Women's Cycling Champion is a Man

[Darat]

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.

I think it shows that people sometimes read what they want into a post regardless of what the poat actually said!

 

[Darat]

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

I would suggest you reread my post, you seem to be for whatever reason adding your biases into what I posted. Look into the founding of the FA if you want to see an example. The historic fact is that women were excluded when the professional bodies began because of the societal and cultural views of women back then. That can't be changed until we have time travel.

ETA: this is the official FA site and their official history: http://www.thefa.com/womens-girls-football/history

A key quote "The FA banned women’s football from its clubs’ grounds but its view that football was ‘quite unsuitable for females’ changed towards the end of the 1960s."

 

[3point14]

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

I'm really, really struggling with your reaction here. I really want to know what you think you read. Just going through it:

Because historically women weren't allowed to participate in the newly organised sports

I'm fairly sure this is true

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.

I'm fairly sure this is accurate

We still see the result of this discrimination today

Fairly sure this is true.

with female versions of even professional sports being much less popular than the male versions, the prize purses being substantially lower and so on.

I'm also fairly sure this is true.




Which bit are you railing at? Hell, which bit do you think is "SJW" opinion rather than simple reporting on past and present.


I can't even see which bit you're taking issue with because nowhere in it does it say "Therefore we should all do X".

There's literally no politics in that post. Perhaps you think it's revisionist?

 

[Belz...]

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.

No, it's been explained before in this very thread why women have their own categories, and it isn't because we hate women. It's in fact the opposite: we want them to be able to win.

 

[Belz...]

Men have no inherent biological advantage over women in the economy or politics.

That we know of.

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.

But even if you're correct, we would've segregated the sexes anyway because of the actual reason they're segregated now.

Which bit are you railing at?

I'd think it was the part where Darat claimed that segregation now is due to segregation then. See above.

 

[Dave Rogers]

No, it's been explained before in this very thread why women have their own categories, and it isn't because we hate women. It's in fact the opposite: we want them to be able to win.

Historically, I'm not sure that's true; typically men's events have not in general been open to women, even in those rare instances where a woman was able to beat the best men. It has become a means of allowing women to compete in events they have a reasonable change of winning - at least, I'm reasonably sure that's what it is now - but I don't think that's how it started.

Dave

 

[Darat]

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_60805a48d02120248.jpg[/qimg]

No, it's been explained before in this very thread why women have their own categories, and it isn't because we hate women. It's in fact the opposite: we want them to be able to win.

Provided an example using the FA above that supports what I stated. Ignore the actual facts if you wish.

 

[Darat]

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_60805a48d02120248.jpg[/qimg]

No, it's been explained before in this very thread why women have their own categories, and it isn't because we hate women. It's in fact the opposite: we want them to be able to win.

Who ever said that or anything even resembling that?

 

[Belz...]

Who ever said that or anything even resembling that?

Are you familiar with the concept of hyperbole?

Ignore the actual facts if you wish.

You don't get to twist facts to your advantage. That women were not allowed in sports has nothing to do with the current segregation of the sexes. It's been explained over and over that allowing women to compete with men would essentially kill female participation in sports. The smart thing to do is to keep them separate.

 

[Darat]

Historically, I'm not sure that's true; typically men's events have not in general been open to women, even in those rare instances where a woman was able to beat the best men. It has become a means of allowing women to compete in events they have a reasonable change of winning - at least, I'm reasonably sure that's what it is now - but I don't think that's how it started.

Dave

As the FA put it football was ‘quite unsuitable for females’.

Despite of course it being very popular and very successful for a couple of decades before the FA in effect banned it because football was ‘quite unsuitable for females’.

I am quite surprised that people don't know how the segregation of sporting events arose. Thought it was quite common knowledge. We can go even further back in time to the original Olympiades to see the same segregation based on what society at the time considered suitable and unsuitable for women.

These are simply historical facts, I really do not understand why people have become so emotional, almost hysterical about having these facts pointed out.

 

[Belz...]

I am quite surprised that people don't know how the segregation of sporting events arose.

No you're not. You know exactly what you're doing.

My question was about why women and men compete separately NOW. Your response had nothing to do with that, because we're not then, we're now. Plus, you're only broadly and 'technically' correct about the history.

 

[Darat]

Are you familiar with the concept of hyperbole?

You can't ignore over a hundred years of history (or even thousands) because you don't like the facts. Well you can but it is a tad silly.

You don't get to twist facts to your advantage.

