Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
What do you think about impact of the phrase 'nothing is impossible if you work hard enough' ?
Options
Replies
-
diannethegeek wrote: »WorkerDrone83 wrote: »diannethegeek wrote: »WorkerDrone83 wrote: »WorkerDrone83 wrote: »I guess I'm really confused about the "opportunities" conversation.
My mom introduced me to NHL hockey and the NY Rangers when I was a kid. I would literally dream of playing for the team, being a professional athlete. So is the idea that if I had just worked really hard, I could have been the NHL's first female player in 1992? That the reason there are now in 2017 still no female NHL players is because women just haven't worked hard enough? All those women who have played on the Olympic teams and continue to try to get at least a women's league going are failing because they haven't worked hard enough?
If the goal is vague, like I want to get strong, or personal best motivated, like I want to get faster... then sure you can accomplish anything you want if you work hard enough. But there are plenty of specific goals that specific individuals will never have a realistic opportunity to accomplish, even if they work themselves into the ground.
That's a good point, but I think it could be argued that no, they didn't work hard enough. Or they weren't directing their hard work into the right place. Apparently someone did though because there is a national women's hockey league. HQ'd in NY, actually.
Yes, and I can guarantee you NONE of those women grew up watching the NHL dreaming that one day they would play in a 4 team league of female players, playing 16 games a season, with no media exposure, making a fraction of the salary of an NHL player.
I'm not going to touch the idea that no women are playing in the 4 major sports league due to not working hard enough, because I would not be able to respond without getting suspended from the forum.
Haha. Yeah, please don't get suspended. I agree with you about opportunities. That was 1992 and now it's only 2017. We'll get there. Eventually.
Edit to add - With hard work!
"We" may get there as a society, but will the women watching hockey in 1992 get there within their lifetimes? And if they don't, is it because they didn't work hard enough or because society had some barriers in place that had to be moved before they could achieve what they wanted to achieve?
Removing societal barriers? My, that sounds like an awful lot of hard work.
P.S. Why didn't you answer my questions?
I'm not sure if there's a formal way to respond to a post-script.
Re: P.S. A woman who watched hockey in 1992 could very well be playing for the national womens hockey league now. And yes if they don't it's because they didn't work hard enough. Or perhaps not smart enough. One would think that if someone really wanted to do Z, but X and Y were barriers, they would work their butts off to gather any and all resources to remove X and Y. That's part of the hard work.2 -
diannethegeek wrote: »WorkerDrone83 wrote: »WorkerDrone83 wrote: »I guess I'm really confused about the "opportunities" conversation.
My mom introduced me to NHL hockey and the NY Rangers when I was a kid. I would literally dream of playing for the team, being a professional athlete. So is the idea that if I had just worked really hard, I could have been the NHL's first female player in 1992? That the reason there are now in 2017 still no female NHL players is because women just haven't worked hard enough? All those women who have played on the Olympic teams and continue to try to get at least a women's league going are failing because they haven't worked hard enough?
If the goal is vague, like I want to get strong, or personal best motivated, like I want to get faster... then sure you can accomplish anything you want if you work hard enough. But there are plenty of specific goals that specific individuals will never have a realistic opportunity to accomplish, even if they work themselves into the ground.
That's a good point, but I think it could be argued that no, they didn't work hard enough. Or they weren't directing their hard work into the right place. Apparently someone did though because there is a national women's hockey league. HQ'd in NY, actually.
Yes, and I can guarantee you NONE of those women grew up watching the NHL dreaming that one day they would play in a 4 team league of female players, playing 16 games a season, with no media exposure, making a fraction of the salary of an NHL player.
I'm not going to touch the idea that no women are playing in the 4 major sports league due to not working hard enough, because I would not be able to respond without getting suspended from the forum.
Haha. Yeah, please don't get suspended. I agree with you about opportunities. That was 1992 and now it's only 2017. We'll get there. Eventually.
Edit to add - With hard work!
"We" may get there as a society, but will the women watching hockey in 1992 get there within their lifetimes? And if they don't, is it because they didn't work hard enough or because society had some barriers in place that had to be moved before they could achieve what they wanted to achieve?
There is no way to say there is nothing that could have been done differently that might have gotten them in the league. There simply is no way to prove it.1 -
diannethegeek wrote: »WorkerDrone83 wrote: »WorkerDrone83 wrote: »I guess I'm really confused about the "opportunities" conversation.
My mom introduced me to NHL hockey and the NY Rangers when I was a kid. I would literally dream of playing for the team, being a professional athlete. So is the idea that if I had just worked really hard, I could have been the NHL's first female player in 1992? That the reason there are now in 2017 still no female NHL players is because women just haven't worked hard enough? All those women who have played on the Olympic teams and continue to try to get at least a women's league going are failing because they haven't worked hard enough?
If the goal is vague, like I want to get strong, or personal best motivated, like I want to get faster... then sure you can accomplish anything you want if you work hard enough. But there are plenty of specific goals that specific individuals will never have a realistic opportunity to accomplish, even if they work themselves into the ground.
That's a good point, but I think it could be argued that no, they didn't work hard enough. Or they weren't directing their hard work into the right place. Apparently someone did though because there is a national women's hockey league. HQ'd in NY, actually.
Yes, and I can guarantee you NONE of those women grew up watching the NHL dreaming that one day they would play in a 4 team league of female players, playing 16 games a season, with no media exposure, making a fraction of the salary of an NHL player.
I'm not going to touch the idea that no women are playing in the 4 major sports league due to not working hard enough, because I would not be able to respond without getting suspended from the forum.
Haha. Yeah, please don't get suspended. I agree with you about opportunities. That was 1992 and now it's only 2017. We'll get there. Eventually.
Edit to add - With hard work!
"We" may get there as a society, but will the women watching hockey in 1992 get there within their lifetimes? And if they don't, is it because they didn't work hard enough or because society had some barriers in place that had to be moved before they could achieve what they wanted to achieve?
