Gender equality and earnings in sport Page 3

  • Page

    of 7 First / Last

  • Deckard1 9 Apr 2013 10:59:49 27,081 posts
    Seen 32 seconds ago
    Registered 5 years ago
    kalel wrote:
    Deckard1 wrote:
    Ok say football became a mixed sport. Now imagine the uproar when a man goes in studs up against a woman and breaks her leg. Works for any other team game.
    But that's sexist. It should be no more of an issue to do it on a woman than on a man (which is btw a big issue and gets a fair bit of uproar).
    But woman and men are different. We're bigger and stronger than them and that needs to be taken into account. Footballs a contact sport. Would you feel comfortable slide tackling a woman? Would you like to see mixed boxing or mma?
  • nickthegun 9 Apr 2013 11:01:25 58,782 posts
    Seen 22 minutes ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    Sport should be a meritocracy. If a woman is good enough to play 90 minutes against the brawlers of stoke, she should.

    If Venus Williams, for example, believed she could compete against K-Fed, she should be allowed to.

    Women have been allowed to play in the PGA and they have been mauled because they cant hit it as far. But they were allowed to play and test their skill.

    And, I genuinely think that if a female messi came along and the rules allowed it, she would play. Football is a money game and a team would never turn down a quality player.

    ---------------------------------------------------------
    He totally called it

  • disusedgenius 9 Apr 2013 11:01:45 5,195 posts
    Seen 15 minutes ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    Alipan wrote:
    Sorry but no way could a woman ever get into a professional adult mens football team on merit.
    It could happen with the odd outlying case. I don't think they'd exactly flood the top leagues or anything, but I can't see the harm if they're able. I remember people saying the basically the same thing about oriental men as well.
  • sport 9 Apr 2013 11:02:25 12,523 posts
    Seen 8 minutes ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    Post deleted
  • Latin 9 Apr 2013 11:03:19 3,592 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    @kalel Yeah true, I agree it would be interesting to find out... If they were actually that good! The problem is that, are any women in real life actually good enough?

    As discussed a bit earlier, there are so many more men involved in football, brought up playing it etc... What level would a top women's footballer actually reach? I doubt they'd even make it to league 2! I saw some incredible players at uni and these guys were nowhere near being pros.
  • graysonavich 9 Apr 2013 11:04:44 7,309 posts
    Seen 1 week ago
    Registered 4 years ago
    Alan's Hot Topic.

    What about snooker? Hardly physical.

    Fact of the matter is women get distracted easily and will always focus on babies at what would be the peak of their career.
  • Chopsen 9 Apr 2013 11:05:06 15,706 posts
    Seen 5 minutes ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    It doesn't matter if that there *could* be a woman strong enough to hold her own in a sport based on physical ability. The issue is that the averages aren't. So if you allowed both in the same competition, you would overall have an poor representation of women in sport. Lots of people would have a problem with that fact.
  • kalel 9 Apr 2013 11:05:24 86,263 posts
    Seen 52 seconds ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    Not all men are bigger and stronger than all women. Some women in fact are bigger and stronger than some men.

    There are some extremely diminutive and slight male players and no allowance is made for their physicality. If their skill level is high enough then that is sufficient for them to be incportated into a team, and usually balanced out with other more physical players. I see no reason why a female player could not have the same principle applied if they were good enough.

    The only argument I've seen against this point is a point blank assertion that no woman will ever have a skull level high enough, and maybe that's true, but I've no idea how you could be sure of that.

    The boxing and MMA thing is quite clearly a strawman argument.
  • Chopsen 9 Apr 2013 11:08:18 15,706 posts
    Seen 5 minutes ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    kalel wrote:
    Not all men are bigger and stronger than all women. Some women in fact are bigger and stronger than some men.
    See my point. It's not a question of if you can find an outlier who is as good as a professional man, it's the unavoidable observation that the distribution of the relevant qualities are not equal among men and women when considered as separate populations.

    You have to accept that the relative under-represenation of women in sport is not an issue.

    Edited by Chopsen at 11:08:44 09-04-2013
  • disusedgenius 9 Apr 2013 11:08:20 5,195 posts
    Seen 15 minutes ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    Deckard1 wrote:
    But woman and men are different. We're bigger and stronger than them and that needs to be taken into account. Footballs a contact sport. Would you feel comfortable slide tackling a woman?
    Mixed amateur teams are pretty common in the US - I've been reliably informed that no quarter is given (particularly from the Mexican guys, apparently :) ). And the differences are more of a standard deviation kind of affair than an absolute rule.
  • nickthegun 9 Apr 2013 11:09:35 58,782 posts
    Seen 22 minutes ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    graysonavich wrote:
    Alan's Hot Topic.

    What about snooker? Hardly physical.

    Fact of the matter is women get distracted easily and will always focus on babies at what would be the peak of their career.
    Heh, can you imagine messi taking 12 months out on maternity leave?

