Total Posts:151|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Gender inequality at the Olympics

Chloe8
Posts: 2,579
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2016 8:54:36 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
Despite significant improvements since the first Olympic games in 1896 when women made up less than 5% of competitors at the Olympic games a significant difference still exists. Despite the IOC (International Olympic Committee) publicly supporting a policy of gender equality women still only make up 45% of the total number of competitors at the Olympics and compete in 137 events while men make up 55% of the total number of competitors at the Olympics and compete in 169 events.

The IOC gives individual sports federations a set number of medals and allows the federation's to choose which events to include in the Olympics. Many sports such as boxing (10 events for men, 3 for women) and wrestling (12 events for men, 6 for women) choose to have more events for men than women. This in my opinion is blatant discrimination on the grounds of gender. If I was in charge of the IOC I would make it mandatory that each sport has an equal number of events for men and women. I see no reason to allow sports the opportunity to discriminate on the grounds of gender when the stated goal of the organization is to achieve gender equality at the Olympics. Unless it cracks down on sports that discriminate against female competitors such as wrestling and boxing the gender gap in the Olympics and sport in general will remain.
ford_prefect
Posts: 4,137
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2016 8:58:18 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
If female athletes want gender equality they should compete in the same events as the men. No restrictions, only the best athletes qualify and compete. I wonder what the percentage of women would be then...
Chloe8
Posts: 2,579
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2016 9:03:29 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/18/2016 8:58:18 PM, ford_prefect wrote:
If female athletes want gender equality they should compete in the same events as the men. No restrictions, only the best athletes qualify and compete. I wonder what the percentage of women would be then...

I advocate this sort of attitude in the workplace but I don't see a reasonable argument to apply it to sport. What is it about an equal number of events for men and women you find unreasonable?
ford_prefect
Posts: 4,137
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2016 9:08:42 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/18/2016 9:03:29 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
At 8/18/2016 8:58:18 PM, ford_prefect wrote:
If female athletes want gender equality they should compete in the same events as the men. No restrictions, only the best athletes qualify and compete. I wonder what the percentage of women would be then...

I advocate this sort of attitude in the workplace but I don't see a reasonable argument to apply it to sport. What is it about an equal number of events for men and women you find unreasonable?

It's discriminatory to not allow the best athletes to compete in the Olympics. If the top 10 male sprinters and top 10 female sprinters get to attend, why should the 11th-20th fastest men have to lose their spots to 10 women who are all slower than them?
Chloe8
Posts: 2,579
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2016 9:23:05 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/18/2016 9:08:42 PM, ford_prefect wrote:
At 8/18/2016 9:03:29 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
At 8/18/2016 8:58:18 PM, ford_prefect wrote:
If female athletes want gender equality they should compete in the same events as the men. No restrictions, only the best athletes qualify and compete. I wonder what the percentage of women would be then...

I advocate this sort of attitude in the workplace but I don't see a reasonable argument to apply it to sport. What is it about an equal number of events for men and women you find unreasonable?

It's discriminatory to not allow the best athletes to compete in the Olympics. If the top 10 male sprinters and top 10 female sprinters get to attend, why should the 11th-20th fastest men have to lose their spots to 10 women who are all slower than them?

Because that would exclude the 10 best female sprinters. Seeing the fastest woman competing is far more important than seeing the 11th fastest man.
ford_prefect
Posts: 4,137
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2016 9:28:19 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/18/2016 9:23:05 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
At 8/18/2016 9:08:42 PM, ford_prefect wrote:
At 8/18/2016 9:03:29 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
At 8/18/2016 8:58:18 PM, ford_prefect wrote:
If female athletes want gender equality they should compete in the same events as the men. No restrictions, only the best athletes qualify and compete. I wonder what the percentage of women would be then...

I advocate this sort of attitude in the workplace but I don't see a reasonable argument to apply it to sport. What is it about an equal number of events for men and women you find unreasonable?

It's discriminatory to not allow the best athletes to compete in the Olympics. If the top 10 male sprinters and top 10 female sprinters get to attend, why should the 11th-20th fastest men have to lose their spots to 10 women who are all slower than them?

Because that would exclude the 10 best female sprinters. Seeing the fastest woman competing is far more important than seeing the 11th fastest man.

So slower women are more important than faster men? In that case, why don't we have a white 100 yard race and a black 100 yard race? As far as I know most of the medalists in that event are black. So we are excluding the 10 best white sprinters. Would you agree that seeing the fastest white man run is far more important than seeing the 11th fastest black man?
Chloe8
Posts: 2,579
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2016 9:46:55 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/18/2016 9:28:19 PM, ford_prefect wrote:
At 8/18/2016 9:23:05 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
At 8/18/2016 9:08:42 PM, ford_prefect wrote:
At 8/18/2016 9:03:29 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
At 8/18/2016 8:58:18 PM, ford_prefect wrote:
If female athletes want gender equality they should compete in the same events as the men. No restrictions, only the best athletes qualify and compete. I wonder what the percentage of women would be then...

I advocate this sort of attitude in the workplace but I don't see a reasonable argument to apply it to sport. What is it about an equal number of events for men and women you find unreasonable?

It's discriminatory to not allow the best athletes to compete in the Olympics. If the top 10 male sprinters and top 10 female sprinters get to attend, why should the 11th-20th fastest men have to lose their spots to 10 women who are all slower than them?

Because that would exclude the 10 best female sprinters. Seeing the fastest woman competing is far more important than seeing the 11th fastest man.

So slower women are more important than faster men? In that case, why don't we have a white 100 yard race and a black 100 yard race? As far as I know most of the medalists in that event are black. So we are excluding the 10 best white sprinters. Would you agree that seeing the fastest white man run is far more important than seeing the 11th fastest black man?

No i would not agree. Its possible for white men to win Olympic medals.

How are young girls going to be inspired to take up sports if they think it's impossible for them to compete at an elite level if hypothetically 99% of Olympic competitors were men? Do you think discouraging women from taking up sports is a good idea? If so, why?
Foodiesoul
Posts: 579
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2016 10:07:50 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/18/2016 9:46:55 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
At 8/18/2016 9:28:19 PM, ford_prefect wrote:
At 8/18/2016 9:23:05 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
At 8/18/2016 9:08:42 PM, ford_prefect wrote:
At 8/18/2016 9:03:29 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
At 8/18/2016 8:58:18 PM, ford_prefect wrote:
If female athletes want gender equality they should compete in the same events as the men. No restrictions, only the best athletes qualify and compete. I wonder what the percentage of women would be then...

I advocate this sort of attitude in the workplace but I don't see a reasonable argument to apply it to sport. What is it about an equal number of events for men and women you find unreasonable?

It's discriminatory to not allow the best athletes to compete in the Olympics. If the top 10 male sprinters and top 10 female sprinters get to attend, why should the 11th-20th fastest men have to lose their spots to 10 women who are all slower than them?

Because that would exclude the 10 best female sprinters. Seeing the fastest woman competing is far more important than seeing the 11th fastest man.

So slower women are more important than faster men? In that case, why don't we have a white 100 yard race and a black 100 yard race? As far as I know most of the medalists in that event are black. So we are excluding the 10 best white sprinters. Would you agree that seeing the fastest white man run is far more important than seeing the 11th fastest black man?

No i would not agree. Its possible for white men to win Olympic medals.

How are young girls going to be inspired to take up sports if they think it's impossible for them to compete at an elite level if hypothetically 99% of Olympic competitors were men? Do you think discouraging women from taking up sports is a good idea? If so, why?

What are you talking about?

Women are allowed to play EVERY single sport on Earth and anyone who doesn't allow women to play any sport they want is sexist!

Men are allowed to play EVERY single sport on Earth and anyone who doesn't allow men to play any sport they want is sexist!
Chloe8
Posts: 2,579
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2016 10:11:47 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/18/2016 10:07:50 PM, Foodiesoul wrote:
At 8/18/2016 9:46:55 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
At 8/18/2016 9:28:19 PM, ford_prefect wrote:
At 8/18/2016 9:23:05 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
At 8/18/2016 9:08:42 PM, ford_prefect wrote:
At 8/18/2016 9:03:29 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
At 8/18/2016 8:58:18 PM, ford_prefect wrote:
If female athletes want gender equality they should compete in the same events as the men. No restrictions, only the best athletes qualify and compete. I wonder what the percentage of women would be then...

I advocate this sort of attitude in the workplace but I don't see a reasonable argument to apply it to sport. What is it about an equal number of events for men and women you find unreasonable?

It's discriminatory to not allow the best athletes to compete in the Olympics. If the top 10 male sprinters and top 10 female sprinters get to attend, why should the 11th-20th fastest men have to lose their spots to 10 women who are all slower than them?

Because that would exclude the 10 best female sprinters. Seeing the fastest woman competing is far more important than seeing the 11th fastest man.

So slower women are more important than faster men? In that case, why don't we have a white 100 yard race and a black 100 yard race? As far as I know most of the medalists in that event are black. So we are excluding the 10 best white sprinters. Would you agree that seeing the fastest white man run is far more important than seeing the 11th fastest black man?

No i would not agree. Its possible for white men to win Olympic medals.

How are young girls going to be inspired to take up sports if they think it's impossible for them to compete at an elite level if hypothetically 99% of Olympic competitors were men? Do you think discouraging women from taking up sports is a good idea? If so, why?

What are you talking about?

Women are allowed to play EVERY single sport on Earth and anyone who doesn't allow women to play any sport they want is sexist!

Men are allowed to play EVERY single sport on Earth and anyone who doesn't allow men to play any sport they want is sexist!

Ford perfect is suggesting that there should be no place for women only events at the Olympics. I'm suggesting such a decision would discourage female participation in sports. Unfortunately some countries exclude or discourage women from participating in sports such as Saudi Arabia and Yemen.
Foodiesoul
Posts: 579
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2016 10:15:00 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/18/2016 10:11:47 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
At 8/18/2016 10:07:50 PM, Foodiesoul wrote:
At 8/18/2016 9:46:55 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
At 8/18/2016 9:28:19 PM, ford_prefect wrote:
At 8/18/2016 9:23:05 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
At 8/18/2016 9:08:42 PM, ford_prefect wrote:
At 8/18/2016 9:03:29 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
At 8/18/2016 8:58:18 PM, ford_prefect wrote:
If female athletes want gender equality they should compete in the same events as the men. No restrictions, only the best athletes qualify and compete. I wonder what the percentage of women would be then...

I advocate this sort of attitude in the workplace but I don't see a reasonable argument to apply it to sport. What is it about an equal number of events for men and women you find unreasonable?

It's discriminatory to not allow the best athletes to compete in the Olympics. If the top 10 male sprinters and top 10 female sprinters get to attend, why should the 11th-20th fastest men have to lose their spots to 10 women who are all slower than them?

Because that would exclude the 10 best female sprinters. Seeing the fastest woman competing is far more important than seeing the 11th fastest man.

So slower women are more important than faster men? In that case, why don't we have a white 100 yard race and a black 100 yard race? As far as I know most of the medalists in that event are black. So we are excluding the 10 best white sprinters. Would you agree that seeing the fastest white man run is far more important than seeing the 11th fastest black man?

No i would not agree. Its possible for white men to win Olympic medals.

How are young girls going to be inspired to take up sports if they think it's impossible for them to compete at an elite level if hypothetically 99% of Olympic competitors were men? Do you think discouraging women from taking up sports is a good idea? If so, why?

What are you talking about?

Women are allowed to play EVERY single sport on Earth and anyone who doesn't allow women to play any sport they want is sexist!

Men are allowed to play EVERY single sport on Earth and anyone who doesn't allow men to play any sport they want is sexist!

Ford perfect is suggesting that there should be no place for women only events at the Olympics. I'm suggesting such a decision would discourage female participation in sports. Unfortunately some countries exclude or discourage women from participating in sports such as Saudi Arabia and Yemen.

That's just rude, stupid, and unjust!

Women should be allowed to play sports too, not just men!
Chloe8
Posts: 2,579
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2016 10:31:18 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/18/2016 10:15:00 PM, Foodiesoul wrote:
At 8/18/2016 10:11:47 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
At 8/18/2016 10:07:50 PM, Foodiesoul wrote:
At 8/18/2016 9:46:55 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
At 8/18/2016 9:28:19 PM, ford_prefect wrote:
At 8/18/2016 9:23:05 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
At 8/18/2016 9:08:42 PM, ford_prefect wrote:
At 8/18/2016 9:03:29 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
At 8/18/2016 8:58:18 PM, ford_prefect wrote:
If female athletes want gender equality they should compete in the same events as the men. No restrictions, only the best athletes qualify and compete. I wonder what the percentage of women would be then...

I advocate this sort of attitude in the workplace but I don't see a reasonable argument to apply it to sport. What is it about an equal number of events for men and women you find unreasonable?

It's discriminatory to not allow the best athletes to compete in the Olympics. If the top 10 male sprinters and top 10 female sprinters get to attend, why should the 11th-20th fastest men have to lose their spots to 10 women who are all slower than them?

Because that would exclude the 10 best female sprinters. Seeing the fastest woman competing is far more important than seeing the 11th fastest man.

So slower women are more important than faster men? In that case, why don't we have a white 100 yard race and a black 100 yard race? As far as I know most of the medalists in that event are black. So we are excluding the 10 best white sprinters. Would you agree that seeing the fastest white man run is far more important than seeing the 11th fastest black man?

No i would not agree. Its possible for white men to win Olympic medals.

How are young girls going to be inspired to take up sports if they think it's impossible for them to compete at an elite level if hypothetically 99% of Olympic competitors were men? Do you think discouraging women from taking up sports is a good idea? If so, why?

What are you talking about?

Women are allowed to play EVERY single sport on Earth and anyone who doesn't allow women to play any sport they want is sexist!

Men are allowed to play EVERY single sport on Earth and anyone who doesn't allow men to play any sport they want is sexist!

Ford perfect is suggesting that there should be no place for women only events at the Olympics. I'm suggesting such a decision would discourage female participation in sports. Unfortunately some countries exclude or discourage women from participating in sports such as Saudi Arabia and Yemen.

That's just rude, stupid, and unjust!

Women should be allowed to play sports too, not just men!

Glad you agree.
intellectuallyprimitive
Posts: 1,000
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2016 12:24:08 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/18/2016 8:54:36 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
Despite significant improvements since the first Olympic games in 1896 when women made up less than 5% of competitors at the Olympic games a significant difference still exists. Despite the IOC (International Olympic Committee) publicly supporting a policy of gender equality women still only make up 45% of the total number of competitors at the Olympics and compete in 137 events while men make up 55% of the total number of competitors at the Olympics and compete in 169 events.

The IOC gives individual sports federations a set number of medals and allows the federation's to choose which events to include in the Olympics. Many sports such as boxing (10 events for men, 3 for women) and wrestling (12 events for men, 6 for women) choose to have more events for men than women. This in my opinion is blatant discrimination on the grounds of gender. If I was in charge of the IOC I would make it mandatory that each sport has an equal number of events for men and women. I see no reason to allow sports the opportunity to discriminate on the grounds of gender when the stated goal of the organization is to achieve gender equality at the Olympics. Unless it cracks down on sports that discriminate against female competitors such as wrestling and boxing the gender gap in the Olympics and sport in general will remain.

I challenge you to find any evidence demonstrating the denial of women into the Olympics. I am not referring to the disparity you claim. If you are able to locate such evidence, then we can both agree that this is morally distasteful. As it pertains to inequality, let us review these two crucial questions:
Why are there more men involved in PROFESSIONAL and COLLEGIATE American football, baseball, and even basketball?
Why do these sports receive more spectators and television air time than the counterpart?

It may be a result of men inherently, on average, being more competitive, physically adept (strength and power), faster, and more neurologicaly inclined to perform these sports in a fashion that is not only more attractive or entertaining to viewers, but also capable of generating SUBSTANTIALLY more revenue as a result of the former.

You perhaps then ruminate:
The Olympics is not intended to generate revenue.

I assure you that the above idea is quite the opposite.
The Olympics seek to involve the best of the BEST, and that is, on balance, typically men. I am not patronizing female events nor the competitors, albeit the nature of reality suggests that men excel more than the counterpart at sports, thereby rendering the Olympics disproportionate in regards to the competitors sex.
ford_prefect
Posts: 4,137
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2016 3:19:36 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/18/2016 9:46:55 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
At 8/18/2016 9:28:19 PM, ford_prefect wrote:
At 8/18/2016 9:23:05 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
At 8/18/2016 9:08:42 PM, ford_prefect wrote:
At 8/18/2016 9:03:29 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
At 8/18/2016 8:58:18 PM, ford_prefect wrote:
If female athletes want gender equality they should compete in the same events as the men. No restrictions, only the best athletes qualify and compete. I wonder what the percentage of women would be then...

I advocate this sort of attitude in the workplace but I don't see a reasonable argument to apply it to sport. What is it about an equal number of events for men and women you find unreasonable?

It's discriminatory to not allow the best athletes to compete in the Olympics. If the top 10 male sprinters and top 10 female sprinters get to attend, why should the 11th-20th fastest men have to lose their spots to 10 women who are all slower than them?

Because that would exclude the 10 best female sprinters. Seeing the fastest woman competing is far more important than seeing the 11th fastest man.

So slower women are more important than faster men? In that case, why don't we have a white 100 yard race and a black 100 yard race? As far as I know most of the medalists in that event are black. So we are excluding the 10 best white sprinters. Would you agree that seeing the fastest white man run is far more important than seeing the 11th fastest black man?

No i would not agree. Its possible for white men to win Olympic medals.
Are you aware that between 1984 and 2016, all of the Olympic 100 meter finalists have been of African descent? https://en.wikipedia.org...

If you're saying that it's technically possible for a white male to medal in a 100 meter race nowadays, then I'll counter that it's technically possible for a woman to medal in a swimming event. For example, Katie Ledecky claims that she has beaten male swimmers in practice.

How are young girls going to be inspired to take up sports if they think it's impossible for them to compete at an elite level if hypothetically 99% of Olympic competitors were men? Do you think discouraging women from taking up sports is a good idea? If so, why?

If you think young girls would be discouraged because 99% of Olympic competitors would be male, then you must also agree that white males are currently being discouraged from training to be sprinters, because 100% of the finalists are black.

I don't think we should discourage women to take up sports. There's nothing wrong with funding boys and girls athletic programs in high school to promote good exercise habits. But there's no reason to create a distinction in professional sports and Olympic competitions because they aren't about promoting public health. They are about watching the strongest, fastest, most talented athletes in the world compete at a high level.
ford_prefect
Posts: 4,137
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2016 3:25:15 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
Let me put it another way: currently males under 5'6 have no chance of being selected for an Olympic basketball roster. Should we create an "under 5'6 men's basketball" event, because otherwise short men would be discouraged from taking up basketball?

The reality is that nobody wants to watch short guys play basketball. They are objectively worse and less entertaining than the 6 and 7 footers who can jump out of the gym.

So why do women get their own event for basketball? There are over 300 players in the NBA who would dominate if they played against the Olympic women's teams. How is it fair that they don't get to be Olympians, if they are better at basketball than every single woman currently at the games?

If a woman is good enough to hold her own in an event, whether it be running, swimming, or basketball, let her challenge the rest of the world's best athletes. No discrimination, no categories, let the best of the best compete.
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,205
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2016 11:50:54 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/19/2016 3:25:15 AM, ford_prefect wrote:
Let me put it another way: currently males under 5'6 have no chance of being selected for an Olympic basketball roster. Should we create an "under 5'6 men's basketball" event, because otherwise short men would be discouraged from taking up basketball?