Goodness knows what you are going on about, twist what and to what advantage?

That women were not allowed in sports has nothing to do with the current segregation of the sexes.

Yes it does, as it is where the segregation began, again ignore history if you want but it is a tad silly to do so. Goodness me are you unaware of the modern controversy to have women admitted as full members in some golf clubs, cricket organisations and so on? Hard to practice your sport when you aren't allowed on a green or pitch.

It's been explained over and over that allowing women to compete with men would essentially kill female participation in sports. The smart thing to do is to keep them separate.

You do know that has nothing at all to do with what I have posted?

 

[Darat]

No you're not. You know exactly what you're doing.

My question was about why women and men compete separately NOW. Your response had nothing to do with that, because we're not then, we're now. Plus, you're only broadly and 'technically' correct about the history.

Yet it does as it helps explain the current situation regarding the lesser popularity of female sports even at professional levels and so on and we have examples from the likes of the cricket and golf clubs showing how that attitude prevails to modern times.

And I am fine with being technically right or as it is usually called: being right.

 

[Belz...]

You can't ignore over a hundred years of history (or even thousands) because you don't like the facts.

Stay OUT OF MY HEAD!

Seriously, I've told you exactly why your post was wrong and irrelevant. Why do you now pretend like the reason is completely different?

You do know that has nothing at all to do with what I have posted?

It has everything to do with it, since your initial reply was to this:

TM, in an effort to bring things back to the topic, do you understand why women and men don't usually compete against one another in sports?

The question isn't "Why weren't women and men competing together a thousand years ago." The question was the above. It was about why segregation exists NOW. The answer to the question is what you now say has nothing to do with what you posted even though what you posted was in response to the same question.

You're tying yourself in knots, here.

 

[Belz...]

Yet it does as it helps explain the current situation regarding the lesser popularity of female sports even at professional levels and so on and we have examples from the likes of the cricket and golf clubs showing how that attitude prevails to modern times.

Are you contending that female sports are less popular because, in some distant past, we didn't 'allow' women to compete? Don't you think it might instead have something to do with the fact that women just aren't as good in those sports as men? And that's the very same reason why they have their own category.

And I am fine with being technically right or as it is usually called: being right.

That's pretty terrible and sad motivation for anything: find something to be technically right about, even if it's otherwise wrong, and then defend that to the death.

 

[Darat]

Are you contending that female sports are less popular because, in some distant past, we didn't 'allow' women to compete? Don't you think it might instead have something to do with the fact that women just aren't as good in those sports as men? And that's the very same reason why they have their own category.



That's pretty terrible and sad motivation for anything: find something to be technically right about, even if it's otherwise wrong, and then defend that to the death.

You seem to think that something can only be the result of one thing, but the real world is complicated and the "cause" of most of what we do as humans is also complicated, often multifaceted and often very obscure.

The world cannot be reduced to the simplistic level you want it to be.

 

[Belz...]

You seem to think that something can only be the result of one thing, but the real world is complicated and the "cause" of most of what we do as humans is also complicated, often multifaceted and often very obscure.

The world cannot be reduced to the simplistic level you want it to be.

The above is nothing but a dodge to avoid discussing the point I've made, throwing in an insult for good measure. My, it's good to be the king, right?

Do you think that women and men should compete against one another in sports or not? If you answer yes, then let's try that. If you answer no, then that is an overriding reason to keep them separate regardless of why women were not historically part of high-level sport events.

Just answer the question.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Do you think that women and men should compete against one another in sports or not? If you answer yes, then let's try that. If you answer no, then that is an overriding reason to keep them separate regardless of why women were not historically part of high-level sport events.

There is of course a third option, which would be to have either women's events or open events. That might be a workable middle course, because it might then be possible to arrive at a more rigorous definition of the term "woman" without excluding anyone from competition.

Dave

 

[Belz...]

There is of course a third option, which would be to have either women's events or open events. That might be a workable middle course, because it might then be possible to arrive at a more rigorous definition of the term "woman" without excluding anyone from competition.

Dave

Sure, but then I'd expect it to have essentially no difference with the current situation: open events will have almost no women, and women's events will, of course, have no men.

And Darat'll be along to say that it's because of historical discrimination.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Sure, but then I'd expect it to have essentially no difference with the current situation: open events will have almost no women, and women's events will, of course, have no men.

In appearance, yes; but it would explicitly allow everyone to compete in at least one category regardless of gender, which I'm not certain is necessarily the case at present in all sports.

Dave