nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Why don't more sports have men and women competing equally

quickbeam

The only ones I can think of are horse racing and showjumping.

Obviously, sports which require strength will never be possible to have the genders competing together as it's not sexist to say that the average male will always be stronger than the average female. So I can understand why they don't compete together in boxing, soccer, rugby, tennis, athletics, etc.

But surely they could compete together is less physically demanding sports: snooker, golf, darts, curling, etc. Maybe even things like motor sports, or cricket.

So, is it time to merge some sports so we can all compete together?

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Yurt2

riffmongous wrote: »

What's your point exactly? Fox continued to compete professionally after it was common knowledge she used to be a man and she hasnt exactly gone on to dominate womens mma either

The point is that she shouldn't be competing against women despite her transition. The only woman to beat her -despite her taking the fight - doesn't even believe she should be competing against women. The commissions licensing her to fight are fuelling a freakshow (just to be clear I am NOT calling her a freak). It's bad for the sport and nobody learns anything by having someone with a male adult frame beating on women. I'm certainly not entertained by it.

raze_them_all_

riffmongous wrote: »

What's your point exactly? Fox continued to compete professionally after it was common knowledge she used to be a man and she hasnt exactly gone on to dominate womens mma either

that's cos she's utter ****e the only advantage she has is the power she has and developed as a man and the frame and bone density it brought

nc19 wrote: »

Theo Walcot isn't that big in fairness....

either is messi, yet no woman could hold a torch to him if he was 65

quickbeam

nullzero wrote: »

Here's an idea, would you want to watch a woman fight a man in a ring?
No, and why is that?
The physical differences are too pronounced. Female sports people are every bit as dedicated as their male counterparts and deserve the same respect but competing equally in all sports isn't the best of ideas for seemingly obvious reasons.

I said in the OP that there's obviously some sports where the genders couldn't compete against each other. I'm talking about those sports where it is, or could be, possible.

riffmongous wrote: »

Cricket is actually pretty physically demanding, you might not have body to body contact but the ball can break bones or with some bad luck, kill

But a man could break a bone or get killed (just look at poor Phil Hughes) just as easily so why the separation of the genders? Maybe strength does come in to play in cricket, but using the argument that a woman could break a bone as an excuse doesn't really cut it.

raze_them_all_

quickbeam wrote: »

I said in the OP that there's obviously some sports where the genders couldn't compete against each other. I'm talking about those sports where it is, or could be, possible.

But a man could break a bone or get killed (just look at poor Phil Hughes) just as easily so why the separation of the genders? Maybe strength does come in to play in cricket, but using the argument that a woman could break a bone as an excuse doesn't really cut it.

The men in cricket will bowl the ball a **** ton faster than any female has faced before

quickbeam

Good to know there's women coming up in F1 (even if it's only test driving) and snooker though.

Another similarly related question - why no female soccer mangers of male playing teams? That doesn't require any physical strength to do.

(I do remember Cheri Lunghi in a TV series called the Manageress back in the 90s).

It wasn't me!

It used to be the case that men and women competed side by side in Olympic shooting. I'm still not sure why this hasn't continued. Part of me thinks that guys wouldn't take so kindly to being beaten by women... Realistically it's probably to retain the maximum number of events at an Olympic games though for exposure purposes, but still, the cynic in me wonders...

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Nwm2 wrote: »

Read my post again, a bit slower this time, and you will see that I don't.

I never commented on getting paid, I said prize money. You then asked me about wages - I never mentioned wages in my original post. You changing the topic of conversation doesn't mean I haven't read it.

Plryty

Even with the rampant use of performance enhancing drugs to level the playing field against innate genetic outliers & men's natural hormonal profile, female athletes still cannot compete against men.

Female Chinese super weight Olympic lifter Lulu for example has a whopping clean, jerk & snatch record for a female. But compared to the males, she doesn't.

It is fairer to allow healthy competition amongst the genders individually. Even so in less physically demanding sports, I'm fairly sure it's shown that men have far faster reaction times & other essential skills required of the sport. Saying, it's because women aren't promoted to do sports is just an insult & belittling to females who have achieved astonishing results, which you or I couldn't perform.

Cookie_Monster

salmocab wrote: »

cricket? cricket is a sport that relies on a lot of power. I have wondered in the past how there aren't more women in top motorsports and other games that are almost exclusively about skill darts and snooker being the obvious ones.

high level motorsport requires extreme fitness and very strong muscle mass to counter g forces. For the most part women cant build that same muscle mass. Danica Patrick competes in Nascar though.

There are a couple of women test drivers in F1 too but their results are terrible and they're only there on money or political reasons rather than all out talent

Nwm2

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

I never commented on getting paid, I said prize money. You then asked me about wages - I never mentioned wages in my original post. You changing the topic of conversation doesn't mean I haven't read it.