We may get there, and we may not. There may not be enough interest in watching Hockey to provide for 2 full time fully funded professional leagues. And there may be. I don't know.
I don't know if the WNBA failed because of societal barriers or because there's already too much Basketball being played. I do know that American Women's soccer is generally more popular and interesting than American Men's soccer, Again, I don't know why, but I suspect that it more neatly fills an interest niche.
I am NOT discounting the reality of social and societal barriers, I recognize that they are real and observable, but by the same token, I know that there isn't sufficient interest for a women's professional football(American) league. Perhaps women's professional Hockey will supplant men's perhaps not.3 -
diannethegeek wrote: »WorkerDrone83 wrote: »diannethegeek wrote: »WorkerDrone83 wrote: »WorkerDrone83 wrote: »I guess I'm really confused about the "opportunities" conversation.
My mom introduced me to NHL hockey and the NY Rangers when I was a kid. I would literally dream of playing for the team, being a professional athlete. So is the idea that if I had just worked really hard, I could have been the NHL's first female player in 1992? That the reason there are now in 2017 still no female NHL players is because women just haven't worked hard enough? All those women who have played on the Olympic teams and continue to try to get at least a women's league going are failing because they haven't worked hard enough?
If the goal is vague, like I want to get strong, or personal best motivated, like I want to get faster... then sure you can accomplish anything you want if you work hard enough. But there are plenty of specific goals that specific individuals will never have a realistic opportunity to accomplish, even if they work themselves into the ground.
That's a good point, but I think it could be argued that no, they didn't work hard enough. Or they weren't directing their hard work into the right place. Apparently someone did though because there is a national women's hockey league. HQ'd in NY, actually.
Yes, and I can guarantee you NONE of those women grew up watching the NHL dreaming that one day they would play in a 4 team league of female players, playing 16 games a season, with no media exposure, making a fraction of the salary of an NHL player.
I'm not going to touch the idea that no women are playing in the 4 major sports league due to not working hard enough, because I would not be able to respond without getting suspended from the forum.
Haha. Yeah, please don't get suspended. I agree with you about opportunities. That was 1992 and now it's only 2017. We'll get there. Eventually.
Edit to add - With hard work!
"We" may get there as a society, but will the women watching hockey in 1992 get there within their lifetimes? And if they don't, is it because they didn't work hard enough or because society had some barriers in place that had to be moved before they could achieve what they wanted to achieve?
Removing societal barriers? My, that sounds like an awful lot of hard work.
It is. But it can rarely be done by a single person. If only one person is pushing to remove a barrier, do you really think they'll achieve their goal with hard work?
It's a bit like moving a goal post. One person who tries to move it probably won't see their dream come true no matter how hard they work. But a lot of people working to the same ends can get it done.
Exactly. Jackie Robinson didn't become the first black MLB player because he and he alone worked hard. He got there on the backs of many other minority athletes who worked hard but never achieved their goal because they had to wait for society to get on board, which involved not just baseball players but a movement acroos all of society.
There are other criteria to achieving goals than just what you individually do. The fact of the matter is that the NHL is a business. If the fans are uncomfortable with the idea of female players, a woman can work her heiny off and never get to play.
There are also physical factors. Someone mentioned Phelps. He has the perfect body to be a swimmer. He has obviously worked super hard and deserves his success. But if he had been 5'7" with a stocky build and short arms, I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest that while he may have been able to become a competitive swimmer, he would not have broken world records and become internationally famous and wealthy as a swimmer, no matter how hard he worked and how high he dreamed.7 -
1 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »diannethegeek wrote: »WorkerDrone83 wrote: »WorkerDrone83 wrote: »I guess I'm really confused about the "opportunities" conversation.
My mom introduced me to NHL hockey and the NY Rangers when I was a kid. I would literally dream of playing for the team, being a professional athlete. So is the idea that if I had just worked really hard, I could have been the NHL's first female player in 1992? That the reason there are now in 2017 still no female NHL players is because women just haven't worked hard enough? All those women who have played on the Olympic teams and continue to try to get at least a women's league going are failing because they haven't worked hard enough?
If the goal is vague, like I want to get strong, or personal best motivated, like I want to get faster... then sure you can accomplish anything you want if you work hard enough. But there are plenty of specific goals that specific individuals will never have a realistic opportunity to accomplish, even if they work themselves into the ground.
That's a good point, but I think it could be argued that no, they didn't work hard enough. Or they weren't directing their hard work into the right place. Apparently someone did though because there is a national women's hockey league. HQ'd in NY, actually.
Yes, and I can guarantee you NONE of those women grew up watching the NHL dreaming that one day they would play in a 4 team league of female players, playing 16 games a season, with no media exposure, making a fraction of the salary of an NHL player.
I'm not going to touch the idea that no women are playing in the 4 major sports league due to not working hard enough, because I would not be able to respond without getting suspended from the forum.
Haha. Yeah, please don't get suspended. I agree with you about opportunities. That was 1992 and now it's only 2017. We'll get there. Eventually.
Edit to add - With hard work!
"We" may get there as a society, but will the women watching hockey in 1992 get there within their lifetimes? And if they don't, is it because they didn't work hard enough or because society had some barriers in place that had to be moved before they could achieve what they wanted to achieve?
There is no way to say there is nothing that could have been done differently that might have gotten them in the league. There simply is no way to prove it.
Which kind of backs my point, doesn't it? If you can't say whether or not there was a path to success if they'd done something different then you're saying that there might not have been a path to success. There might have been or there might not have been. If nothing is impossible then there must have been a path for these women. If you can't say, then maybe some things are impossible.
1 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »I'm finding this funny as kids are typically the most brutally honest of any age - seconded only by the elderly, who have learned not to care what others think. Yet the consensus seems to be that these statements would be stated to children as they have not yet learned to limit themselves.
Also interesting how certain people tend to think of their personal experiences in expanding dimensions - personal struggles, obstacles overcome, tales of triumph and misery...but think of others as single dimension characters, in this case "privileged".
I think most of us seem to be defining ourselves as privileged in some ways, no?
I know I think I am in some ways (and not in some other ways that I overcame). Acknowledging that in some ways I am lucky doesn't seem negative.
For me the key is to focus on not giving up in your own life, but also not assuming that because something came naturally to you (or was something you chose to work at or enjoyed working at or wanted to pursue or even felt like you HAD to pursue) doesn't mean that everyone would have been equally capable.
I do think our expectations are often too low of others in general, so would agree with that argument, but I do think people have different natural capacities and how we are raised makes a big difference in what our capacities are too. That I saw people living in a particular way and valuing certain things (work, education), was helpful for me and I picked up related skills despite a really problematic upbringing in some other ways.
I used to volunteer at a program aimed at helping kids from an underprivileged background get GEDs or jobs or both, and with the job thing it was amazing how they didn't often have the skills to SEE opportunities or to know how to get them. Teaching these skills was also possible, but they ARE skills/knowledge that is learned, things we learn from the people around us in many cases.
I find the concept of privilege especially useless simply due to the subjective nature. Everyone is privileged and everyone is not privileged.
Sure, I agree, but I think the whole thing is colored (especially for younger folks, probably) by the whole "check your privilege thing." IMO, recognizing that you have some advantages that not everyone else shares, that you benefit from a whole lot of things you might just assume as a given is part of empathy and also being grateful for what you have, a reality check. It's not some political statement (and again, I'm certainly not resenting what privileges others have, or circumstances if people find that a more comfortable term).Knowing what we now know of weight management I question the concept of things coming "naturally". Certainly there's a matter of interest in an area, but are elite athletes/academics a result of "natural" ability or a result of time and effort?
Both. You don't get to be an elite violinist (say, get a job with a major symphony) without practicing an insane amount and a truly tremendous amount of dedication and hard work. It would be dumb to say that's a matter of luck. But also not everyone has the ability to achieve that, if only they'd done the work. Edit: AND whether they develop that aptitude even if they have it may have to do with their parents or certain opportunities being available at an early enough age.3 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »I'm finding this funny as kids are typically the most brutally honest of any age - seconded only by the elderly, who have learned not to care what others think. Yet the consensus seems to be that these statements would be stated to children as they have not yet learned to limit themselves.
Also interesting how certain people tend to think of their personal experiences in expanding dimensions - personal struggles, obstacles overcome, tales of triumph and misery...but think of others as single dimension characters, in this case "privileged".
I think most of us seem to be defining ourselves as privileged in some ways, no?
I know I think I am in some ways (and not in some other ways that I overcame). Acknowledging that in some ways I am lucky doesn't seem negative.
For me the key is to focus on not giving up in your own life, but also not assuming that because something came naturally to you (or was something you chose to work at or enjoyed working at or wanted to pursue or even felt like you HAD to pursue) doesn't mean that everyone would have been equally capable.
I do think our expectations are often too low of others in general, so would agree with that argument, but I do think people have different natural capacities and how we are raised makes a big difference in what our capacities are too. That I saw people living in a particular way and valuing certain things (work, education), was helpful for me and I picked up related skills despite a really problematic upbringing in some other ways.
I used to volunteer at a program aimed at helping kids from an underprivileged background get GEDs or jobs or both, and with the job thing it was amazing how they didn't often have the skills to SEE opportunities or to know how to get them. Teaching these skills was also possible, but they ARE skills/knowledge that is learned, things we learn from the people around us in many cases.
I find the concept of privilege especially useless simply due to the subjective nature. Everyone is privileged and everyone is not privileged.
Sure, I agree, but I think the whole thing is colored (especially for younger folks, probably) by the whole "check your privilege thing." IMO, recognizing that you have some advantages that not everyone else shares, that you benefit from a whole lot of things you might just assume as a given is part of empathy and also being grateful for what you have, a reality check. It's not some political statement (and again, I'm certainly not resenting what privileges others have, or circumstances if people find that a more comfortable term).Knowing what we now know of weight management I question the concept of things coming "naturally". Certainly there's a matter of interest in an area, but are elite athletes/academics a result of "natural" ability or a result of time and effort?
Both. You don't get to be an elite violinist (say, get a job with a major symphony) without practicing an insane amount and a truly tremendous amount of dedication and hard work. It would be dumb to say that's a matter of luck. But also not everyone has the ability to achieve that, if only they'd done the work.
There is a lot of luck involved getting into major symphony. There are tons of very talented musicians with equivalent or better skills than those who get in who for various reasons never have the opportunity to play in one.1 -
stanmann571 wrote: »diannethegeek wrote: »WorkerDrone83 wrote: »WorkerDrone83 wrote: »I guess I'm really confused about the "opportunities" conversation.
My mom introduced me to NHL hockey and the NY Rangers when I was a kid. I would literally dream of playing for the team, being a professional athlete. So is the idea that if I had just worked really hard, I could have been the NHL's first female player in 1992? That the reason there are now in 2017 still no female NHL players is because women just haven't worked hard enough? All those women who have played on the Olympic teams and continue to try to get at least a women's league going are failing because they haven't worked hard enough?
If the goal is vague, like I want to get strong, or personal best motivated, like I want to get faster... then sure you can accomplish anything you want if you work hard enough. But there are plenty of specific goals that specific individuals will never have a realistic opportunity to accomplish, even if they work themselves into the ground.
That's a good point, but I think it could be argued that no, they didn't work hard enough. Or they weren't directing their hard work into the right place. Apparently someone did though because there is a national women's hockey league. HQ'd in NY, actually.
Yes, and I can guarantee you NONE of those women grew up watching the NHL dreaming that one day they would play in a 4 team league of female players, playing 16 games a season, with no media exposure, making a fraction of the salary of an NHL player.