    ---------------------------------------------------------
    He totally called it

  • kalel 9 Apr 2013 11:09:43 86,263 posts
    Seen 52 seconds ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    Chopsen wrote:
    It doesn't matter if that there *could* be a woman strong enough to hold her own in a sport based on physical ability. The issue is that the averages aren't. So if you allowed both in the same competition, you would overall have an poor representation of women in sport. Lots of people would have a problem with that fact.
    Well, you can't immediately skip to the end. All moves towards equality will have stuff like that along the way. Again, we're in the process of a longterm shift here, but I do think there's a possibility that once women's football has reached the same level as say, women's tennis, we could see a mixed game that might be richer and more entertaining for it.
  • Deckard1 9 Apr 2013 11:10:17 27,081 posts
    Seen 32 seconds ago
    Registered 5 years ago
    kalel wrote:

    The boxing and MMA thing is quite clearly a strawman argument.
    I don't see how it is, you're saying that some men and woman are physically the same, so why shouldn't they be allowed to fight each other. Is it sexist that they're not? Football a physical game. Ok how about rugby, would you like to see them be playing rugby?
  • kalel 9 Apr 2013 11:11:26 86,263 posts
    Seen 52 seconds ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    Chopsen wrote:
    kalel wrote:
    Not all men are bigger and stronger than all women. Some women in fact are bigger and stronger than some men.
    See my point. It's not a question of if you can find an outlier who is as good as a professional man, it's the unavoidable observation that the distribution of the relevant qualities are not equal among men and women when considered as separate populations.

    You have to accept that the relative under-represenation of women in sport is not an issue.
    That's not the point I'm making here. I'm saying no allowance is made for the physicality of some men (who might be less strong than a woman) in football, so why is it an issue for women?

    Edited by kalel at 11:11:39 09-04-2013
  • kalel 9 Apr 2013 11:12:26 86,263 posts
    Seen 52 seconds ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    Deckard1 wrote:
    kalel wrote:

    The boxing and MMA thing is quite clearly a strawman argument.
    I don't see how it is, you're saying that some men and woman are physically the same, so why shouldn't they be allowed to fight each other. Is it sexist that they're not? Football a physical game. Ok how about rugby, would you like to see them be playing rugby?
    My point is (yet again) about team games. And yes, I have no issue with mixed team rugby in principle.
  • nickthegun 9 Apr 2013 11:13:34 58,782 posts
    Seen 22 minutes ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    Again, if a woman thinks she is able to hold her own in a weight division, I cant see why not.

    You could argue that the dudes are at a disadvantage as they wouldnt be able to punch a woman in the tits, so the women have a larger area to aim for, but if a woman is good enough, she should be able to compete with the dudes, yeah.

    It wouldnt be like sticking kate moss in with David Haye. There would be the same weight and skill divisions applied.

    In fact, at the lower end of the weight divisions, there probably is more parity between men and women.

    ---------------------------------------------------------
    He totally called it

  • LeoliansBro 9 Apr 2013 11:14:19 43,173 posts
    Seen 4 minutes ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    Physicality matters in non-contact sports as well though. Sprinting? Field sports?

    I've always wondered about Moto GP - how important is weight transfer on superbikes, and which standard-build gender is ultimately better?

    LB, you really are a massive geek.

  • Deckard1 9 Apr 2013 11:14:50 27,081 posts
    Seen 32 seconds ago
    Registered 5 years ago
    Fair enough, agree to disagree then. I don't see how its sexist though. Men and woman are physically very different. It makes perfect sense to me to have separate sports for them.
  • Deleted user 9 April 2013 11:16:38
    kalel wrote:

    There are some extremely diminutive and slight male players and no allowance is made for their physicality. If their skill level is high enough then that is sufficient for them to be incportated into a team, and usually balanced out with other more physical players. I see no reason why a female player could not have the same principle applied if they were good enough.

    The only argument I've seen against this point is a point blank assertion that no woman will ever have a skull level high enough, and maybe that's true, but I've no idea how you could be sure of that.

    I see the argument as the exact opposite actually - even with if they could match the skill level the physical side would be the problem.

    Its too simplistic to say that small weak players are supplemented by larger specimens. All are awesome atheletes.

    Edited by Alipan at 11:18:36 09-04-2013
  • LeoliansBro 9 Apr 2013 11:17:12 43,173 posts
    Seen 4 minutes ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    Deckard1 wrote:
    Fair enough, agree to disagree then. I don't see how its sexist though. Men and woman are physically very different. It makes perfect sense to me to have separate sports for them.
    Yes but you can't get away from comparing the two that easily: should they get paid the same amount?

    LB, you really are a massive geek.

  • LeoliansBro 9 Apr 2013 11:18:33 43,173 posts
    Seen 4 minutes ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    It's certainly one good thing about the rise of e-games competitions.

    LB, you really are a massive geek.

  • kalel 9 Apr 2013 11:19:02 86,263 posts
    Seen 52 seconds ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    Nick has nailed it in pretty simple terms. If they're good enough to be competitive, then they should be able to compete. Simple as that.

