Women on top

[Sean Hayden]

--that's politics covered

[Rum]

The absence of proof - as you will know from atheism 101 does not prove anything. You have chosen a raft of example criteria which suggest that men can perform better at some tasks involving those qualities - strength etc.

If you take the same approach to women - i.e. identifying certain known qualities you can do the same. Here's a list of things science says women do better than men because of those qualities. There are actually a number of similar lists out there. https://thoughtcatalog.com/lorenzo-jens ... or-to-men/

They include:

Women are smarter than men
Women are more sensual than men
Women are better at finding things than men
Women are cleaner than men
Women have better immune systems than men
Women tolerate pain better than men
Women handle stress better than men
Women are better at multitasking than men
Women are better computer programmers than men
Women make better doctors than men
Women make better leaders than men
Women are better drivers than men
Women make better cops than men
Women make better students than men
Women are better with money than men
Women live longer than men

I'll leave you to draw up a list of what the consequences might be - after you have challenged every item I imagine.

[Cunt]

Why do you suppose so many women keep using their vote to elect men?

I mean, if women are better at politics, wouldn't it show in their results? (I don't even recognize this woman...is it that ex VP candidate from Alaska?)

And Rum, I've seen all those claims before...so why aren't they outperforming in competition?

If they are smarter, why not dominate the chess field?

Clear one here though, is their ability to discern colours. Don't know why that would be valuable, but it IS clear, thanks.

They make all kinds of claims, but with so many clear strengths which make them better than men, why aren't they winning at more competitions?

Chess is a great example. I currently only follow one or two female chess grandmasters (don't even know any current males) but am fairly sure men still dominate that area. So if they are smarter, why can't they figure out how to win more competitions?

If they are better at money, why are there more rich men?

If they are better leaders (I agree, by the way) then why aren't they leading more? You don't get a lead position because someone gives it to you - you have to TAKE leadership.

So if they are equal (or better, as you point out) why doesn't that translate into competition somewhere? I can confidently bet on men to win every marathon for the next ten years. Can you do the same with a competition between the sexes which isn't vague (like having a bacteria-free desk)

[Rum]

You appear to be unable to accept the idea that the game has been rigged against women because men have made all the rules. The fact that there were zero female company directors 40 years ago more or less and now there are a substantial number - and you can do the same thing with any number of 'men only' professions - proves the point.

The game is changing - and for the better in my book.

[Forty Two]

The absence of proof - as you will know from atheism 101 does not prove anything.

It proves a ton, in circumstances where evidence would be expected if a phenomenon existed.

You have chosen a raft of example criteria which suggest that men can perform better at some tasks involving those qualities - strength etc.

If you take the same approach to women - i.e. identifying certain known qualities you can do the same. Here's a list of things science says women do better than men because of those qualities. There are actually a number of similar lists out there. https://thoughtcatalog.com/lorenzo-jens ... or-to-men/

They include:

Women are smarter than men
Women are more sensual than men
Women are better at finding things than men
Women are cleaner than men
Women have better immune systems than men
Women tolerate pain better than men
Women handle stress better than men
Women are better at multitasking than men
Women are better computer programmers than men
Women make better doctors than men
Women make better leaders than men
Women are better drivers than men
Women make better cops than men
Women make better students than men
Women are better with money than men
Women live longer than men

I'll leave you to draw up a list of what the consequences might be - after you have challenged every item I imagine.

Why would you leave that to him? Do you believe there are consequences? And if so, what?

[Brian Peacock]

Not at all, Brian Peacock. I'm just looking for clear examples of women outperforming men in some individual competitive effort.

I am fully aware that it is near impossible to find any two people who are 'equal'. I honestly pursue equality of opportunity for everyone (though I think women as a group need a lot less support than, say, persons with disabilities)

What I am trying to find here, are examples of women showing how much better they are at some competitive things.

It's like everyone says yoga is the BEST for fitness and spirituality, but there are so few Indian champions in fitness. As to their spirituality...well...the caste system seems very spiritual to me, but not admirable at all...

What would it show if someone provided an example of women outperforming men, and always outperforming men, in some sphere of endeavour?

There are plenty of examples of women outperforming men, but you seem to think that's irrelevant unless we play the parlour game of naming some endeavour in which all the women outperform all the men all the time. Why?

[Svartalf]

well, Billie Jean King proved that women can out tennis men.

[Forty Two]

You appear to be unable to accept the idea that the game has been rigged against women because men have made all the rules. The fact that there were zero female company directors 40 years ago more or less and now there are a substantial number - and you can do the same thing with any number of 'men only' professions - proves the point.

The game is changing - and for the better in my book.

Even admitting that, it doesn't change the fact that men and women are physiologically different, and statistically this has an impact as to what tasks men and women would excel at or be interested in. It's not that everything is biologically determined, it's that behavior is, in part, influenced by biology.

There is nothing evil in that. Although, people can do evil things with it. It should be noted that the statistics don't say much about an individual, so that's why the systems should be set up as much as possible to be sex neutral, because even if there is just one woman who can do task X as well as a man, then generally speaking, the woman should be able to do it.

I would carve out an exception to sports. Unfortunately for some, it's not feasible to have separate sports leagues or competitions, but then let some women compete with the men if they choose. That's just not overall fair, because it means that one sex would have the entirety of a league to themselves, and also be able to compete in the other sex's league. If that's how it is going to work, then a non-sex criteria would have to be created, so that instead of sex they measure size or strength or weight or something and have a B league and an A league (or to keep it non-judgmental, a Giraffe League and Llama League, or whatever).

[Cunt]

You appear to be unable to accept the idea that the game has been rigged against women because men have made all the rules. The fact that there were zero female company directors 40 years ago more or less and now there are a substantial number - and you can do the same thing with any number of 'men only' professions - proves the point.

The game is changing - and for the better in my book.

Having daughters, I agree that it is for the better. That doesn't tell me where they outperform though.

If they are not equal, by the way, I would still press for equality of opportunity.

[Cunt]

Not at all, Brian Peacock. I'm just looking for clear examples of women outperforming men in some individual competitive effort.

I am fully aware that it is near impossible to find any two people who are 'equal'. I honestly pursue equality of opportunity for everyone (though I think women as a group need a lot less support than, say, persons with disabilities)

What I am trying to find here, are examples of women showing how much better they are at some competitive things.

It's like everyone says yoga is the BEST for fitness and spirituality, but there are so few Indian champions in fitness. As to their spirituality...well...the caste system seems very spiritual to me, but not admirable at all...

What would it show if someone provided an example of women outperforming men, and always outperforming men, in some sphere of endeavour?

There are plenty of examples of women outperforming men, but you seem to think that's irrelevant unless we play the parlour game of naming some endeavour in which all the women outperform all the men all the time. Why?

You have not provided any fields where women regularly outperform men. There have been exceptions offered, but not any competitive area where men regularly fall behind women.

So while one of my running heroes will CERTAINLY outperform me, she will be beaten roundly by lots of guys.

A clear example, men's world record half-marathon is 58:23. How many men do you think cross the finish line behind this (holy fucking FAST) champion before the first female finishes at 64:51 ?

There are endless examples. Mostly, in any competitive area, women need their own competition or they simply don't make it into the top ranks. Look at the olympics...

svartalf, you point out that a women once beat a man nearly twice her age. Not a great example, since tennis is still divided by the sexes (or women would never make it to the top ranks)

[Sean Hayden]

--that's philosophy covered

[laklak]

Quit covering the women! I want to see them uncovered.

Well not Nancy Pelosi, that would put me off poontang for life.

[Forty Two]

well, Billie Jean King proved that women can out tennis men.

Indeed, a 29 year old woman at the height of her game beat a 55 year old man who'd been retired from tennis for 22 years. But, she won. But, then Riggs beat Margaret Court in straight sets earlier that year, and Jimmy Connors beat Martina Navratilova in straight sets in 1992.

Anyway, this discussion gets heated and people get pissed off. But, I mean, it's not being mean to recognize when asked that men are statistically better or more competitive at sports than women, all or almost all of them. Even sports that have little to do with strength. Men are way better at soccer - I mean the American women's World Cup team lost to a bunch of high school boys. Even in something like golf, women can't keep up with men, and it's not even clear to me why. Golf is not much based on strength, but technique, and I am not sure why women can't generate the clubhead speed to drive the ball as far as men, statistically. But, they can't.

In my own anecdotal experience, I used to play recreational soccer as an adult. The men's only teams were competitive and hard-fought. Men want to win, even in a recreational competition. Mix the teams, so that it's men and women playing together, and the competitiveness goes away. If men play as competitively in mixed as in men only games, then they are looked down on, because it looks like they're picking on the girls, and it feels like that too. I used to lay off big time. When you play indoor soccer, you will often scuffle and almost scrum for the ball in the corners, and sometimes even figure a way to drive your opponent into the boards (when the field is surrounded by a wall, like a hockey arena). You'd never do that to women. I would play in a way to often allow the female players to proceed unhindered, but just making sure they don't get a good shot on goal. There woul also be corny rules like, for the first half, a woman is in the goal, and only women can shoot on goal (because the men would kick too hard and women goalies would get hurt), and then when the men were in goal in the next half, then anyone can shoot.

So, this is not to say that there is anything "inferior" about women. But, in all fairness, I do not think it is a mere feature of cultural oppression that women are less apt to be able to keep up with men on the soccer or other football fields and such. Likewise, in various jobs, the same issues will arise.

In an office or other employment situation, if dirty jobs arise, in my experience, it's the men who are assigned. Get down in there clean up the filth from that storage tub, and lug all the garbage out to the trash compactors -- and here, take these bundles of roof shingles up to the roof, and start banging them in -- it's only 95 degrees F up there. These are jobs men will be assigned, generally speaking, and I think even today, the notion of having a group of 5 men and 5 women and assigning two of the women to the crap jobs like that and the men being assigned to paperwork duties in the air conditioned office would be rather unlikely. And, I think that's because of the features that prevail in men: (a) greater strength and stamina, (b) less concern for dirt and filth, and (c) greater ability to do physically demanding jobs.

It is what it is.

[Forty Two]

--that's philosophy covered

....someone, somewhere, got a hummer from Ayn Rand....

[Forty Two]

You appear to be unable to accept the idea that the game has been rigged against women because men have made all the rules. The fact that there were zero female company directors 40 years ago more or less and now there are a substantial number - and you can do the same thing with any number of 'men only' professions - proves the point.

The game is changing - and for the better in my book.

Having daughters, I agree that it is for the better. That doesn't tell me where they outperform though.

If they are not equal, by the way, I would still press for equality of opportunity.

This is an area where girls excel over boys - behaving in school and academic work. That's quite important. Boys are far more volatile and unpredictable at school and their behavior is troublesome at schools, from the standpoint of education.