Have ye read this absolute tripe?

lainey_d_123 · 09-03-2019 4:46pm

Naos wrote: »

How is it missing the point? If I am watching an event then I want to watch the best athletes in the world do it. If that so happens to be a woman then fair play. My question was straight forward yet you won't answer it for some reason?

Did you even read what I wrote? Firstly, I already gave credited to female athletes and stated their skills & athleticisim was very impressive. Secondly, I propositioned a question taking gender out of the equation - why don't you answer it?

Because you're not comparing like with like. Can you not appreciate a cycling race because they don't go as fast as F1 cars? Men race other men and women race other women. Both are exciting to watch.

Spleerbun · 09-03-2019 4:47pm

lainey_d_123 wrote: »

Because you're not comparing like with like. Can you not appreciate a cycling race because they don't go as fast as F1 cars? Men race other men and women race other women. Both are exciting to watch.

That is a terrible argument and not remotely what the other poster is saying. It is you who is missing the point, most likely deliberately

Spleerbun · 09-03-2019 4:49pm

martingriff wrote: »

My point was in his point it is faster as if a second is an eternity in WATCHING IT

It's a huge difference in quality. People will want to watch the best. In 100m sprints, the best means the fastest.

Naos · 09-03-2019 4:49pm

lainey_d_123 wrote: »

Because you're not comparing like with like. Can you not appreciate a cycling race because they don't go as fast as F1 cars? Men race other men and women race other women. Both are exciting to watch.

Cycling and F1 are two entirely different sports, the comparison is absurd.

Men and women 100m or rugby or cycling have the same objectives, same equipment, same course etc. So I am removing one thing, gender - everything else is remaining the same.

Why cant't you answer my very simple question? Would you rather watch the top 11-20 sprinters in the world race or the top 1-10 sprinters race?

You're essentially telling me to watch something just because women are competing, not because it deserves to be watched for the actual sporting merit.

Wibbs · 09-03-2019 4:52pm

jam_mac_jam wrote: »

Yeah being a woman is all about expensive shampoo, selfies and celebrities...Jesus christ...how about not writing patronising articles for women's day.

+1000. Thing is J, it's aimed at women who are those stereotypes. Much of modern so called "feminism" are the whinges of white suburban middle class arts degree women.

Naos · 09-03-2019 4:53pm

Spleerbun wrote: »

That is a terrible argument and not remotely what the other poster is saying. It is you who is missing the point, most likely deliberately

Spleerbun wrote: »

It's a huge difference in quality. People will want to watch the best. In 100m sprints, the best means the fastest.

I really have no idea how this is going over their head. I want to watch the best, I do not care if the best is male or the best is female.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts · 09-03-2019 4:55pm

Naos wrote: »

Okay let's try this, since you brought up sprinting tell me: The objective is to get from the starting line to the 100m finish line as quickly as you can.

Taking gender out of the equation, would you rather watch the top 11-20 sprinters in the world race or the top 1-10 sprinters in the world race?

The race with the 11-20 fastest sprinters might be more interesting. I’ve watched a lot of athletics. SO many factors go into what makes a race a classic. So I’d watch both with equal interest. Everyone involved is still really, really fast.

I’ve watched female finals at the Olympics that were more gripping than the male equivalent. When everyone in the race is on more-or-less a level playing field, that variable is removed so you look to other things.

Even in a race as short as the 100m sprint, things like form, a quick start or a quick finish can all make a difference. The 11-20 race might deliver more interest than the 1-10 race. Many of the men’s 100m finals of the last decade have been snoozefests because of the dominance of one individual. Whereas the women’s 100m have sometimes been more gripping. If they still did B finals, maybe some of the men’s 100m B finals would have been better from a viewer perspective.

I have no idea if my views are shared by many. I can only tell you what I like about watching athletics. And swimming, for which I would make the same points. My favourite swimming finals from Rio were the women’s 200m backstroke and women’s 100m freestyle. The men’s equivalent finals were faster but nowhere near as exciting.

lainey_d_123 · 09-03-2019 4:56pm

Naos wrote: »

Cycling and F1 are two entirely different sports, the comparison is absurd.

Men and women 100m or rugby or cycling have the same objectives, same equipment, same course etc. So I am removing one thing, gender - everything else is remaining the same.

Why cant't you answer my very simple question? Would you rather watch the top 11-20 sprinters in the world race or the top 1-10 sprinters race?

You're essentially telling me to watch something just because women are competing, not because it deserves to be watched for the actual sporting merit.

But it isn't the same. Men and women are built very differently. What you're saying is like saying certain weight classes of boxing are pointless to watch because the bigger guys are more powerful. So what? Your obsession with speed and power is making you look incredibly narrow minded, tbh. I don't see 'sprinters' as a whole, I see male and female sprinting as separate sports, just like male and female gymnastics are separate sports. Why can't you appreciate both?

podmu80 · 09-03-2019 4:56pm

You're essentially telling me to watch something just because women are competing, not because it deserves to be watched for the actual sporting merit.[/quote]

Being told to watch women in sport is one thing. But being instructed to vote for women, for no other reason than they are women, is beyond ridiculous. How is that equality?
How about we judge politicians on policy, not identity.

lainey_d_123 · 09-03-2019 4:57pm

Naos wrote: »

I really have no idea how this is going over their head. I want to watch the best, I do not care if the best is male or the best is female.

It's like saying: You have a choice between two cakes. One was baked by a man and one was baked by a woman. The male baker is the superior baker. Why would you ever pick the female bakers cake?

'Superior' is subjective!!! This is what you're failing to understand. Maybe you think speed and power are the be all and end all of all sports. I certainly don't.

podmu80 · 09-03-2019 4:58pm

lainey_d_123 wrote: »

Naos wrote: »

Cycling and F1 are two entirely different sports, the comparison is absurd.

Men and women 100m or rugby or cycling have the same objectives, same equipment, same course etc. So I am removing one thing, gender - everything else is remaining the same.

Why cant't you answer my very simple question? Would you rather watch the top 11-20 sprinters in the world race or the top 1-10 sprinters race?

You're essentially telling me to watch something just because women are competing, not because it deserves to be watched for the actual sporting merit.

But it isn't the same. Men and women are built very differently. What you're saying is like saying certain weight classes of boxing are pointless to watch because the bigger guys are more powerful. So what? Your obsession with speed and power is making you look incredibly narrow minded, tbh. I don't see 'sprinters' as a whole, I see male and female sprinting as separate sports, just like male and female gymnastics are separate sports. Why can't you appreciate both?

I don't think anyone said they don't appreciate both. Just that the male version is more impressive. I don't see any problem with that.

dxhound2005 · 09-03-2019 5:01pm

I can't recall seeing an athletics meeting on TV which was either all male or all female. Certainly not at the Olympics or Athlectic World Championships. So the question doesn't arise there for spectators to make a choice.

But if Ireland was playing an international football or rugby game, the men's event would get more spectators.

wobatkicker23 · 09-03-2019 5:01pm

lainey_d_123 wrote: »

But it isn't the same. Men and women are built very differently. What you're saying is like saying certain weight classes of boxing are pointless to watch because the bigger guys are more powerful. So what? Your obsession with speed and power is making you look incredibly narrow minded, tbh. I don't see 'sprinters' as a whole, I see male and female sprinting as separate sports, just like male and female gymnastics are separate sports. Why can't you appreciate both?

The boxing point is nonsensical. Smaller boxers are normally faster and more skillful. Then watch the heavies for the power and higher knockout rates.

Whereas women have no advantage physically or mentally in any department.

lainey_d_123 · 09-03-2019 5:02pm

wobatkicker23 wrote: »

The boxing point is nonsensical. Smaller boxers are normally faster and more skillful. Then watch the heavies for the power and higher knockout rates.

Whereas women have no advantage physically or mentally in any department.

So you're just a sexist. Thanks for getting that out of the way.

wobatkicker23 · 09-03-2019 5:03pm

lainey_d_123 wrote: »

'Superior' is subjective!!! This is what you're failing to understand. Maybe you think speed and power are the be all and end all of all sports. I certainly don't.

Superior is not subjective? Are you honestly saying Premier league soccer is not superior to under 12s schoolboy’s league because of the differing physical states?

wobatkicker23 · 09-03-2019 5:04pm

lainey_d_123 wrote: »

So you're just a sexist. Thanks for getting that out of the way.

Ignore the part where your incredibly idiotic boxing point was called out.

givyjoe · 09-03-2019 5:04pm

Naos wrote: »

How is it total ****e? Yes, female gymnasts have very impressive skills and are extremely athletic.

Equally, female sprinters and hurdlers are impressive but not as impressive as the men, because men can run and finish the race faster in both events.

How dare.you, that's sexist.

Spleerbun · 09-03-2019 5:06pm

Can't counter somebody's argument, fall back on the old reliable: call them an "ist". Classic

Paddy Cow · 09-03-2019 5:06pm

lainey_d_123 wrote: »

And if we don't wear make-up, we're accused of not making an effort. You can't f**king win.

I don't wear makeup and the only people who've ever commented on it have been women.

One eyed Jack · 09-03-2019 5:06pm

Potential-Monke wrote: »

So yesterday, being International Womens Day, gave rise to the permanently offended feminists to have a voice. Usually, I ignore them. I'm all for equality, as long as it means equal. But this was brought to my attention by a colleague. 30 reasons why men are misogynists. That's not the article name, but it should be.

OP you’re as bad as the same people you’re criticising for the same thing - you’re literally taking offence where none was intended, and getting your knickers in a bunch over nothing.

That’s not the name of the article, because the article isn’t aimed at men generally. It’s aimed at men who consider themselves “allies of women”, says so in the first paragraph and all (which I know you read, same as I did, because you had to read the list to be offended by it) -

Some of our woes are outside of our control – period cramps, unsatisfactory hosiery, menopause – but others are easily ameliorated.

Men, that’s where you come in. As we celebrate International Women’s Day, some men out there might be asking themselves, “Am I being a true male ally? Is there anything I can do to make women’s lives easier?”

Hand on heart, I have never asked myself that question, it has never occurred to me, because I don’t give a shiny shyte for feminism, let alone trying to appear more virtuous as a feminist than women themselves! :pac:

Naos · 09-03-2019 5:07pm

wobatkicker23 wrote: »

Superior is not subjective? Are you honestly saying Premier league soccer is not superior to under 12s schoolboy’s league because of the differing physical states?

To add to this, by the very nature of the vast majority of competitive sport, where the result is not determined by judges, then superiority (physically or mentally) is not subjective.

You either score more goals / run faster / swim harder / drive quicker / whatever than the next best person and you win.

scamalert · 09-03-2019 5:08pm

lainey_d_123 wrote: »

So you're just a sexist. Thanks for getting that out of the way.

i think he meant men in general are more muscular where women are more sanwhich making material :pac:

jokes aside thai women kick boxers would prove anyone wrong

remember jackass.

Goose76 · 09-03-2019 5:09pm

Sardonicat wrote: »

I find that article to be misogynistic .

I'm a woman. Who TF is Cardi B? Am I supposed to know that because I'm female. Am I supposed to be inyerested in celebrity gossip or something? I've never spent more than a few quid on toiletries in my life. I've never taken a selfie and have no idea what my light is.

An article written on IW day basically reducing women to stupid, vain and celebrity obsessed and men to inconsiderate, uncouth morons.

As a female, I 100% agree.

I'm nearly 30 and I still find there to be enormous pressure for women to be obsessed with celebrity culture and beauty products, etc etc. I would have thought that sh1te would have stopped after my mid-teens, but no. Needless to say, all the pressure comes from other women.

Genuinely think an article listing 30 ways women can be better towards other women would be much more useful.

Ps: who the hell is Carrie B?

lainey_d_123 · 09-03-2019 5:10pm

wobatkicker23 wrote: »

Superior is not subjective? Are you honestly saying Premier league soccer is not superior to under 12s schoolboy’s league because of the differing physical states?

So you're whingeing about me comparing different weight classes in boxing, but you're comparing elite sport to school sport? Hilarious.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts · 09-03-2019 5:13pm

Naos wrote: »

To add to this, by the very nature of the vast majority of competitive sport, where the result is not determined by judges, then superiority (physically or mentally) is not subjective.

You either score more goals / run faster / swim harder / drive quicker / whatever than the next best person and you win.

Yes, and within races, how that win is achieved is the entertainment. It doesn’t matter that someone in an equivalent race of the opposite gender did it faster. Each race is a microcosm. You’re not going to think “What an insane comeback and finish but some dude ran faster yesterday so what just happened wasn’t entertaining!”. The faster race may have been duller, if someone dominated it.

lainey_d_123 · 09-03-2019 5:13pm

Goose76 wrote: »

As a female, I 100% agree.

I'm nearly 30 and I still find there to be enormous pressure for women to be obsessed with celebrity culture and beauty products, etc etc. I would have thought that sh1te would have stopped after my mid-teens, but no. Needless to say, all the pressure comes from other women.

Genuinely think an article listing 30 ways women can be better towards other women would be much more useful.

Ps: who the hell is Carrie B?

I still remember the office full of basic women who b1tched behind my back that I was 'boring' because my interests were sports, travel, languages, aviation, etc. instead of celebrity magazines and acrylic nails. They truly believed that I was the one with the problem. Apparently they were really vicious one time I'd mentioned going to meet someone to have a language exchange with after work. That apparently was really sad and pathetic, whereas spending hours talking nastily about other people and celebrity gossip is grand

dxhound2005 · 09-03-2019 5:13pm

lainey_d_123 wrote: »

So you're whingeing about me comparing different weight classes in boxing, but you're comparing elite sport to school sport? Hilarious.

I like your sense of humour.

Sardonicat · 09-03-2019 5:14pm

Goose76 wrote: »

Ps: who the hell is Carrie B?

Goose, you bring hope to an old Moggy's heart.
As to who that person(?) is; we don't care, Gosling. And we're better for it, trust me.

wobatkicker23 · 09-03-2019 5:15pm

lainey_d_123 wrote: »

So you're whingeing about me comparing different weight classes in boxing, but you're comparing elite sport to school sport? Hilarious.

Comparing women’s and men’s soccer is the same as comparing women’s soccer to men’s schoolboy soccer.

Your allusion to the boxing comparison doesn’t work as my point was the lighter boxers do some things better then the heavier boxers. Female soccer players do nothing, not one thing better then male soccer players.

Logic not your strongpoint I’m guessing?

Or am I mansplaining?

givyjoe · 09-03-2019 5:17pm

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Yes, and within races, how that win is achieved is the entertainment. It doesn’t matter that someone in an equivalent race of the opposite gender did it faster. Each race is a microcosm. You’re not going to think “What an insane comeback and finish but some dude ran faster yesterday so what just happened wasn’t entertaining!”. The faster race may have been duller, if someone dominated it.

Why do you think men's sport is infinitely more popular, among men AND women?

People want to watch the best of the best, simple. Testosterone is the reason why in almost every sport, this is men. If women's sport is so interesting, why will there be tens of thousands of women at the next Ireland men's rugby match, and not at the next women's game?

Have ye read this absolute tripe?

Comments