    In one-on-one physical sports this is never likely to be the case, however, in team games where the skills of an individual can be utilised as part of a team, and a lack of physicality balanced out, then I really think there's a case for inclusion.
  • Deckard1 9 Apr 2013 11:19:29 27,081 posts
    Seen 32 seconds ago
    Registered 5 years ago
    LeoliansBro wrote:
    Deckard1 wrote:
    Fair enough, agree to disagree then. I don't see how its sexist though. Men and woman are physically very different. It makes perfect sense to me to have separate sports for them.
    Yes but you can't get away from comparing the two that easily: should they get paid the same amount?
    The pay things a none issue to me. They get paid dependent on how popular they and there sport is. It's is simple as that really.
  • nickthegun 9 Apr 2013 11:19:31 58,782 posts
    Seen 22 minutes ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    No. Womens sports are almost universally worse than the mens version and no one watches them.

    Until that changes, why should they receive parity?

    ---------------------------------------------------------
    He totally called it

  • LeoliansBro 9 Apr 2013 11:20:19 43,173 posts
    Seen 4 minutes ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    I guess that's where I come out. Now go home and try telling your wife that ;)

    LB, you really are a massive geek.

  • kalel 9 Apr 2013 11:21:02 86,263 posts
    Seen 52 seconds ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    Alipan wrote:
    kalel wrote:

    There are some extremely diminutive and slight male players and no allowance is made for their physicality. If their skill level is high enough then that is sufficient for them to be incportated into a team, and usually balanced out with other more physical players. I see no reason why a female player could not have the same principle applied if they were good enough.

    The only argument I've seen against this point is a point blank assertion that no woman will ever have a skull level high enough, and maybe that's true, but I've no idea how you could be sure of that.

    I see the argument as the exact opposite actually - even with if they could match the skill level the physical side would be the problem.

    Its too simplistic to say that small weak players are supplemented by larger specimens. All are awesome atheletes.
    Women are also capable of being extremely strong and athletic. Again, if that was the only criteria (like sprinting) then of course they can't compete directly, but I'm sure if the skill level was high enough in football, then they would be suitably athletic to cope.
  • President_Weasel 9 Apr 2013 11:22:27 8,942 posts
    Seen 9 hours ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    Chopsen wrote:
    kalel wrote:
    Not all men are bigger and stronger than all women. Some women in fact are bigger and stronger than some men.
    See my point. It's not a question of if you can find an outlier who is as good as a professional man, it's the unavoidable observation that the distribution of the relevant qualities are not equal among men and women when considered as separate populations.

    You have to accept that the relative under-represenation of women in sport is not an issue.

    Not all men are bigger and stronger than all women. This is true.
    However in professional sports, the category that seems to be being referred to as "strength sports" in this thread, we're already talking about outliers - the strongest, fastest, fittest examples of each sex.
    I'm sure Jessica Ennis could crush Kalel in the decathlon, for example, but if she were to compete against the top male performers she'd get nowhere as they're faster and stronger.

    Interesting point about Paula Radcliffe though, is there any truth to it?
  • disusedgenius 9 Apr 2013 11:23:56 5,195 posts
    Seen 15 minutes ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    LeoliansBro wrote:
    It's certainly one good thing about the rise of e-games competitions.
    Not that women are particularly well-represented in those either.
  • Chopsen 9 Apr 2013 11:24:05 15,706 posts
    Seen 5 minutes ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    kalel wrote:
    Chopsen wrote:
    kalel wrote:
    Not all men are bigger and stronger than all women. Some women in fact are bigger and stronger than some men.
    See my point. It's not a question of if you can find an outlier who is as good as a professional man, it's the unavoidable observation that the distribution of the relevant qualities are not equal among men and women when considered as separate populations.

    You have to accept that the relative under-represenation of women in sport is not an issue.
    That's not the point I'm making here. I'm saying no allowance is made for the physicality of some men (who might be less strong than a woman) in football, so why is it an issue for women?
    Because there's a prevailing societal view that women *are* different, and are entitled to be considered on their own terms.

    That some men are better/stronger than other men in certain sports, and that some of those benefits are present from birth. This is not apparently considered an issue by society (even the Mail is happy for a black muslim to win, as long as they're British).

    To have women be in sports at the same level and same games as men, you'd have to accept total gender equality, to the point where you're genuinely blind in all aspects of life and indifferent to someone's gender, for this not to be an issue.

    Basically, this isn't going to happen till we have universal unisex everything.

    Edited by Chopsen at 11:24:46 09-04-2013
  • Deckard1 9 Apr 2013 11:24:51 27,081 posts
    Seen 32 seconds ago
    Registered 5 years ago
    kalel wrote:
    Nick has nailed it in pretty simple terms. If they're good enough to be competitive, then they should be able to compete. Simple as that.

    In one-on-one physical sports this is never likely to be the case, however, in team games where the skills of an individual can be utilised as part of a team, and a lack of physicality balanced out, then I really think there's a case for inclusion.
    Again though, games like football are massively depended on strength, speed and fitness. Which is why the at top level sports stars rarely play outside of their mid thirties. Fair enough if you think someday woman will be able to play football with men and compete with men on an equal footing, but it's never gonna happen in my opinion. They just haven't got physicality for it. Never ever ever. Now I bid you adieu.
  • Page

    of 7 First / Last

Log in or register to reply