I'm not going to touch the idea that no women are playing in the 4 major sports league due to not working hard enough, because I would not be able to respond without getting suspended from the forum.
Haha. Yeah, please don't get suspended. I agree with you about opportunities. That was 1992 and now it's only 2017. We'll get there. Eventually.
Edit to add - With hard work!
"We" may get there as a society, but will the women watching hockey in 1992 get there within their lifetimes? And if they don't, is it because they didn't work hard enough or because society had some barriers in place that had to be moved before they could achieve what they wanted to achieve?
We may get there, and we may not. There may not be enough interest in watching Hockey to provide for 2 full time fully funded professional leagues. And there may be. I don't know.
I don't know if the WNBA failed because of societal barriers or because there's already too much Basketball being played. I do know that American Women's soccer is generally more popular and interesting than American Men's soccer, Again, I don't know why, but I suspect that it more neatly fills an interest niche.
I am NOT discounting the reality of social and societal barriers, I recognize that they are real and observable, but by the same token, I know that there isn't sufficient interest for a women's professional football(American) league. Perhaps women's professional Hockey will supplant men's perhaps not.
Thank you for the hopeful notion, but as a die-hard sports fan, I do not see women's professional sports getting any bigger than the WNBA anytime soon. The market is saturated, and most people I know (men AND women) are uncomfortable with the idea of men and women competing with each other physically.2 -
diannethegeek wrote: »WorkerDrone83 wrote: »diannethegeek wrote: »WorkerDrone83 wrote: »WorkerDrone83 wrote: »I guess I'm really confused about the "opportunities" conversation.
My mom introduced me to NHL hockey and the NY Rangers when I was a kid. I would literally dream of playing for the team, being a professional athlete. So is the idea that if I had just worked really hard, I could have been the NHL's first female player in 1992? That the reason there are now in 2017 still no female NHL players is because women just haven't worked hard enough? All those women who have played on the Olympic teams and continue to try to get at least a women's league going are failing because they haven't worked hard enough?
If the goal is vague, like I want to get strong, or personal best motivated, like I want to get faster... then sure you can accomplish anything you want if you work hard enough. But there are plenty of specific goals that specific individuals will never have a realistic opportunity to accomplish, even if they work themselves into the ground.
That's a good point, but I think it could be argued that no, they didn't work hard enough. Or they weren't directing their hard work into the right place. Apparently someone did though because there is a national women's hockey league. HQ'd in NY, actually.
Yes, and I can guarantee you NONE of those women grew up watching the NHL dreaming that one day they would play in a 4 team league of female players, playing 16 games a season, with no media exposure, making a fraction of the salary of an NHL player.
I'm not going to touch the idea that no women are playing in the 4 major sports league due to not working hard enough, because I would not be able to respond without getting suspended from the forum.
Haha. Yeah, please don't get suspended. I agree with you about opportunities. That was 1992 and now it's only 2017. We'll get there. Eventually.
Edit to add - With hard work!
"We" may get there as a society, but will the women watching hockey in 1992 get there within their lifetimes? And if they don't, is it because they didn't work hard enough or because society had some barriers in place that had to be moved before they could achieve what they wanted to achieve?
Removing societal barriers? My, that sounds like an awful lot of hard work.
It is. But it can rarely be done by a single person. If only one person is pushing to remove a barrier, do you really think they'll achieve their goal with hard work?
It's a bit like moving a goal post. One person who tries to move it probably won't see their dream come true no matter how hard they work. But a lot of people working to the same ends can get it done.
Exactly. Jackie Robinson didn't become the first black MLB player because he and he alone worked hard. He got there on the backs of many other minority athletes who worked hard but never achieved their goal because they had to wait for society to get on board, which involved not just baseball players but a movement acroos all of society.
There are other criteria to achieving goals than just what you individually do. The fact of the matter is that the NHL is a business. If the fans are uncomfortable with the idea of female players, a woman can work her heiny off and never get to play.
There are also physical factors. Someone mentioned Phelps. He has the perfect body to be a swimmer. He has obviously worked super hard and deserves his success. But if he had been 5'7" with a stocky build and short arms, I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest that while he may have been able to become a competitive swimmer, he would not have broken world records and become internationally famous and wealthy as a swimmer, no matter how hard he worked and how high he dreamed.
I disagree with this; if there was a female hockey player who could play in the NHL it would be a tremendous draw (I believe that there have been female goalies at the lower minor league levels and the fan support was huge). The reason why they aren't in the NHL isn't because of bias or marketing, it is because female players are not as large, fast, or strong as the males.1 -
singingflutelady wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »I'm finding this funny as kids are typically the most brutally honest of any age - seconded only by the elderly, who have learned not to care what others think. Yet the consensus seems to be that these statements would be stated to children as they have not yet learned to limit themselves.
Also interesting how certain people tend to think of their personal experiences in expanding dimensions - personal struggles, obstacles overcome, tales of triumph and misery...but think of others as single dimension characters, in this case "privileged".
I think most of us seem to be defining ourselves as privileged in some ways, no?
I know I think I am in some ways (and not in some other ways that I overcame). Acknowledging that in some ways I am lucky doesn't seem negative.
For me the key is to focus on not giving up in your own life, but also not assuming that because something came naturally to you (or was something you chose to work at or enjoyed working at or wanted to pursue or even felt like you HAD to pursue) doesn't mean that everyone would have been equally capable.
I do think our expectations are often too low of others in general, so would agree with that argument, but I do think people have different natural capacities and how we are raised makes a big difference in what our capacities are too. That I saw people living in a particular way and valuing certain things (work, education), was helpful for me and I picked up related skills despite a really problematic upbringing in some other ways.
I used to volunteer at a program aimed at helping kids from an underprivileged background get GEDs or jobs or both, and with the job thing it was amazing how they didn't often have the skills to SEE opportunities or to know how to get them. Teaching these skills was also possible, but they ARE skills/knowledge that is learned, things we learn from the people around us in many cases.
I find the concept of privilege especially useless simply due to the subjective nature. Everyone is privileged and everyone is not privileged.
Sure, I agree, but I think the whole thing is colored (especially for younger folks, probably) by the whole "check your privilege thing." IMO, recognizing that you have some advantages that not everyone else shares, that you benefit from a whole lot of things you might just assume as a given is part of empathy and also being grateful for what you have, a reality check. It's not some political statement (and again, I'm certainly not resenting what privileges others have, or circumstances if people find that a more comfortable term).Knowing what we now know of weight management I question the concept of things coming "naturally". Certainly there's a matter of interest in an area, but are elite athletes/academics a result of "natural" ability or a result of time and effort?
Both. You don't get to be an elite violinist (say, get a job with a major symphony) without practicing an insane amount and a truly tremendous amount of dedication and hard work. It would be dumb to say that's a matter of luck. But also not everyone has the ability to achieve that, if only they'd done the work.
There is a lot of luck involved getting into major symphony. There are tons of very talented musicians with equivalent or better skills than those who get in who for various reasons never have the opportunity to play in one.
Sure, but I still would not say "it's just luck." That is a better way of saying what I was trying to.
It's hard work and aptitude (which is in some sense luck) and opportunities (same).0 -
singingflutelady wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »I'm finding this funny as kids are typically the most brutally honest of any age - seconded only by the elderly, who have learned not to care what others think. Yet the consensus seems to be that these statements would be stated to children as they have not yet learned to limit themselves.
Also interesting how certain people tend to think of their personal experiences in expanding dimensions - personal struggles, obstacles overcome, tales of triumph and misery...but think of others as single dimension characters, in this case "privileged".
I think most of us seem to be defining ourselves as privileged in some ways, no?
I know I think I am in some ways (and not in some other ways that I overcame). Acknowledging that in some ways I am lucky doesn't seem negative.
For me the key is to focus on not giving up in your own life, but also not assuming that because something came naturally to you (or was something you chose to work at or enjoyed working at or wanted to pursue or even felt like you HAD to pursue) doesn't mean that everyone would have been equally capable.
I do think our expectations are often too low of others in general, so would agree with that argument, but I do think people have different natural capacities and how we are raised makes a big difference in what our capacities are too. That I saw people living in a particular way and valuing certain things (work, education), was helpful for me and I picked up related skills despite a really problematic upbringing in some other ways.
I used to volunteer at a program aimed at helping kids from an underprivileged background get GEDs or jobs or both, and with the job thing it was amazing how they didn't often have the skills to SEE opportunities or to know how to get them. Teaching these skills was also possible, but they ARE skills/knowledge that is learned, things we learn from the people around us in many cases.
I find the concept of privilege especially useless simply due to the subjective nature. Everyone is privileged and everyone is not privileged.
Sure, I agree, but I think the whole thing is colored (especially for younger folks, probably) by the whole "check your privilege thing." IMO, recognizing that you have some advantages that not everyone else shares, that you benefit from a whole lot of things you might just assume as a given is part of empathy and also being grateful for what you have, a reality check. It's not some political statement (and again, I'm certainly not resenting what privileges others have, or circumstances if people find that a more comfortable term).Knowing what we now know of weight management I question the concept of things coming "naturally". Certainly there's a matter of interest in an area, but are elite athletes/academics a result of "natural" ability or a result of time and effort?
Both. You don't get to be an elite violinist (say, get a job with a major symphony) without practicing an insane amount and a truly tremendous amount of dedication and hard work. It would be dumb to say that's a matter of luck. But also not everyone has the ability to achieve that, if only they'd done the work.
There is a lot of luck involved getting into major symphony. There are tons of very talented musicians with equivalent or better skills than those who get in who for various reasons never have the opportunity to play in one.
There's a great deal less talent involved in the so called talent industry, Not just on the symphonic side, but also the pop industry.
Generally speaking, there's as much or more talent in many church choirs/orchestras that are largely staffed by volunteers than there is in many major city orchestras. Of course, there's also a great deal less money in those symphonies than many people would expect.1 -
diannethegeek wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »diannethegeek wrote: »WorkerDrone83 wrote: »WorkerDrone83 wrote: »I guess I'm really confused about the "opportunities" conversation.
My mom introduced me to NHL hockey and the NY Rangers when I was a kid. I would literally dream of playing for the team, being a professional athlete. So is the idea that if I had just worked really hard, I could have been the NHL's first female player in 1992? That the reason there are now in 2017 still no female NHL players is because women just haven't worked hard enough? All those women who have played on the Olympic teams and continue to try to get at least a women's league going are failing because they haven't worked hard enough?
If the goal is vague, like I want to get strong, or personal best motivated, like I want to get faster... then sure you can accomplish anything you want if you work hard enough. But there are plenty of specific goals that specific individuals will never have a realistic opportunity to accomplish, even if they work themselves into the ground.
That's a good point, but I think it could be argued that no, they didn't work hard enough. Or they weren't directing their hard work into the right place. Apparently someone did though because there is a national women's hockey league. HQ'd in NY, actually.
Yes, and I can guarantee you NONE of those women grew up watching the NHL dreaming that one day they would play in a 4 team league of female players, playing 16 games a season, with no media exposure, making a fraction of the salary of an NHL player.
I'm not going to touch the idea that no women are playing in the 4 major sports league due to not working hard enough, because I would not be able to respond without getting suspended from the forum.
Haha. Yeah, please don't get suspended. I agree with you about opportunities. That was 1992 and now it's only 2017. We'll get there. Eventually.
Edit to add - With hard work!
"We" may get there as a society, but will the women watching hockey in 1992 get there within their lifetimes? And if they don't, is it because they didn't work hard enough or because society had some barriers in place that had to be moved before they could achieve what they wanted to achieve?
There is no way to say there is nothing that could have been done differently that might have gotten them in the league. There simply is no way to prove it.
Which kind of backs my point, doesn't it? If you can't say whether or not there was a path to success if they'd done something different then you're saying that there might not have been a path to success. There might have been or there might not have been. If nothing is impossible then there must have been a path for these women. If you can't say, then maybe some things are impossible.
But seriously, does this make the saying such a horrible thing?3 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »singingflutelady wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »I'm finding this funny as kids are typically the most brutally honest of any age - seconded only by the elderly, who have learned not to care what others think. Yet the consensus seems to be that these statements would be stated to children as they have not yet learned to limit themselves.
Also interesting how certain people tend to think of their personal experiences in expanding dimensions - personal struggles, obstacles overcome, tales of triumph and misery...but think of others as single dimension characters, in this case "privileged".
I think most of us seem to be defining ourselves as privileged in some ways, no?
I know I think I am in some ways (and not in some other ways that I overcame). Acknowledging that in some ways I am lucky doesn't seem negative.
For me the key is to focus on not giving up in your own life, but also not assuming that because something came naturally to you (or was something you chose to work at or enjoyed working at or wanted to pursue or even felt like you HAD to pursue) doesn't mean that everyone would have been equally capable.
I do think our expectations are often too low of others in general, so would agree with that argument, but I do think people have different natural capacities and how we are raised makes a big difference in what our capacities are too. That I saw people living in a particular way and valuing certain things (work, education), was helpful for me and I picked up related skills despite a really problematic upbringing in some other ways.
I used to volunteer at a program aimed at helping kids from an underprivileged background get GEDs or jobs or both, and with the job thing it was amazing how they didn't often have the skills to SEE opportunities or to know how to get them. Teaching these skills was also possible, but they ARE skills/knowledge that is learned, things we learn from the people around us in many cases.
I find the concept of privilege especially useless simply due to the subjective nature. Everyone is privileged and everyone is not privileged.
Sure, I agree, but I think the whole thing is colored (especially for younger folks, probably) by the whole "check your privilege thing." IMO, recognizing that you have some advantages that not everyone else shares, that you benefit from a whole lot of things you might just assume as a given is part of empathy and also being grateful for what you have, a reality check. It's not some political statement (and again, I'm certainly not resenting what privileges others have, or circumstances if people find that a more comfortable term).Knowing what we now know of weight management I question the concept of things coming "naturally". Certainly there's a matter of interest in an area, but are elite athletes/academics a result of "natural" ability or a result of time and effort?
Both. You don't get to be an elite violinist (say, get a job with a major symphony) without practicing an insane amount and a truly tremendous amount of dedication and hard work. It would be dumb to say that's a matter of luck. But also not everyone has the ability to achieve that, if only they'd done the work.
There is a lot of luck involved getting into major symphony. There are tons of very talented musicians with equivalent or better skills than those who get in who for various reasons never have the opportunity to play in one.
Sure, but I still would not say "it's just luck." That is a better way of saying what I was trying to.
It's hard work and aptitude (which is in some sense luck) and opportunities (same).
There's also a certain amount of *Kitten* polishing, see the recent spate of news for more graphic details.2 -
Bry_Lander wrote: »diannethegeek wrote: »WorkerDrone83 wrote: »diannethegeek wrote: »WorkerDrone83 wrote: »WorkerDrone83 wrote: »I guess I'm really confused about the "opportunities" conversation.
My mom introduced me to NHL hockey and the NY Rangers when I was a kid. I would literally dream of playing for the team, being a professional athlete. So is the idea that if I had just worked really hard, I could have been the NHL's first female player in 1992? That the reason there are now in 2017 still no female NHL players is because women just haven't worked hard enough? All those women who have played on the Olympic teams and continue to try to get at least a women's league going are failing because they haven't worked hard enough?
If the goal is vague, like I want to get strong, or personal best motivated, like I want to get faster... then sure you can accomplish anything you want if you work hard enough. But there are plenty of specific goals that specific individuals will never have a realistic opportunity to accomplish, even if they work themselves into the ground.
That's a good point, but I think it could be argued that no, they didn't work hard enough. Or they weren't directing their hard work into the right place. Apparently someone did though because there is a national women's hockey league. HQ'd in NY, actually.
Yes, and I can guarantee you NONE of those women grew up watching the NHL dreaming that one day they would play in a 4 team league of female players, playing 16 games a season, with no media exposure, making a fraction of the salary of an NHL player.
I'm not going to touch the idea that no women are playing in the 4 major sports league due to not working hard enough, because I would not be able to respond without getting suspended from the forum.
Haha. Yeah, please don't get suspended. I agree with you about opportunities. That was 1992 and now it's only 2017. We'll get there. Eventually.
Edit to add - With hard work!
"We" may get there as a society, but will the women watching hockey in 1992 get there within their lifetimes? And if they don't, is it because they didn't work hard enough or because society had some barriers in place that had to be moved before they could achieve what they wanted to achieve?
Removing societal barriers? My, that sounds like an awful lot of hard work.
It is. But it can rarely be done by a single person. If only one person is pushing to remove a barrier, do you really think they'll achieve their goal with hard work?
It's a bit like moving a goal post. One person who tries to move it probably won't see their dream come true no matter how hard they work. But a lot of people working to the same ends can get it done.
Exactly. Jackie Robinson didn't become the first black MLB player because he and he alone worked hard. He got there on the backs of many other minority athletes who worked hard but never achieved their goal because they had to wait for society to get on board, which involved not just baseball players but a movement acroos all of society.
There are other criteria to achieving goals than just what you individually do. The fact of the matter is that the NHL is a business. If the fans are uncomfortable with the idea of female players, a woman can work her heiny off and never get to play.
There are also physical factors. Someone mentioned Phelps. He has the perfect body to be a swimmer. He has obviously worked super hard and deserves his success. But if he had been 5'7" with a stocky build and short arms, I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest that while he may have been able to become a competitive swimmer, he would not have broken world records and become internationally famous and wealthy as a swimmer, no matter how hard he worked and how high he dreamed.
I disagree with this; if there was a female hockey player who could play in the NHL it would be a tremendous draw (I believe that there have been female goalies at the lower minor league levels and the fan support was huge). The reason why they aren't in the NHL isn't because of bias or marketing, it is because female players are not as large, fast, or strong as the males.
Agree...1 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »diannethegeek wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »diannethegeek wrote: »WorkerDrone83 wrote: »WorkerDrone83 wrote: »I guess I'm really confused about the "opportunities" conversation.
My mom introduced me to NHL hockey and the NY Rangers when I was a kid. I would literally dream of playing for the team, being a professional athlete. So is the idea that if I had just worked really hard, I could have been the NHL's first female player in 1992? That the reason there are now in 2017 still no female NHL players is because women just haven't worked hard enough? All those women who have played on the Olympic teams and continue to try to get at least a women's league going are failing because they haven't worked hard enough?
If the goal is vague, like I want to get strong, or personal best motivated, like I want to get faster... then sure you can accomplish anything you want if you work hard enough. But there are plenty of specific goals that specific individuals will never have a realistic opportunity to accomplish, even if they work themselves into the ground.
That's a good point, but I think it could be argued that no, they didn't work hard enough. Or they weren't directing their hard work into the right place. Apparently someone did though because there is a national women's hockey league. HQ'd in NY, actually.
Yes, and I can guarantee you NONE of those women grew up watching the NHL dreaming that one day they would play in a 4 team league of female players, playing 16 games a season, with no media exposure, making a fraction of the salary of an NHL player.
I'm not going to touch the idea that no women are playing in the 4 major sports league due to not working hard enough, because I would not be able to respond without getting suspended from the forum.
Haha. Yeah, please don't get suspended. I agree with you about opportunities. That was 1992 and now it's only 2017. We'll get there. Eventually.
Edit to add - With hard work!
"We" may get there as a society, but will the women watching hockey in 1992 get there within their lifetimes? And if they don't, is it because they didn't work hard enough or because society had some barriers in place that had to be moved before they could achieve what they wanted to achieve?
There is no way to say there is nothing that could have been done differently that might have gotten them in the league. There simply is no way to prove it.
Which kind of backs my point, doesn't it? If you can't say whether or not there was a path to success if they'd done something different then you're saying that there might not have been a path to success. There might have been or there might not have been. If nothing is impossible then there must have been a path for these women. If you can't say, then maybe some things are impossible.
But seriously, does this make the saying such a horrible thing?
At least one person has posted in this thread explaining that sayings like this give them anxiety problems. The saying doesn't mean anything except that you should try your hardest and not give up. Why not just say "try your hardest and never give up" instead of making up this idea that nothing is impossible. Some things are impossible. Why does it bother people so much to be real about that?5 -
diannethegeek wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »diannethegeek wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »diannethegeek wrote: »WorkerDrone83 wrote: »WorkerDrone83 wrote: »I guess I'm really confused about the "opportunities" conversation.
My mom introduced me to NHL hockey and the NY Rangers when I was a kid. I would literally dream of playing for the team, being a professional athlete. So is the idea that if I had just worked really hard, I could have been the NHL's first female player in 1992? That the reason there are now in 2017 still no female NHL players is because women just haven't worked hard enough? All those women who have played on the Olympic teams and continue to try to get at least a women's league going are failing because they haven't worked hard enough?
If the goal is vague, like I want to get strong, or personal best motivated, like I want to get faster... then sure you can accomplish anything you want if you work hard enough. But there are plenty of specific goals that specific individuals will never have a realistic opportunity to accomplish, even if they work themselves into the ground.
That's a good point, but I think it could be argued that no, they didn't work hard enough. Or they weren't directing their hard work into the right place. Apparently someone did though because there is a national women's hockey league. HQ'd in NY, actually.
Yes, and I can guarantee you NONE of those women grew up watching the NHL dreaming that one day they would play in a 4 team league of female players, playing 16 games a season, with no media exposure, making a fraction of the salary of an NHL player.
I'm not going to touch the idea that no women are playing in the 4 major sports league due to not working hard enough, because I would not be able to respond without getting suspended from the forum.
Haha. Yeah, please don't get suspended. I agree with you about opportunities. That was 1992 and now it's only 2017. We'll get there. Eventually.
Edit to add - With hard work!
"We" may get there as a society, but will the women watching hockey in 1992 get there within their lifetimes? And if they don't, is it because they didn't work hard enough or because society had some barriers in place that had to be moved before they could achieve what they wanted to achieve?
There is no way to say there is nothing that could have been done differently that might have gotten them in the league. There simply is no way to prove it.
Which kind of backs my point, doesn't it? If you can't say whether or not there was a path to success if they'd done something different then you're saying that there might not have been a path to success. There might have been or there might not have been. If nothing is impossible then there must have been a path for these women. If you can't say, then maybe some things are impossible.
But seriously, does this make the saying such a horrible thing?
At least one person has posted in this thread explaining that sayings like this give them anxiety problems. The saying doesn't mean anything except that you should try your hardest and not give up. Why not just say "try your hardest and never give up" instead of making up this idea that nothing is impossible. Some things are impossible. Why does it bother people so much to be real about that?
Agree. Try your hardest and you can hold your head up win lose or draw...3 -
Bry_Lander wrote: »
Agree. I think the saying is, "talent beats hard work until talent works hard..." Or somehting like that.
Not really sure what the saying is, but I agree with you. I tell my son all the time, do your best. Don't worry about what others are doing, you focus on what you are doing and give it your all...
As simple and seemingly commonsensical as it is, one of the best pieces of advice I received as a kid was "just show up". There are countless times that I have been given an opportunity or received a benefit because I showed up and someone else didn't (or I showed up on time and someone else showed up late).6 -
diannethegeek wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »diannethegeek wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »diannethegeek wrote: »WorkerDrone83 wrote: »WorkerDrone83 wrote: »I guess I'm really confused about the "opportunities" conversation.
My mom introduced me to NHL hockey and the NY Rangers when I was a kid. I would literally dream of playing for the team, being a professional athlete. So is the idea that if I had just worked really hard, I could have been the NHL's first female player in 1992? That the reason there are now in 2017 still no female NHL players is because women just haven't worked hard enough? All those women who have played on the Olympic teams and continue to try to get at least a women's league going are failing because they haven't worked hard enough?
If the goal is vague, like I want to get strong, or personal best motivated, like I want to get faster... then sure you can accomplish anything you want if you work hard enough. But there are plenty of specific goals that specific individuals will never have a realistic opportunity to accomplish, even if they work themselves into the ground.
That's a good point, but I think it could be argued that no, they didn't work hard enough. Or they weren't directing their hard work into the right place. Apparently someone did though because there is a national women's hockey league. HQ'd in NY, actually.
Yes, and I can guarantee you NONE of those women grew up watching the NHL dreaming that one day they would play in a 4 team league of female players, playing 16 games a season, with no media exposure, making a fraction of the salary of an NHL player.
I'm not going to touch the idea that no women are playing in the 4 major sports league due to not working hard enough, because I would not be able to respond without getting suspended from the forum.
Haha. Yeah, please don't get suspended. I agree with you about opportunities. That was 1992 and now it's only 2017. We'll get there. Eventually.
Edit to add - With hard work!
"We" may get there as a society, but will the women watching hockey in 1992 get there within their lifetimes? And if they don't, is it because they didn't work hard enough or because society had some barriers in place that had to be moved before they could achieve what they wanted to achieve?
There is no way to say there is nothing that could have been done differently that might have gotten them in the league. There simply is no way to prove it.
Which kind of backs my point, doesn't it? If you can't say whether or not there was a path to success if they'd done something different then you're saying that there might not have been a path to success. There might have been or there might not have been. If nothing is impossible then there must have been a path for these women. If you can't say, then maybe some things are impossible.
But seriously, does this make the saying such a horrible thing?
At least one person has posted in this thread explaining that sayings like this give them anxiety problems. The saying doesn't mean anything except that you should try your hardest and not give up. Why not just say "try your hardest and never give up" instead of making up this idea that nothing is impossible. Some things are impossible. Why does it bother people so much to be real about that?
Someone getting anxiety over a simple saying does not make a saying bad. It means the person needs help.
How is saying never give up any better? I should keep trying to get in the NHL until the day I die?2 -
singingflutelady wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »I'm finding this funny as kids are typically the most brutally honest of any age - seconded only by the elderly, who have learned not to care what others think. Yet the consensus seems to be that these statements would be stated to children as they have not yet learned to limit themselves.
Also interesting how certain people tend to think of their personal experiences in expanding dimensions - personal struggles, obstacles overcome, tales of triumph and misery...but think of others as single dimension characters, in this case "privileged".
I think most of us seem to be defining ourselves as privileged in some ways, no?
I know I think I am in some ways (and not in some other ways that I overcame). Acknowledging that in some ways I am lucky doesn't seem negative.
For me the key is to focus on not giving up in your own life, but also not assuming that because something came naturally to you (or was something you chose to work at or enjoyed working at or wanted to pursue or even felt like you HAD to pursue) doesn't mean that everyone would have been equally capable.
I do think our expectations are often too low of others in general, so would agree with that argument, but I do think people have different natural capacities and how we are raised makes a big difference in what our capacities are too. That I saw people living in a particular way and valuing certain things (work, education), was helpful for me and I picked up related skills despite a really problematic upbringing in some other ways.
I used to volunteer at a program aimed at helping kids from an underprivileged background get GEDs or jobs or both, and with the job thing it was amazing how they didn't often have the skills to SEE opportunities or to know how to get them. Teaching these skills was also possible, but they ARE skills/knowledge that is learned, things we learn from the people around us in many cases.
I find the concept of privilege especially useless simply due to the subjective nature. Everyone is privileged and everyone is not privileged.
Sure, I agree, but I think the whole thing is colored (especially for younger folks, probably) by the whole "check your privilege thing." IMO, recognizing that you have some advantages that not everyone else shares, that you benefit from a whole lot of things you might just assume as a given is part of empathy and also being grateful for what you have, a reality check. It's not some political statement (and again, I'm certainly not resenting what privileges others have, or circumstances if people find that a more comfortable term).Knowing what we now know of weight management I question the concept of things coming "naturally". Certainly there's a matter of interest in an area, but are elite athletes/academics a result of "natural" ability or a result of time and effort?
Both. You don't get to be an elite violinist (say, get a job with a major symphony) without practicing an insane amount and a truly tremendous amount of dedication and hard work. It would be dumb to say that's a matter of luck. But also not everyone has the ability to achieve that, if only they'd done the work.
There is a lot of luck involved getting into major symphony. There are tons of very talented musicians with equivalent or better skills than those who get in who for various reasons never have the opportunity to play in one.
Yep. I'm a writer trying to get my first novel published and creative businesses are just as much about luck as they are about talent. I would love to be a NYT best-selling author one day. Is it impossible that I'll get there? Probably not. But the odds aren't good in my favor. I don't think it's pessimistic or insulting to say that this is a thing I want but it may never happen if the stars don't align in my favor. I could work non-stop towards this goal, let my health and mental well-being go to *kitten* trying to get it, and still not have that spark of pure luck hit me. So instead I work towards it the best that I can, I take care of myself, I enjoy hobbies and the company of friends, I keep my day job, and I accept that some things don't happen for everyone. I can take myself as far as I can take myself, but some things are out of my hands.6
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
- 935 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions