Is gender segregated sports sexist?

[KR]

Is gender segregated sports sexist? To me it kinda looks like it is as people of a certain gender are prohibited from competing in a sport just because it is a womens sport or mens sport. It also prevents women from rising to similar fame as male athletes, as womens sport is typically thought of as boring. What do you think?

[Princess Luna]

Yes, particularly with regards to sports like Baseball, Football/Soccer, and Basketball with require speed and agility more then upper body strength.

[Caj]

Of course. That's like asking if race-segregated sports are racist.

[Aleenik]

I'd have to agree with the other responders. It is sexist. Let's look at American Football. Women can join college football teams and the NFL, but you could probably count on one hand the number of women who have made it into the NFL, if any. As for women in college American Football, I know there have been at least a few, but again, not many. So the main American Football leagues aren't gender segregated. However, there was an American Football league made for women only and omg is it messed up. It's... the LFL. Lingerie Football League. It lets women get a chance to play in a somewhat well known league only if they show off their bodies. Exploitative? I'd say definitely yes.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b0/Seattle_Mist_hike.jpg/800px-Seattle_Mist_hike.jpg
I mean if a woman likes playing in lingerie, power to her, but I'd assume many are doing this because they want the money and/or want a chance to play American Football in a somewhat well known league, not because they like to play American Football in lingerie. Also, they obviously aren't as well protected from injuries playing in that attire compared to the attire players in college American Football and the NFL wear.

That league, which is a fairly recent creation aside, many might say the reason there aren't many women football players is that they are afraid to try out in a male dominated sport, and I agree that is a big reason, but I feel it isn't fully why. Maybe getting tackled and beat up just doesn't appeal to as many women as men? Or maybe that's just the ones I've talked to. I'm a male and playing tackle American Football doesn't appeal to me, but I do enjoy watching American Football, it's my favorite sport to watch. However, I hate that so many people get hurt. Injuries in American Football are very common.

[manic expression]

If you ask me one of the dumbest things in all of sports is the difference between men and women's lacrosse. They should do away with the difference and let women play the game with men's rules.


Yes, particularly with regards to sports like Baseball, Football/Soccer, and Basketball with require speed and agility more then upper body strength.
Basketball takes all sorts of upper body strength, as well as height. Once you get past the small forward position "speed and agility" really takes a backseat. Soccer also has a lot to do with physical presence especially on set pieces and midfield battles but elsewhere too. Even with something like tennis that's arguably as mental as it is physical, the physical differences make it such that women can't compete with men on the higher levels (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karsten_Braasch).

[Bronco]

Just thinking about football (soccer) I'm not sure there's actually anything preventing a woman playing in a top-flight league in theory, although in practice there is still a large gap in quality between men's football and women's which means that such a thing happening is very unlikely. Mind you a few years ago the Seria A team Perugia came close to singing the female football star Birgit Prinz, the move ultimately fell through but never say never

[Firebrand]

While F1 racing isn't officially segregated there are no women racing at the top, which I think is a shame. However I don't really think that's the sport's fault, there are very few girls going into karts from the right age. I think the main issue with gener inequality in sport is that for a lot of sports you have to start from a pretty early age and its therefore often based on the parents preferences rather than the child's, a lot of parents just instinctively push their children towards sports they approve of pretty much subconciously, as well as the fact that boys are encouraged to do sport from an early age wheras girls tend to start later and do so on their own initiative putting them at a disadvantage of having fewer years of practice and training.
while i'm all for gender equality in sport it should be genuine not tokenistic. Girls should be at the top levels because they are top level, not because they are girls.

[manic expression]

In the US, girls often begin playing soccer and even basketball at around the same age as boys do...but even then the best women soccer players in the US lose to boys (http://www.theatlantic.com/past/docs/issues/2001/06/stossel-p2.htm) younger than 16.

[Tim Cornelis]

Women are actually not prohibited from playing in "men's leagues". It is legal in professional football/soccer for women to play, for example.

In 2003 Perugia wanted to buy a female player, but she eventually declined.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/football/europe/3093147.stm


German World Cup winner Birgit Prinz is thinking over Perugia's offer to become the first female player in Serie A.

[Drowzy_Shooter]

No way IMO (in specific cases),

A woman/girl/female is probably never going to play pro football (American). As much as I'd love to see it (and trust me, I would :D), it's a scientific fact that women are smaller then men (in general, quite obviously there are many exceptions). This is not offensive to women in any way, it's just nature. And if I was to say that women are just as good at American football as men (at the college+ level), I'd feel like I'd be lying to myself, and to everybody else. That said, most other sports (maybe baseball would be in the same boat, not sure) are equal for women. Soccer, lacrosse, maybe basketball (other then center), lacrosse, and plenty of other sports are sports that women will be just as good as men at.

I will say on the football issue though, I've played american football myself, and have both played against and seen several times girl players. They were all very good, but they still weren't as big as the majority of the guys my age. But at that age (I was 11-12) it really just matters about technique, size doesn't make a huge difference (unless you were like me, and a foot taller then everybody else).

[Psy]

No way IMO (in specific cases),

A woman/girl/female is probably never going to play pro football (American). As much as I'd love to see it (and trust me, I would :D), it's a scientific fact that women are smaller then men (in general, quite obviously there are many exceptions). This is not offensive to women in any way, it's just nature.

Yet the logical solution is to have weight divisions just like how in boxing, you normally don't have boxers fighting outside their weight division. This way you have rules that is not sexists and pits players against their others in own weight class.

[Firebrand]

In the US, girls often begin playing soccer and even basketball at around the same age as boys do...but even then the best women soccer players in the US lose to boys (http://www.theatlantic.com/past/docs/issues/2001/06/stossel-p2.htm) younger than 16.

I don't know about the US. All I know is that over here on the whole boys will be encouraged to do sport by their dads, while girls on the whole won't. Gymnastics is a notable exception, the pro girls tend to start around age 3, but on the whole sports are dominated by boys. Maybe girls over there do worse because they are expected to spend less time practising at an early age.

Something I find slightly strange is the constant equating of physical size with strength and sporting prowess. Some of the toughest people I know have been smaller than me (and i'm on the short side), and in some sports size can actually be a disadvantage, particularly in motor sports since extra weight slows you down.

[Princess Luna]

I don't know about the US. All I know is that over here on the whole boys will be encouraged to do sport by their dads, while girls on the whole won't. Gymnastics is a notable exception, the pro girls tend to start around age 3, but on the whole sports are dominated by boys. Maybe girls over there do worse because they are expected to spend less time practising at an early age.

Something I find slightly strange is the constant equating of physical size with strength and sporting prowess. Some of the toughest people I know have been smaller than me (and i'm on the short side), and in some sports size can actually be a disadvantage, particularly in motor sports since extra weight slows you down.
Speaking of size, does anybody know of the gender ratio in horse racing? It seems women would have a advantage in that, yet there is no doubt men probably make of the vast majority of jockeys.

[MegaBrah]

Women are physically limited compared to their male counterparts as far as athletic pros go, however I really believe this is due to early societal conditionsing, boys run and play football, ride bikes around, play war with sticks, girls are often pressed into the idea of "girly" activities, playing with dolls, drawing, boring shit.

You get some girls who break the mold and you find up till the ages of 10 or 11 they can perform similar feats.

Wether its that the testosterone men produce creates more muscle and stronger bodies, enabling better conditioning I don't know, but the fact is, take MMA, you put a female MMA fighter in with a man she is getting knocked the fuck out, the only female fighter I think could even go a round with a guy in strikeforce or the UFC is cyborg, who just got popped for taking large amounts of steroids.

http://www.examiner.com/images/blog/wysiwyg/image/Cyborg-weighin.jpeg

She beasted Gina C, however when you look at pics of her a few years ago to now, if she was not on the juice she would be nowehere near the level she is at and even at her current roid level, she would not be able to fight a male counterpart without risk of brain matter flying.

[manic expression]

Maybe girls over there do worse because they are expected to spend less time practising at an early age.
Eh, I've known girls who played sports all the time and were encouraged by their parents to do it, but they still could never compete with boys after age 13 at the latest.


Something I find slightly strange is the constant equating of physical size with strength and sporting prowess. Some of the toughest people I know have been smaller than me (and i'm on the short side), and in some sports size can actually be a disadvantage, particularly in motor sports since extra weight slows you down.
It's true that different sports have different roles for different body types, but within those roles physical size does count. And even still, men are on average much faster and quicker than women, so there's no way for women to really compete.

I don't know much about motor sports, though, so I'll let someone else answer that. :D

[Firebrand]

Eh, I've known girls who played sports all the time and were encouraged by their parents to do it, but they still could never compete with boys after age 13 at the latest.
Like i said i'm not an expert, I don't really know any girls who were encouraged to do sports from a really early age. But i have noticed that the expected societal roles for girls and boys shift at puberty, i've found that girls are expected to spend a lot more time socialising in non-physical ways, where for boys sports are a social activity that increases their social standing for girls time spent practicing sport is time spent away from socialising and doing the stuff they are expected to. Having said that i've known plenty of teenage girls that are far far tougher than their male counterparts.



It's true that different sports have different roles for different body types, but within those roles physical size does count. And even still, men are on average much faster and quicker than women, so there's no way for women to really compete.

I'd like some stats on the men are quicker thing. While men may be faster runners that isn't the same as having quicker reflexes. I'm speaking from the position that my younger sister is scarily strong and fast despite being very small so I have reason to be skeptical about the men are stronger and faster because they're bigger argument.

[Princess Luna]

Wether its that the testosterone men produce creates more muscle and stronger bodies, enabling better conditioning I don't know, but the fact is, take MMA, you put a female MMA fighter in with a man she is getting knocked the fuck out, the only female fighter I think could even go a round with a guy in strikeforce or the UFC is cyborg, who just got popped for taking large amounts of steroids.


This 98 year old woman could probably kick the ass of most male MMA fighters, when it comes to martial arts there is a hell of a lot more to it then brute strength.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/08/05/DD181KHUV0.DTL

[MegaBrah]

This 98 year old woman could probably kick the ass of most male MMA fighters, when it comes to martial arts there is a hell of a lot more to it then brute strength.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/08/05/DD181KHUV0.DTL

yeah OK :rolleyes:

you get belts automatically with time, there are black belts in judo who get smashed by white belts at bjj, hence:

Lk2Bboyfdgk

Also you do not become good at MMA if you are not a mixed martial artist, knowing judo, bjj, muay thai or wrestling is not going to help you if thats all you know, also, this aside, a todler could beat that old womans arse wise up, you get belts if your doing somethign that long, based on dedication not skill lol.

[Princess Luna]

yeah OK :rolleyes:

you get belts automatically with time, there are black belts in judo who get smashed by white belts at bjj, hence:

Lk2Bboyfdgk

Also you do not become good at MMA if you are not a mixed martial artist, knowing judo, bjj, muay thai or wrestling is not going to help you if thats all you know, also, this aside, a todler could beat that old womans arse wise up, you get belts if your doing somethign that long, based on dedication not skill lol.
So according to you, I could totally suck at Judo but as long as I live to 98 and make a effort I can get the highest rank, currently only held by 4 people in the whole world? Forgive me if I call bullshit...
She earned her title, yet it was because of sexist assholes who clung to the archaic notion that a women could never reach the highest level of a martial art, that she was 98 when she got it. And even if the kid in that video could beat her, it would be solely because of age not gender

[MegaBrah]

So according to you, I could totally suck at Judo but as long as I live to 98 and make a effort I can get the highest rank, currently only held by 4 people in the whole world? Forgive me if I call bullshit...
She earned her title, yet it was because of sexist assholes who clung to the archaic notion that a women could never reach the highest level of a martial art, that she was 98 when she got it. And even if the kid in that video could beat her, it would be solely because of age not gender

Oh nono, its not because of her gender, an old man would be smashed by a 16 year old girl.

what I am saying is, you have many people who do a sport and get high belts that are no where near good enough to compete at professional level.

This woman could not fight a skinny kid, because she is old as fuck, you said she could beat a pro MMA fighter lol.

Do you have any idea how stupid that comment was to somebody who actually does MMA and a specific MA?

That kid is BJpenn

[manic expression]

Like i said i'm not an expert, I don't really know any girls who were encouraged to do sports from a really early age. But i have noticed that the expected societal roles for girls and boys shift at puberty, i've found that girls are expected to spend a lot more time socialising in non-physical ways, where for boys sports are a social activity that increases their social standing for girls time spent practicing sport is time spent away from socialising and doing the stuff they are expected to. Having said that i've known plenty of teenage girls that are far far tougher than their male counterparts.
Yeah, I imagine it changes from place to place, I'm not saying you're wrong it's just I've seen something different from when I was younger. There were plenty of so-called "tomgirls" in my schools who could athletically compete with boys for a bit, but by age 12-13 it wasn't even close.


I'd like some stats on the men are quicker thing. While men may be faster runners that isn't the same as having quicker reflexes. I'm speaking from the position that my younger sister is scarily strong and fast despite being very small so I have reason to be skeptical about the men are stronger and faster because they're bigger argument.
The thing is it's not so easy to measure "quickness", especially since it almost always involves prior movement. The only real way to see is to go watch boys' and girls' teams of similar age practice at the same sport...or if you want just watch the WNBA and compare it to high school mens' basketball. Also, this is pretty interesting (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TGzudKBHR2w)...

[manic expression]

This 98 year old woman could probably kick the ass of most male MMA fighters,
Really? :blink: Are you really claiming that?

[MegaBrah]

I get my ass handed to me at jiu jitsu by a 90 pound asian woman, however she is an ex kickboxing champion so I feel she may have an aptitude for such things, men seem terrified to grapple with women incase they touch their breasts or ass, it sounds stupid but it is scary for some reason, its like your scared she will think your a pervert, but i think its natural to feel this way when sparring with women is such a rare event.

[Princess Luna]

Really? :blink: Are you really claiming that?

I know next to nothing about martial arts, so I was operating under the assumption that someone who is the one of 4 top masters in their particular field, would be able to hold their own against your average MMA fighter even in old age.

[MegaBrah]

I know next to nothing about martial arts, so I was operating under the assumption that someone who is the one of 4 top masters in their particular field, would be able to hold their own against your average MMA fighter even in old age.

Not how it works homie. Royce Gracie dominated UFC when it was a style v style, He returned when it evolved to MMA and got smashed, now imagine an old woman in their LOL :lol:

Eould be hella big pay per view numbers though, suicide by MMA. I would watch.

[Princess Luna]

Back to the original topic of this thread, the best thing to do is to divide sports based on physical capabilities not gender. If what several people are saying, that men are better at some sports then women, is true then it will naturally show. But the way things currently are with most sports is unfair because they don't even give women a chance to prove themselves. I would also argue, that certain sports are considered the epitome of masculinity in western countries and that plays a major role, physical abilities aside, in keeping sports gender segregated.

[MegaBrah]

Agreed, however, for example, my dads cousin had a daughter who played for the natonal under 21 side, she was awesome in the womens league but would never be good enough for a mens team.

You seen womens football it is shocking, the keepers are especially terrible, wether this is due to lack of funding or training I don't know, but there seems a massive gulf.

Anyway the point is, if you do integrate the sports, then these people would not be able to compete and would therfore not be able to do it for a living or you would have 99.9 percent of all athletes being men, which is unfair as fuck.

[Firebrand]

Yeah, I imagine it changes from place to place, I'm not saying you're wrong it's just I've seen something different from when I was younger. There were plenty of so-called "tomgirls" in my schools who could athletically compete with boys for a bit, but by age 12-13 it wasn't even close.


The thing is it's not so easy to measure "quickness", especially since it almost always involves prior movement. The only real way to see is to go watch boys' and girls' teams of similar age practice at the same sport...or if you want just watch the WNBA and compare it to high school mens' basketball. Also, this is pretty interesting (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TGzudKBHR2w)...

I dunno, i'm not really into basketball, safe to say i've never watched a game in my life. It's not a big thing over here, i'm alright on football (not american football), but I wouldn't say i'm an expert, I have known some pretty good girl players though who've never tried to take it anywhere professional because they can't play in the leagues that people actually watch and they'd get paid rubbish. I can see why you'd need a gender divide in stuff like rugby or american football because they're so based on physically overpowering your opponant with body mass, but with things like ordinary football, while girls would be at a disadvantage and there would probably be fewer of them there is no reason that no girl could reach the required level.
With motorsports i firmly believe that the main reason theres so few girls is because the people that do it started very early when their dad took them karting, and fewer men do that with girls.
In gymnastics girls pretty much dominate, probably because more parents take their 3 year old girls than their three year old oys to do it, and because its the strength compared to body mass ratio thats important not the strength plus body mass total.

[GiantMonkeyMan]

I like the concept of sports having weight categories in order to allow sportspersons, whether male, female or otherwise, to compete altogether. Sounds like an excellent alternative to having simply two options based on archaic detirminations of gender.

There must be something said about funding in sport, however. Currently, male dominated sports are far better funded with huge advertising deals and a lot of money going into facilities, equipment and training etc. At the same time, media outlets focus almost entirely on male-dominated sports so coverage of females in sport is far diminished.

