learn from our fight with them, except to steal all their tactics.

Huh. I thought Darat had a valid point. It’s certainly not the only basis for what we see today, but it shouldn’t be dismissed as mere echo chamber.

Maybe you guys just have too much history between you.

 

[Venom]

This is one of the absolutely dumbest things the left has ever embraced, and that includes mountains of dumb. I mean, the left has absolutely no bottom.

 

[pipelineaudio]

Huh. I thought Darat had a valid point. It’s certainly not the only basis for what we see today, but it shouldn’t be dismissed as mere echo chamber.

Maybe you guys just have too much history between you.

Darat is someone I have looked up to for years. I really, really didn't expect the Standard Narrative response that I could have picked for myself were I making a strawman of someone....Its just not Darat

People have just gotten too insanely polarized I think...We all just need to go to the beach for a while

 

[River]

This.

Wow, seriously, just wow.

I remember back in the day when the people on this board seemed a bit slanted this way or that, but we were still all JREF. Didnt really always see eye to eye on the latest politics, but at least valued critical thinking.

Now it just looks like an echo chamber

+1
Now it's a SJW haven when it used to be a critical thinking hub. IMHO

 

[Darat]

So let’s combine them. What kind of prize money do you think Serena Williams would get in that situation?

You seem to have missed the context of my post. I was explaining when and why the initial segregation occurred. The history of the segregation is a fact regardless of the situation today.

 

[Darat]

Wow, seriously, just wow.

I remember back in the day when the people on this board seemed a bit slanted this way or that, but we were still all JREF. Didnt really always see eye to eye on the latest politics, but at least valued critical thinking.

Now it just looks like an echo chamber

Eh? Did you not know the history of the segregation of the newly founded sports bodies like the FA?

 

[Darat]

I can't speak for pipelineaudio, but I addressed some big problems with Darat's post quite directly in post 161.

The problem with a historical fact?