Banning women from running marathons...
Options
Replies
-
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 -
chivalryder wrote: »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.
It looks like their records start to merge when you hit the 24 hour or 300 mile etc ultra ultra marathons lol. At that point, it must just be about who is willing to spend more time in rehab learning to walk again
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
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.
It's that old joke "Do you remember what Buzz Aldrin said when he first stepped onto the moon? No, you don't, no one does."0 -
FoCoAlphaNerd wrote: »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
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.
It's that old joke "Do you remember what Buzz Aldrin said when he first stepped onto the moon? No, you don't, no one does."
0 -
FoCoAlphaNerd wrote: »chivalryder wrote: »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.
It looks like their records start to merge when you hit the 24 hour or 300 mile etc ultra ultra marathons lol. At that point, it must just be about who is willing to spend more time in rehab learning to walk again
Really?
24H road: 290km for men, 252km for women. 13% difference
48H road: 433km for men, 368km for women. 15% difference.
That's a very large difference.0 -
chivalryder wrote: »FoCoAlphaNerd wrote: »chivalryder wrote: »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.
It looks like their records start to merge when you hit the 24 hour or 300 mile etc ultra ultra marathons lol. At that point, it must just be about who is willing to spend more time in rehab learning to walk again
Really?
24H road: 290km for men, 252km for women. 13% difference
48H road: 433km for men, 368km for women. 15% difference.
That's a very large difference.
Yeah, but it looks like the world treadmill record holder is female, and the first person to do 300 miles without a nap is female. I don't see any sports where they can compete one to one, but it looks like that might be one of the ones where occasionally a top level female athlete might hold the world record for something for a while, which is more than you'll get in almost any other sport
0 -
FoCoAlphaNerd wrote: »chivalryder wrote: »FoCoAlphaNerd wrote: »chivalryder wrote: »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.
It looks like their records start to merge when you hit the 24 hour or 300 mile etc ultra ultra marathons lol. At that point, it must just be about who is willing to spend more time in rehab learning to walk again
Really?
24H road: 290km for men, 252km for women. 13% difference
48H road: 433km for men, 368km for women. 15% difference.
That's a very large difference.
Yeah, but it looks like the world treadmill record holder is female, and the first person to do 300 miles without a nap is female. I don't see any sports where they can compete one to one, but it looks like that might be one of the ones where occasionally a top level female athlete might hold the world record for something for a while, which is more than you'll get in almost any other sport
I completely agree, once you get into something that lasts more than 12 hours, and especially more than 24 hours, it's mind over matter. Your body means very little for how well you will perform at that level.
That being said, you have to be bat-*kitten* crazy to run for 300 miles without taking a nap. A woman may hold the record now, but a man might beat her some day. Someone just needs to ante up.
And then once a man holds the record, the next bat-*kitten* crazy person might be a woman.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?
Not sure..but my female cousin got into college on a rugby scholarship. Growing up, I woudl always tell her if there was a gang of guys in front of us, of all the people in the world, Id want her by my side..well, in front of me, Ive got her back...waaay back. And she would tell me that Im lucky she loves me cause comments like that cause spontaneous bruising LoL
Her brothers on the other hand are these tall willowy delicate looking things... And also, having been in the military, Ive seen women hang tough...tougher even than some of the guys..especially when we were going through training. Speaking of which, I joined the military instead of my bf at the time, because between us, I knew I was the one who was capable of toughing it out. He wouldnt have made it through the medical examinations, moreless basic training. He still hates when I bring that up, but admits its true Lol
By the way...I trained alongside men, and in hand to hand combat training, we were pitted against someone who was similiar in height / weight / strength, not by sex.
Sooo, just based off my own personal experience, Im going to have to say its not about the sex of the person that makes them capable physically or mentally, or stronger or tougher... its about the person as an individual, their drive, their training and what they set their mind and body to do.0 -
Seriously the only place women should be running is to the kitchen to make sammiches.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?
Not sure..but my female cousin got into college on a rugby scholarship. Growing up, I woudl always tell her if there was a gang of guys in front of us, of all the people in the world, Id want her by my side..well, in front of me, Ive got her back...waaay back. And she would tell me that Im lucky she loves me cause comments like that cause spontaneous bruising LoL
Her brothers on the other hand are these tall willowy delicate looking things... And also, having been in the military, Ive seen women hang tough...tougher even than some of the guys..especially when we were going through training. Speaking of which, I joined the military instead of my bf at the time, because between us, I knew I was the one who was capable of toughing it out. He wouldnt have made it through the medical examinations, moreless basic training. He still hates when I bring that up, but admits its true Lol
By the way...I trained alongside men, and in hand to hand combat training, we were pitted against someone who was similiar in height / weight / strength, not by sex.
Sooo, just based off my own personal experience, Im going to have to say its not about the sex of the person that makes them capable physically or mentally, or stronger or tougher... its about the person as an individual, their drive, their training and what they set their mind and body to do.
When you are dealing on the average person's level, drive and mental toughness can set people apart.
But when we get to elite levels we are dealing with people who all have drive, mental toughness and training. It starts to come down to physical capability. This is why you tend to see the same body type on elite athletes for certain sports, because those are most advantageous. On these levels, in many sports, men simply have a physical advantage.0 -
3dogsrunning wrote: »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?
Not sure..but my female cousin got into college on a rugby scholarship. Growing up, I woudl always tell her if there was a gang of guys in front of us, of all the people in the world, Id want her by my side..well, in front of me, Ive got her back...waaay back. And she would tell me that Im lucky she loves me cause comments like that cause spontaneous bruising LoL
Her brothers on the other hand are these tall willowy delicate looking things... And also, having been in the military, Ive seen women hang tough...tougher even than some of the guys..especially when we were going through training. Speaking of which, I joined the military instead of my bf at the time, because between us, I knew I was the one who was capable of toughing it out. He wouldnt have made it through the medical examinations, moreless basic training. He still hates when I bring that up, but admits its true Lol
By the way...I trained alongside men, and in hand to hand combat training, we were pitted against someone who was similiar in height / weight / strength, not by sex.
Sooo, just based off my own personal experience, Im going to have to say its not about the sex of the person that makes them capable physically or mentally, or stronger or tougher... its about the person as an individual, their drive, their training and what they set their mind and body to do.
When you are dealing on the average person's level, drive and mental toughness can set people apart.
But when we get to elite levels we are dealing with people who all have drive, mental toughness and training. It starts to come down to physical capability. This is why you tend to see the same body type on elite athletes for certain sports, because those are most advantageous. On these levels, in many sports, men simply have a physical advantage.
yeah, but he didnt specify elite athletes... I really was only responding to the question that was asked. That he mentioned rugby is why I figured Id mention my cousin, since she got into college on a scholarship to play on the rugby team...then expanded to my personal knowledge of other full contact situations like my military training...even though its not a sport it kind of related to the safety issue due to size and strength disparity he was wondering about.
I dont know anything at all about elite athletics though, so I really cant say one way or another about it!0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 393 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 936 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions