Banning women from running marathons...
Replies
-
+1 all over @earlnabby 's post.0
-
We've come a long way baby! Not done yet!0
-
We've come a long way baby! Not done yet!
I was thinking of that phrase as I was typing. A cigarette company seems an odd choice to sponsor a women's tennis tour but they were the perfect one when women's tennis really started to take off back in the days of Billie Jean King, Chris Evert, and Martina Navratilova. That catch phrase was perfect for the situation and the times.
0 -
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.0 -
So_Much_Fab wrote: »kamakazeekim wrote: »Of_Monsters_and_Meat wrote: »These images contain hateful, violent imagery. People should not be attacked like that.
8. Posts Must Abide By All Legal Statutes
...
c) Images containing hateful or violent imagery, depiction of illegal activities, or copyrighted material are not allowed and will be removed.
The OP was showing how far we've come and celebrating how women can now participate in marathons...you can't be blind to what happened in the past!
I've seen enough of both @Of_Monsters_and_Meat monsters_and @_John_ in the threads to know that they thrive on trolling and snark...so I'm unfazed. Unfortunately though, this thread is taking a turn that I didn't intend it to and will probably end up locked. MFP never fails to disappoint, lol!
I agree I have seen of_monsters trolling many other posts. and it works! LOL people are buying into it0 -
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?0 -
TheRoadDog wrote: »As long as she's home in time to cook dinner, I see no reason why a woman shouldn't be allowed to run a Marathon.
LOL
Is this how the slow cooker was invented?
0 -
And the BBQ was invented so men would cook. Ug. Fire. Stick. Cook.0
-
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.
0 -
-
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, 20030 -
She can!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?
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.0 -
She can!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?
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.
Very good read!
0 -
chivalryder 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?
0 -
kamakazeekim wrote: »...you can't be blind to what happened in the past!
Is this about remembering the past or about once again putting men down? Remember not to punish those of us alive today for what we were not even alive to do in the past.
There are many positive things that happened in the past as well - let's remember to celebrate those!
I am not blaming or accusing anybody - just saying not to be blind to how much better things are today, and that there will always be an extreme minority or ANY group, not just men, that does terrible things.
0 -
She can!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?
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."0 -
Here's a list of women who have played semi-professional football:
Semi-Professional[edit]
Patricia Palinkas: First woman to play professional football (1970)[19]
Katie Hnida: First woman to play professional indoor football in a non-women's league (1999-2004)
Julie Harshbarger: First woman to make a successful field goal in a professional indoor football game (2010-2014)[20]
Lauren Silberman: First woman to try out at the NFL Regional Scouting Combine (2013)[21][22]
Jennifer Welter: first woman to play a non-kicking position in a professional football league made up predominately by men. (2014)[23]
However, they were almost all kickers and none have played for he NFL.0 -
chivalryder 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.0 -
chivalryder 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?
Actually, a 5'6" 130lbs player could be ridiculously quick as a runner.
The smallest hockey player is Nathan Gerbe at 5'5" and 178 lbs.
I feel that sports that are more technique and skill focused (golf, shooting, pool, dance/artistic, etc.) could be co-ed, but once you start to incorporate strength, dexterity, and general fitness, women have a genetic handicap. There's no way around that.
As for golf as a technique sport: An 8 year old girl is representing Canada in the Drive, Chip & Putt competition during the Masters Week in Augusta.0 -
FoCoAlphaNerd wrote: »chivalryder 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.0 -
chivalryder wrote: »FoCoAlphaNerd wrote: »chivalryder 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/
as an insulting attention grabbing stunt.0 -
Golf would be a decent sport where women might compete0
-
So, the girlfriend is in here loudly claiming that women compete with men in equestrian events and win. It makes sense. It puts the ownness for the size, muscle and body structure components, which are what holds them back, on the horse. Some quick googling makes me think that they might not be on 100% equal footing, but nor are they dominated. She also says that at the hundred mile and up ultra marathon levels, women can compete with men. Same thing, some googling seems to indicate that some of the records are held by women.0
-
Golf would be a decent sport where women might compete
Golf is more of an even playing field than a lot of sports, but whenever women do get the exemptions and compete on the PGA tour, they are knocked out. Annika Sorenstam and Michelle Wie, both all but legendary golfers on the female tours couldn't compete and were eliminated. All joking aside, my grandfather's numbers on PGA courses are equal to or better than either of theirs, and he's an eighty year old retired pharmacist, not a pro athlete.0 -
chivalryder 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
Your first example... I'm not sure if I am misreading but it doesn't state what they were doing (running? swimming?)
Also that is literally 1 second apart! That's not really proving that women can not beat a man. Also though it may be irrelevant I think it's impressive that that record was set by a women in 1988 yet it took a man until 2009 to set the record for 9.58 seconds.
Last example is fair but once again in my own opinion I would hardly count 13 extra minutes as saying men far surpass women.
Anyways I'm not trying to get into a debate on that topic just think the numbers are super close and either way they are impressive times.!
ETA I now see it was a reference for 100 metre runs.
0 -
FoCoAlphaNerd wrote: »So, the girlfriend is in here loudly claiming that women compete with men in equestrian events and win. It makes sense. It puts the ownness for the size, muscle and body structure components, which are what holds them back, on the horse. Some quick googling makes me think that they might not be on 100% equal footing, but nor are they dominated. She also says that at the hundred mile and up ultra marathon levels, women can compete with men. Same thing, some googling seems to indicate that some of the records are held by women.
Yes, equestrian (my parents watch Spruce Meadows religiously) is one sport where it is not segragated. I love that it isn't.
But that's because, though strength is important when fighting an un-cooperative horse, it's more about skill and technique. It's mostly about the bond between rider and horse and how well they work together as a team.
Gender has nothing to do with that.
As for ultramarathons:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultramarathon
The records for men are vastly greater than the records for women.0 -
chivalryder 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
Your first example... I'm not sure if I am misreading but it doesn't state what they were doing (running? swimming?)
Also that is literally 1 second apart! That's not really proving that women can not beat a man. Also though it may be irrelevant I think it's impressive that that record was set by a women in 1988 yet it took a man until 2009 to set the record for 9.58 seconds.
Last example is fair but once again in my own opinion I would hardly count 13 extra minutes as saying men far surpass women.
Anyways I'm not trying to get into a debate on that topic just think the numbers are super close and either way they are impressive times.!
Those times are for 100m sprints where 1 second is an eternity...
0 -
chivalryder 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
Your first example... I'm not sure if I am misreading but it doesn't state what they were doing (running? swimming?)
Also that is literally 1 second apart! That's not really proving that women can not beat a man. Also though it may be irrelevant I think it's impressive that that record was set by a women in 1988 yet it took a man until 2009 to set the record for 9.58 seconds.
Last example is fair but once again in my own opinion I would hardly count 13 extra minutes as saying men far surpass women.
Anyways I'm not trying to get into a debate on that topic just think the numbers are super close and either way they are impressive times.!
Sorry, the first quote was the 100m sprint, where 1 second is a very long time.
Yes, they are very close, and these are only record numbers, so they are the extremes of what men and women are capable of. The usual "winning" numbers are lower than what are given here on both sides.
ETA: Again, with these being record, you never know. One year, there might be a woman who completes the marathon faster than what the winning man did. I'd do some research, but a lot of sites are blocked at my work place. There seems to be some suggestion that, one day, women might actually be faster than men in endurance sports.
But not sprinting sports.
Sorry, but I can't see a woman being able to sprint faster than a 6'4", 220lb man of pure muscle.0 -
chivalryder 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
Your first example... I'm not sure if I am misreading but it doesn't state what they were doing (running? swimming?)
Also that is literally 1 second apart! That's not really proving that women can not beat a man. Also though it may be irrelevant I think it's impressive that that record was set by a women in 1988 yet it took a man until 2009 to set the record for 9.58 seconds.
Last example is fair but once again in my own opinion I would hardly count 13 extra minutes as saying men far surpass women.
Anyways I'm not trying to get into a debate on that topic just think the numbers are super close and either way they are impressive times.!
those are a nine and ten percent difference respectively. that is HUGE in a sport. It doesn't sound like much because it's ten vs nine seconds, but a .290 batter would give their soul to be a .319 batter. It's the difference between "oh, I remember that guy," and having your bust in the hall of fame.0 -
FoCoAlphaNerd wrote: »chivalryder 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
Your first example... I'm not sure if I am misreading but it doesn't state what they were doing (running? swimming?)
Also that is literally 1 second apart! That's not really proving that women can not beat a man. Also though it may be irrelevant I think it's impressive that that record was set by a women in 1988 yet it took a man until 2009 to set the record for 9.58 seconds.
Last example is fair but once again in my own opinion I would hardly count 13 extra minutes as saying men far surpass women.
Anyways I'm not trying to get into a debate on that topic just think the numbers are super close and either way they are impressive times.!
those are a nine and ten percent difference respectively. that is HUGE in a sport. It doesn't sound like much because it's ten vs nine seconds, but a .290 batter would give their soul to be a .319 batter. It's the difference between "oh, I remember that guy," and having your bust in the hall of fame.
In a race, or any competitive sport, it doesn't matter how good you are, unless you win. It's all about winning. No one wants second place.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions