Women on top

[Rum]

Why not give competitive examples? One mythbusters episode about frozen hands doesn't make a really good example. Winning competitions regularly against a mixed field would though.

Because I've had enough of your game? I'm not sure what you are trying to say or prove. You have already said you are in favour of equality of opportunity. When that truly arrives we might see who does better at what.

[Cunt]

I've seen training, motivation and practice fail to win against the clearly superior strength, speed and endurance of men. Women ARE trying really hard, but those areas simply cannot overcome their physical limitations.

Maybe your facts are wonky...

https://www.economist.com/blogs/gamethe ... n-eventing
DROP in on a pony club camp somewhere in Britain this summer and, chances are, at least 90% of the children trotting around in jodhpurs will be girls. And so it continues in competitive riding up the rungs—until the very top. But in the Olympic eventing last week, where riders and horses locked hooves in the three disciplines of dressage, cross-country and show-jumping, nine out of the top ten places were taken by men.

[mistermack]

Of course, there is the very real phenomenon of men stealing the credit for achievements from women.
The case of Jocelyn Bell Burnell is a prime example.

She did all the work of discovering the existence of radio pulsars in 1967 and persisted against what others were telling her. HER BOSS got the joint Nobel Prize for it, along with some other git, and she got hardly a mention.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jocelyn_Bell_Burnell

[Cunt]

Are you saying that women are lousy at stealing compared to men? I was looking for examples in another direction...

[JimC]

The fact that the physical strength of the top 10% of males is somewhat higher than the top 10% of women is only meaningful in either sport, or a tiny handful of occupations in the modern world, particularly given the way that technology has replaced muscle power in most labour intensive jobs. In the vast majority of cases, human beings simply get on with the job at hand, and their gender is utterly irrelevant.

[Brian Peacock]

I've seen training, motivation and practice fail to win against the clearly superior strength, speed and endurance of men. Women ARE trying really hard, but those areas simply cannot overcome their physical limitations.

Boring. You're repeating yourself now. Look, we know that when you judge women by the physical standards of male then they generally don't stack up. You might just have to accept that bemoaning the fact that women aren't as manly as men is pointless, and move on.

[Brian Peacock]

Are you saying that women are lousy at stealing compared to men? I was looking for examples in another direction...

You've had 'em, so why persist? I suspect it's jyst for shit and giggles now.

[pErvinalia]

Child birth.

...

Your name reminds me...all the doughnuts have names that sound like prostitutes...

Your name reminds me of the type of person you are...

[pErvinalia]

--that's philosophy covered

[pErvinalia]

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.

But that's actually a positive, as it allows them to go on and dominate women in every sphere later in life..

[pErvinalia]

How pathetic . Men are stronger than women. Is that all you got. Cunt you seem to forget men have always oppressed women. They are finally given the room to stand up for themselves.

There is one way of thinking about this that suggests that if women are at bottom in all respects equal to men, then how would things have resulted in men being able to oppress women? Wouldn't it have been just as likely that men would get oppressed by women, all things being equivalent?

"Given room?" Does a person who is just as strong as another person have to wait for the other to give room?

I suspect this flows from the one clear area that women on average are inferior to men - violence and aggression. When all else fails, a man can always fall back on violence to get his way (on average). So it doesn't have to be "women... at the bottom in all respects to men..". It only has to be in one respect.

[pErvinalia]

There were almost exclusively female riders in the classes I have seen. Maybe it is because they are more dedicated (as kids) and so parents are more likely to keep supporting females over males...

And of course it could never be possible that parents are more likely to keep supporting their boys over their girls in pursuing careers in say aviation, or engineering, or mining, or plumbing, or electricianing, or fields that can receive a Nobel Prize, etc etc...

[pErvinalia]

It does show one competitive area where women seem to excel. Now I want to know why.

It's easy to see why men lift more, run faster or such (more muscle mass) but it is less clear what strength this shows.

Any ideas?

I've got an idea. To most people it doesn't matter. It (and the equivalent exercise based on 'race') only seems to matter to bigots.

[Seabass]

I get it - I'm an asshole and you don't want to tell me where women clearly outperform men. Why not take a moment to separate those things...

I'll grant you I'm an asshole for asking this.

Come now, don't sell yourself short. In addition to being an anus, you're also quite dimwitted.

You see, throughout most of human history, physical strength was more valuable than intellect. Hunting animals or fighting, for example, require physical strength rather than intellect, so naturally, men were able to take leadership and decision-making roles through sheer brutality.

In modern societies, however, since intellect and creativity are becoming more valuable vis-a-vis physical strength, we're seeing more and more women entering into professions that do not require brute strength. It will take time, however, for women to catch up to men so that we have 50/50 ratios, hence many professions are still male-dominated.

So yes, men will always be better at strength-based sports, but I've not seen any evidence to support the claim that women possess less "cognitive power".

[Forty Two]

But that's actually a positive, as it allows them to go on and dominate women in every sphere later in life..

LOL, that's funny. Men dominate women in every sphere... lol. Are you really of the opinion that there are no spheres where women excel over men?