Banning women from running marathons...

We've come a long way baby! Not done yet!

FoCoAlphaNerd wrote: »

So, I have sort of a general question for everyone. I'm honestly not trying to push or lead towards any specific conclusion. I just want to know what people think.

Segregating a marathon seems pretty ridiculous. How anyone could be harmed by running next to someone who's an innie rather than an outtie, I'll never know. But, what about sports where there could possibly (depending on who you ask) be an added safety issue because of size and strength disparity, the full contact categories like rugby or football.

Obviously women aren't wilting flowers. They participate in dangerous sports all the time. In high school, my girlfriend on the gymnastics team spent way more time injured than I or my football playing male friends did.

Is there an argument for segregating something like rugby since the addition of men, as opposed to an all girl team, is going to make it significantly more dangerous? What about with kids as opposed to adult women?

Some, if not most sports require segregation at a competitive and professional level.

It's simply because men are built to be more active and have a higher level of performance than women (if both were to train at the same level. Obviously a man who doesn't train will not be able to run as fast as a woman who can train). It's simple biology.

Men are (generally) bigger, heavier, and have more testosterone which aids in getting bigger and stronger. It's highly unlikely that women will ever hold the world record for fastest 100m sprint or marathon.

In other sports, like swimming, snowboarding, cycling, rowing, etc., the fastest men are always faster than the fastest women. If we combined them into co-ed sports, then the women would likely never win.

I'm not saying it's impossible for women to win, but the odds are highly against them.

HOWEVER, we could start to introduce "co-ed" team sports that are non-contact,like rowing and such. However, then there would be a rule stating the minimum number or required women. Then it would get all political and probably ruin the sport.

For sports where you'd think that women aren't necessarily worse than men, look at snowboarding: At the Sochi Olympics, almost half of the women crashed out on the freestyle snowboarding because the jumps were too big. Most of the men were able to clear it.

You also often hear in women's sports that some woman was the "first" to do something in competition, even if men have been doing it for numerous years.

As politically incorrect as it might be to say, but women are not as athletically capable as men are.

I wonder if women may be on even footing in motor control events like shooting?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Olympic_medalists_in_shooting

If a girl is excelling at the same level at the boys, say as a goalie in hockey, why can't she play with the boys?

And the BBQ was invented so men would cook. Ug. Fire. Stick. Cook.

jgnatca wrote: »

And the BBQ was invented so men would cook. Ug. Fire. Stick. Cook.

Men are incapable of cooking without placing the food directly over an open flame. This is a fact.

jgnatca wrote: »

If a girl is excelling at the same level at the boys, say as a goalie in hockey, why can't she play with the boys?

She can!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manon_Rhéaume
Granted it was just a game or two, but I don't think there is anything saying that women can't be in the NHL.

chivalryder wrote: »

earlnabby wrote: »

chivalryder wrote: »

As politically incorrect as it might be to say, but women are not as athletically capable as men are.

I would amend that to say that a woman of the same height and weight as a man is just as capable but men, in general, do have more size and bulk.

If you would like to defend your side of the argument, please cite an Olympic event where the women were posting better results than the men, and the event was based off of fitness and/or strength/dexterity. Figure skating need not apply.

I am very open to see an example where women have matched or surpassed the ability of men in an athletic sense. It would be very eye opening and pleasant to see.

I am thinking more of co-ed athletics where women can hold their own against men of similar size. A 5'6" 130 lb woman has no business in the NFL, just like a man of that size has no business there, but if she can play baseball or hockey just as well as the men, why shouldn't she have the chance?

Malcreos wrote: »

jgnatca wrote: »

If a girl is excelling at the same level at the boys, say as a goalie in hockey, why can't she play with the boys?

She can!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manon_Rhéaume
Granted it was just a game or two, but I don't think there is anything saying that women can't be in the NHL.

Haha, something about that last sentence cracked me up. It reminds me of those scenes in the air bud movies where the ref looks at the rule book "there's no rule saying a golden retriever CAN'T play shortstop."

chivalryder wrote: »

earlnabby wrote: »

chivalryder wrote: »

As politically incorrect as it might be to say, but women are not as athletically capable as men are.

I would amend that to say that a woman of the same height and weight as a man is just as capable but men, in general, do have more size and bulk.

If you would like to defend your side of the argument, please cite an Olympic event where the women were posting better results than the men, and the event was based off of fitness and/or strength/dexterity. Figure skating need not apply.

I am very open to see an example where women have matched or surpassed the ability of men in an athletic sense. It would be very eye opening and pleasant to see.

ETA: An example of where women's fitness is not matching that of men:

"The current men's world record is 9.58 seconds, set by Jamaica's Usain Bolt in 2009, while the women's world record of 10.49 seconds set by American Florence Griffith-Joyner in 1988 remains unbroken." ~ en.wikipedia.org/wiki/100_metres

Another example:

World Record Marathon: Men: 2:02:57 held by Dennis Kimetto, September 28, 2014.

Women: 2:15:25 held by Paula Radcliffe, April 13, 2003

Yeah, I don't know that it is necessarily a reason to segregate the sport, but even when weight and height are accounted for, women just have a disadvantage against an equally athletic male. The best example I can think of is wrestling. It's a sport that is controlled down to within a couple of pounds for weight differences and yet a girl could never compete above an intermediate level.

I think I personally fall in the "if they want to try out, let them try out," camp, but it's just sort of denial to argue that they can directly compete at the top levels.

FoCoAlphaNerd wrote: »

chivalryder wrote: »

earlnabby wrote: »

chivalryder wrote: »

As politically incorrect as it might be to say, but women are not as athletically capable as men are.

I would amend that to say that a woman of the same height and weight as a man is just as capable but men, in general, do have more size and bulk.

If you would like to defend your side of the argument, please cite an Olympic event where the women were posting better results than the men, and the event was based off of fitness and/or strength/dexterity. Figure skating need not apply.

I am very open to see an example where women have matched or surpassed the ability of men in an athletic sense. It would be very eye opening and pleasant to see.

ETA: An example of where women's fitness is not matching that of men:

"The current men's world record is 9.58 seconds, set by Jamaica's Usain Bolt in 2009, while the women's world record of 10.49 seconds set by American Florence Griffith-Joyner in 1988 remains unbroken." ~ en.wikipedia.org/wiki/100_metres

Another example:

World Record Marathon: Men: 2:02:57 held by Dennis Kimetto, September 28, 2014.

Women: 2:15:25 held by Paula Radcliffe, April 13, 2003

Yeah, I don't know that it is necessarily a reason to segregate the sport, but even when weight and height are accounted for, women just have a disadvantage against an equally athletic male. The best example I can think of is wrestling. It's a sport that is controlled down to within a couple of pounds for weight differences and yet a girl could never compete above an intermediate level.

I think I personally fall in the "if they want to try out, let them try out," camp, but it's just sort of denial to argue that they can directly compete at the top levels.

MMA/UFC is now having co-ed fights.

http://www.empiresports.co/history-is-made-with-the-first-male-vs-female-ufc-fight/

ETA: I'm not trying to say "Men and Women should never compete against each other" I'm all for the "if she wants to try it, let her" however, I cannot recall a single instance where a woman has beaten a man in some form of athletic race. IF it has happened, I'd love to see it. I'm all for co-ed competition, but I'd hate to see segregation removed then never see a woman win anything.