You said I confused wages and prize money, where I clearly didn't as I was explicit in dealing with both. Now you're saying I'm changing the topic, which again clearly I'm not. I expanded (slightly) the scope - purposely, as that highlights the difficulties with this 'fairness' argument.

I was quite clear that whether it's prize money or wages, the amount of money to be awarded depends primarily on the amount raised. If, for example, the male version of a sport raises 10 times more money than the female version, I don't see why the monetary reward should be the same.

donspeekinglesh

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

high level motorsport requires extreme fitness and very strong muscle mass to counter g forces. For the most part women cant build that same muscle mass. Danica Patrick competes in Nascar though.

There are a couple of women test drivers in F1 too but their results are terrible and they're only there on money or political reasons rather than all out talent

The way F1 is in recent years you can say the same about a lot of the male drivers.

the only reason there aren't many women competing near the top levels of motorsport is there aren't enough competing at the lower levels. For every driver that makes it to the top there are thousands who've failed along the way.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Nwm2 wrote: »

You said I confused wages and prize money, where I clearly didn't as I was explicit in dealing with both. Now you're saying I'm changing the topic, which again clearly I'm not. I expanded (slightly) the scope - purposely, as that highlights the difficulties with this 'fairness' argument.

I was quite clear that whether it's prize money or wages, the amount of money to be awarded depends primarily on the amount raised. If, for example, the male version of a sport raises 10 times more money than the female version, I don't see why the monetary reward should be the same.

Fair enough, confusing was wrong. But you did change the topic.

I stand by my opinion that the prizes should be the same, irrespective of monies earnt. They work as hard and put the same number of hours in. Are women at fault because people choose not to watch or becausecthe marketing strategies are different?

brevity

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/rugby/rugby-union/international/female-rugby-player-breaks-nose-continues-playing-proceeds-to-tackle-two-more-players-10301813.html

Hard!

[Deleted User]

donspeekinglesh wrote: »

That's F1, there's plenty competing professionally in other branches of motorsport. Two raced in the Indy 500 a few weeks back. There's plans for an all female team to enter the race next year.
Women have won championships in drag racing.

Those are actually men dressed as women. Drag racing? It's right there in the name.

K4t

eviltwin wrote: »

Sport has always been about men showing off, it's about being strong, fast and other things men excel at. That's the disadvantage for women.

Those are the things that give men an advantage over women, and over other men. Sport is about a whole lot more than those things e.g. skill, agility, endurance, desire, teamwork, dedication, ability, intelligence etc.

threeball

You will also never have a truly competitive woman at the top of the games of snooker or darts either. Men are genetically adapted to judge speed and distance far better than women (its the hunter brain), skills that are essential to both games. You may get women who are far better dispositioned to this than all other women and most men but not the men at the very top.

threeball

Peruzzi wrote: »

This is a ridiculous argument, bricklayers work harder than footballers, should they be paid as more than footballers?

What people are paid is based on the harsh reality of economics, supply and demand, female athletes are paid less because there is less demand. People don't care as much about watching female athletes.

Totally agree, its not the marketing strategies that are different its the product. Its like comparing a fillet mignon to a minute steak. Basically the same but vastly different

tipparetops

Peruzzi wrote: »

This is a ridiculous argument, bricklayers work harder than footballers, should they be paid more than footballers?

What people are paid is based on the harsh reality of economics, supply and demand, female athletes are paid less because there is less demand. People don't care as much about watching female athletes.

You are dead right.
The money that professional sportspeople can receive is linked to the popularity of their sport which brings in TV and corporate sponsorship.

Nwm2

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

I stand by my opinion that the prizes should be the same, irrespective of monies earnt. They work as hard and put the same number of hours in. Are women at fault because people choose not to watch or becausecthe marketing strategies are different?

There certainly is an argument that life would be fairer if what people were paid purely depended on how hard they worked or how many hours they put in. So a toilet cleaner would earn as much as a CEO. Or a bottom-division soccer player who worked as hard as Ronaldo would be paid as much. Or the winners of the Heineken Cup would win as much as the winners of the Champion's league.

But that's an imaginary world.

In the real world, the money that's paid out has to come from somewhere. And that depends on how many people are watching.

You want the winners of the women's soccer World Cup to be paid as much as the men's. Even though the men's brings in billions of dollars and entertains hundreds of millions of people, and the women's only a tiny fraction of that. That's not a 'difference in marketing strategy', people are simply not as interested. So if people don't want your product, you're just not going to earn as much from your attempts to sell it.

That's quite fair when you think about it.

ForEffsSake

Ultra marathons. Women and men compete as equals in those. Men are stronger and faster but over long distances. physiologically women are more efficient at breaking down fat for energy so it starts to even up a bit.
The hunter/gatherer argument for snooker is boll*x. I think it's simply down to snooker halls often being a bit rough and intimidating for women. I don't really think of darts and snooker as sports really anyway, more skills.

raze_them_all_

ForEffsSake wrote: »

Ultra marathons. Women and men compete as equals in those. Men are stronger and faster but over long distances. physiologically women are more efficient at breaking down fat for energy so it starts to even up a bit.
The hunter/gatherer argument for snooker is boll*x. I think it's simply down to snooker halls often being a bit rough and intimidating for women. I don't really think of darts and snooker as sports really anyway, more skills.

spacial awareness, men are proven to be superior, and that is a skill needed in snooker

NI24

It depends on what one defines as a sport. Chess and darts are games more than sports (actually, they're not sports at all). But if we're talking real sports, then no woman is ever going to be able to compete against a man, so I guess that's why they're separated. I wonder if women competed in the Olympics from the start or if they were slowly introduced.

threeball

ForEffsSake wrote: »

Ultra marathons. Women and men compete as equals in those. Men are stronger and faster but over long distances. physiologically women are more efficient at breaking down fat for energy so it starts to even up a bit.
The hunter/gatherer argument for snooker is boll*x. I think it's simply down to snooker halls often being a bit rough and intimidating for women. I don't really think of darts and snooker as sports really anyway, more skills.

The whole premise of snooker is judging pace, distance and angles all of which men are proven to be much superior at. Calling it complete boll0x does not offer a counter argument or change a scientifically proven fact.

ForEffsSake

raze_them_all_ wrote: »

spacial awareness, men are proven to be superior, and that is a skill needed in snooker

It hasn't been proven men are better at spatial awareness. A couple of studies in the seventies showed that men performed better but crucially, if women were given exercises and training, they rapidly caught up. There's no evolutionary advantage to having 50 percent of the population unable to hunt or be spatially crap. They were hunter gatherers too who had to have their wits about them. Social engineering in the last few hundred years has a lot answer for.

Cork boy 55

“Until we are all free, we are none of us free."

Emma Lazarus

The instiulised enforced apartheid of gender segregation
In sports is the civil rights cause of this generation
We must break these chains , we shall overcome.

DoYouEvenLift

Cork boy 55 wrote: »

“Until we are all free, we are none of us free."

Emma Lazarus

The instiulised enforced apartheid of gender segregation
In sports is the civil rights cause of this generation
We must break these chains , we shall overcome.

The fuk did I just read

metaoblivia

I'm very involved in the sport of gymnastics, which I often tell people is a sport that, where gender is concerned, is a bit different than most other sports.

In gymnastics, the women do 4 events and the men do 6. Only one event - the vault - is pretty much the same. The others are very different, even floor exercise, which both genders do but under very different rules. The women's events were introduced in the late 1940s because it was felt that the men's sport was too physically demanding for women and not feminine enough. It's kind of sexist, if you think about it. Not sure that would fly in today's world!

But it worked out for the women, didn't it? Gymnastics is one of the few sports where the women's sport is more popular than the men's. At least, that's true in the US. Female gymnasts do less events than their male teammates, but the men's program in the US is funded by the women's program. USA Gymnastics can't hold a standalone men's event and expect to draw any crowds - it has to be paired with a women's competition if they want to make money.

Even at the most recent competition I went to - it was a dual meet and men and women were competing at the same time. They advertised the meet as starting at 12pm, when in actuality it had started an hour earlier with the men doing two rotations. But the meet was advertised at starting at noon because that's when the women's competition started. At the awards ceremony, the men's winners were announced, but they weren't included in the ceremony, which focused entirely on the women, who also stayed afterwards to sign autographs and greet fans.

I think one of the reasons why women's gymnastics has become more popular here is because generally speaking they can't be compared to their male teammates directly. It's a different sport designed to highlight (at least some times) more traditional female sporting strengths - grace, flexibility, precision, agility.

Some comparisons can be drawn, especially on vault and in tumbling, but the men's AA world champion and the women's AA world champion both do the same vault, so even at that, you're still seeing a pretty high level of acrobatics in women's gymnastics.

Anyway, that's my two rambling cents.

The J Stands for Jay

eviltwin wrote: »

Sport has always been about men showing off, it's about being strong, fast and other things men excel at. That's the disadvantage for women. Women already are involved in motor sports, some of the test drivers are female. It's just a matter of time until one competes professionally.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_female_Formula_One_drivers

ThinkProgress

Ronda Rousey would get her ass handed to her by any male mma fighter of the same weight and size!

She rolls with male fighters all the time in training, but a real fight is a very different thing.

It's actually more down to the difference in aggression than size or weight.

Aggression is important for competitive sports. That's the main thing women lack when compared to men. And it's impossible to bridge that gap, because it's biology!

Carlos Orange

ForEffsSake wrote: »

Ultra marathons. Women and men compete as equals in those. Men are stronger and faster but over long distances. physiologically women are more efficient at breaking down fat for energy so it starts to even up a bit.

Men seem totally dominant at the top end if the Wikipedia page is to be believed.