[Prismane]

Is gender segregated sports sexist?
No, it isn't. In sports that involve strength, speed, and other such attributes, the fact is that male athletes have an advantage over female athletes.


To me it kinda looks like it is as people of a certain gender are prohibited from competing in a sport just because it is a womens sport or mens sport.
There aren't any major sports designated solely for men or solely for women.. Football, gymnastics, sprinting, swimming, etc all have separate competitions for both genders. It would be problematic to exclude women from sports, but I don't see anything "sexist" about separating them.



Yet the logical solution is to have weight divisions just like how in boxing, you normally don't have boxers fighting outside their weight division. This way you have rules that is not sexists and pits players against their others in own weight class.

What? How would you make this work in football? You wold separate 130-pound attacking midfielder Mario Gotze and 200-pound defender Gerard Pique into different weight classes? That goes against the whole strategy of the game, which is to put fast, nimble, tricky players on the wings and tall, muscular players at center-back or defensive midfielder.


Soccer, lacrosse, maybe basketball (other then center), lacrosse, and plenty of other sports are sports that women will be just as good as men at.
I would disagree. In professional basketball, the women players aren't even tall enough to dunk. They are at a major disadvantage solely because of size.

In football, the very best women players play are amateurs compared to the best males. I would bet that the Japanese women's team would get be convincingly defeated by one of the U-17 men's teams.

[isaacston]

They're actually frequently discriminatory towards trans* folks, as well.

[arilando]

No, it isn't. In sports that involve strength, speed, and other such attributes, the fact is that male athletes have an advantage over female athletes.


There aren't any major sports designated solely for men or solely for women.. Football, gymnastics, sprinting, swimming, etc all have separate competitions for both genders. It would be problematic to exclude women from sports, but I don't see anything "sexist" about separating them.




What? How would you make this work in football? You wold separate 130-pound attacking midfielder Mario Gotze and 200-pound defender Gerard Pique into different weight classes? That goes against the whole strategy of the game, which is to put fast, nimble, tricky players on the wings and tall, muscular players at center-back or defensive midfielder.


I would disagree. In professional basketball, the women players aren't even tall enough to dunk. They are at a major disadvantage solely because of size.

In football, the very best women players play are amateurs compared to the best males. I would bet that the Japanese women's team would get be convincingly defeated by one of the U-17 men's teams.
How do you know this is't due to less funding for and inferior training for female sports teams?

[black magick hustla]

sexism is part of it but i don't think it is the whole story. men in general are stronger because of biological reasons. it is the same reason why there are weight categories in sports. if powerlifting was only one category, the heaviest guys would dominate, and nobody from lower weights would be able to shine. if football teams were mixed, the best players would almost always be men.

[Manic Impressive]

How do you know this is't due to less funding for and inferior training for female sports teams?
It's not just that, it's also that females are told that sport isn't for them from a very young age and by the time they hit secondary school they're banned from competing seriously on the same level. I wrote a fairly long article on Women's football in the UK and how it had to be suppressed by the establishment. At the end I write "We can only imagine what might have been if the women's game had been supported and promoted as vigorously as the men's game."
Little boys are pushed into playing sport at a young age little girls are actively discouraged once they hit a certain age. Some opinions on the potential physicality of women echo those of the early 20th century doctors who said that women couldn't play football.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/history-womens-football-t156008/index.html?t=156008

We could even look at more physical sports like Rugby where contact is essential. Take a look at Shane Williams Wales's highest ever try scorer 5'7 and 12 stone. I see no reason that a woman of the same size shouldn't be able to compete with him physically.

[Sasha]

If you ask me one of the dumbest things in all of sports is the difference between men and women's lacrosse. They should do away with the difference and let women play the game with men's rules.


Basketball takes all sorts of upper body strength, as well as height. Once you get past the small forward position "speed and agility" really takes a backseat. Soccer also has a lot to do with physical presence especially on set pieces and midfield battles but elsewhere too. Even with something like tennis that's arguably as mental as it is physical, the physical differences make it such that women can't compete with men on the higher levels (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karsten_Braasch).

This is actually not true and there is research to proof it.
There are several problems related to training and sexism that are fundamental at this misconception.
some are obvious like the different rules that are for the women and men versions of sports. For example female professional soccer an basketball they need to play with a ball that's considerably lighter than in the male version (and I believe female runners run shorter distances and female tenisplayers have fever sets in a match) so all their training is done with this lighter ball/distance/amount of sets/etc, if then there is finally a test or match between males and females the default is to use the male standart, with obvious results of course. If one uses the female standard the results in general favor the females, this proofs it has more to do with training and expertise than "born with" superior strength. This is also shown by the experiment where men and women throw a baseball, with their dominant hand average males throw further than average females, but interestingly enough if you ask them to throw with their NONdominant hand the difference becomes insignificant.
Other factors are the amount of professional athletes competing, the fact that female athletes often compete in non-pro sports or for lesser pay, lots of sports only recently let's women compete and girls in general are not pushed like boys to do (male dominated) sports lead to a smaller and weaker field of athletes with thus less "talents" , poorer training/trainers/equipment/other training facilities and a smaller push/lower barriers. A sporting female trains to be better than all other females not better than all humans.
for example the female world champion pole vaulting has during traing shown she can easily compete in the top male field, during official matches she has chosen though not to jump the best she can (that would set a bar the rest of the female field has no hope in breaking the coming decades) but to break the world record only a centimeter each match. Why? She desperately needs the money bonus each "breaking" of the world record she gets, in big part because she can't get decent paying sponsors.
And this sponsor problem is really big for lots of female athletes, I have a colleage bouncer who probably was one of the best female boxers in the world, cerainly better than Ali's daughter and all the other, pretty faces in female professional boxing. But she is a butch dyke and so never got any pro matches offered nor worthwhile sponsorships. Don king even turned her down with, and I quote "your just not playboy material" Female atlethes in male sports are judged on their looks first skills second, even the women who compete worthwhile on the highest level in longtime mixed sports or mixed sports where physical appearance should be irrelevant are treated very sexist (i'm looking at you NASCAR).
Lastly, and this is harder to proof that this is a consequence of sexist society and not "genetics" or other inherent differences between men and women exactly because of the all present sexism in our society, there is the issue of confidence, self image and expectancy. A few years ago i saw this BBC program where they gave males and females the task to knock a egg of a pole with a huge digging machine without hitting the pole. Non of the test subjects ever worked with that kind of machinery before. Yet almost all the males, clenched their jaws, concentrated and just went for it looking as confidently as they could while almost all the females already started with proclaiming "but I cant do that!", giggling and screaming and jerking the control handles like they would catch cooties from them. The only female who performed better than most males was again a butch motorcycle driving dyke and the only male who performed on par with the average female was a flaming queen...

[Sasha]

I see now thar manic impressive and others already touched on lots of the stuff i mentioned in my post, sorry if I sounded repetive, i dint read the rest of the thread before banging out my post.

[manic expression]

@psycho, no worries, my apologies if I'm getting repetitious myself :)


This is actually not true and there is research to proof it.
There are several problems related to training and sexism that are fundamental at this misconception.
some are obvious like the different rules that are for the women and men versions of sports. For example female professional soccer an basketball they need to play with a ball that's considerably lighter than in the male version (and I believe female runners run shorter distances and female tenisplayers have fever sets in a match) so all their training is done with this lighter ball/distance/amount of sets/etc, if then there is finally a test or match between males and females the default is to use the male standart, with obvious results of course. If one uses the female standard the results in general favor the females, this proofs it has more to do with training and expertise than "born with" superior strength.
Back when I played basketball you'd use a female-size ball if it was the only one around and it would throw you off for awhile but you'd get used to it within a day. And anyway, women's college bball teams have something called "practice teams" of guys who would never be able to sniff benchtime for men's JV and yet they're more than a match (http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/11_12/b4220088463082.htm) for the school's best female players. Look at the link, the #1 women's basketball team in the country is matched up by some guys no one's ever heard of or will ever hear of...and they're not using men's sized basketballs. Put the best men in college basketball vs the best women in college basketball and it'd be a rout no matter what size ball you use.


This is also shown by the experiment where men and women throw a baseball, with their dominant hand average males throw further than average females, but interestingly enough if you ask them to throw with their NONdominant hand the difference becomes insignificant.Because neither of them ever use that arm for what they're trying to use it for. Give them a year to train with that arm and then you'll start seeing a difference again. It's like saying women are just as fast runners as men because they have roughly the same times in the 10 meter handstand walk.


Female atlethes in male sports are judged on their looks first skills second,Martina Navratilova and Michelle Akers weren't successful because of their looks.

One of the reasons women's sports get less support on the pro, semi-pro and amateur levels is because they're not as fast, hard-hitting, etc as the men's sports.


Lastly, and this is harder to proof that this is a consequence of sexist society and not "genetics" or other inherent differences between men and women exactly because of the all present sexism in our society, there is the issue of confidence, self image and expectancy.I can't agree, I've played against men and women and anyone who's passionate about what they do is confident and focused on the field/court/whathaveyou. If they're not then that's on them, and any athlete understands that.


Little boys are pushed into playing sport at a young age little girls are actively discouraged once they hit a certain age.
Not true...in the US at least girls are generally encouraged to keep playing sports all the way through college and the stats show it. The huge "gender gap" is still undeniably there.


We could even look at more physical sports like Rugby where contact is essential. Take a look at Shane Williams Wales's highest ever try scorer 5'7 and 12 stone. I see no reason that a woman of the same size shouldn't be able to compete with him physically.You honestly think that would end well?

[hatzel]

What happens at school, during PE lessons? Do the girls and boys play football (as in soccer) or hockey (as in field hockey) together or on different teams? I assume this differs in different schools and at different ages, as well as in different sports. What is the result of this? Do men consistently outperform women at this level? I don't personally know, actually, because we didn't have professional statisticians on hand to analyse our performance when I was at school...but even if this were the case, an arguably more important question arises: would organising the teams so that each has, for example, 5 men and 5 women (influenced by mixed doubles pairings in tennis, badminton etc., where men and women play alongside one another in such a way that each competitor's various strengths and weaknesses are accounted for), make the game any less enjoyable for any of the players? Would the men complain that the presence of women drags the quality of the match down? Would the women complain that they cannot keep up with the intensity of play?

When the weather is nice I like to play football or cricket in the park, and the teams generally include both men and women. I am yet to find that the presence of women in the teams makes the game any less enjoyable, nor any less of a workout; I am - believe it or not - yet to fly into a rage, "woman! Why don't you run down the flank more quickly?!" or "woman! Why don't you hit the ball further?!" And if it did happen that a woman (or a man, of course) couldn't run down the flank particularly quickly, they would probably play in a different position, or at least change their style of play, and somebody who can't hit it for six on every ball would probably use more tactical and defensive shots...

If there is a difference in average quality between the group 'men' and the group 'women,' I am yet to have found it at all significant. I don't know that those at the very top of their game in certain (though definitely not all) sports would feel the same, of course, where even the most marginal of differences in ability, pace, strength etc. can be hugely significant, the difference between success and failure, and perhaps they would feel that either the quality of the game is compromised, or they are deprived of the opportunity to realistically compete at the highest level. I wouldn't want to force Florence Griffith-Joyner at her prime to enter into men's races, for example, knowing that her world record times for the 100m and the 200m wouldn't even get her through the heats at the Olympic Games, let alone put her in contention for a medal. She could have won gold if she'd somehow entered into a time-warp and run those times in 1956, though...admittedly that was the slowest Olympic 100m final since 1928, but I think there's a point there that still stands. Nor would I want to wholly abolish women's football teams if that meant only a couple of the most exceptional players would get regular first-team football, whilst the rest spend their time sitting on the bench or playing with the reserves. Those exceptional players, however, should certainly be given the opportunity to ply their trade amongst the boys...

Perhaps these are the kinds of issues that play on the minds of top-class athletes, but it definitely isn't remotely important to the rest of us, who are generally more than happy to go out for a kick-about knowing that we probably won't come up against Brazil's 1970 World Cup squad...

Another pertinent question: "should musicians of varying levels of ability be permitted to play in the same folk band?"

[Sasha]

Female tennis I at least as fast and hard hitting as male, and whether that is down to that or the short skirts and orgasm grunts also more viewed. Yet still they only got last year equal pay in the grandslam price money and still poorer sponsirship deals..

[manic expression]

Female tennis I at least as fast and hard hitting as male, and whether that is down to that or the short skirts and orgasm grunts also more viewed. Yet still they only got last year equal pay in the grandslam price money and still poorer sponsirship deals..
No...compare 1st and 2nd serve speeds, compare sprinting speed of the top players...there's no comparison, men's tennis is faster and harder, shots that would be winners in women's tennis are easily returned in men's.

On money, women's tennis stars have been raking in millions for years, this isn't a matter of the sport not being supported...they swim in money.