The reality is that nobody wants to watch short guys play basketball. They are objectively worse and less entertaining than the 6 and 7 footers who can jump out of the gym.

So why do women get their own event for basketball? There are over 300 players in the NBA who would dominate if they played against the Olympic women's teams. How is it fair that they don't get to be Olympians, if they are better at basketball than every single woman currently at the games?

If a woman is good enough to hold her own in an event, whether it be running, swimming, or basketball, let her challenge the rest of the world's best athletes. No discrimination, no categories, let the best of the best compete.

"Lord, make me equal, but not yet!" - Augustine's satire of women's equality.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
Deb-8-A-Bull
Posts: 2,181
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2016 12:11:38 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
And next up we have the men's synchronised swimming finals.
Robo and Dave from Australia take on the might of Chen and lay from china
Heterodox
Posts: 293
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2016 12:31:02 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/18/2016 8:58:18 PM, ford_prefect wrote:
If female athletes want gender equality they should compete in the same events as the men. No restrictions, only the best athletes qualify and compete. I wonder what the percentage of women would be then...

Is discrimination otherwise. Which would qualify it as sexist too. In fact I think we should do that with all sports.
Chloe8
Posts: 2,579
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2016 7:17:02 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/19/2016 12:31:02 PM, Heterodox wrote:
At 8/18/2016 8:58:18 PM, ford_prefect wrote:
If female athletes want gender equality they should compete in the same events as the men. No restrictions, only the best athletes qualify and compete. I wonder what the percentage of women would be then...

Is discrimination otherwise. Which would qualify it as sexist too. In fact I think we should do that with all sports.

So your saying that it's unfair for women to have seperate competitions to men?

What benefits do you believe would be seen by excluding women from competing at an elite level?
Heterodox
Posts: 293
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2016 7:28:19 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/19/2016 7:17:02 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
At 8/19/2016 12:31:02 PM, Heterodox wrote:
At 8/18/2016 8:58:18 PM, ford_prefect wrote:
If female athletes want gender equality they should compete in the same events as the men. No restrictions, only the best athletes qualify and compete. I wonder what the percentage of women would be then...

Is discrimination otherwise. Which would qualify it as sexist too. In fact I think we should do that with all sports.

So your saying that it's unfair for women to have seperate competitions to men?

What benefits do you believe would be seen by excluding women from competing at an elite level?

Not what I am saying at all. I am saying the very act of having separate competitions is discrimination (based on sex or gender, not sure which), which means it qualifies as being sexist.

I get why we have them separated, men are generally physically stronger and more capable (this is a fact). If they weren't separated you would see far fewer women in the Olympics (or any sport).

However, if you want equality in every aspect, you would have to desegregate sports.
bballcrook21
Posts: 4,468
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2016 7:58:38 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/19/2016 3:19:36 AM, ford_prefect wrote:
At 8/18/2016 9:46:55 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
At 8/18/2016 9:28:19 PM, ford_prefect wrote:
At 8/18/2016 9:23:05 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
At 8/18/2016 9:08:42 PM, ford_prefect wrote:
At 8/18/2016 9:03:29 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
At 8/18/2016 8:58:18 PM, ford_prefect wrote:
If female athletes want gender equality they should compete in the same events as the men. No restrictions, only the best athletes qualify and compete. I wonder what the percentage of women would be then...

I advocate this sort of attitude in the workplace but I don't see a reasonable argument to apply it to sport. What is it about an equal number of events for men and women you find unreasonable?

It's discriminatory to not allow the best athletes to compete in the Olympics. If the top 10 male sprinters and top 10 female sprinters get to attend, why should the 11th-20th fastest men have to lose their spots to 10 women who are all slower than them?

Because that would exclude the 10 best female sprinters. Seeing the fastest woman competing is far more important than seeing the 11th fastest man.

So slower women are more important than faster men? In that case, why don't we have a white 100 yard race and a black 100 yard race? As far as I know most of the medalists in that event are black. So we are excluding the 10 best white sprinters. Would you agree that seeing the fastest white man run is far more important than seeing the 11th fastest black man?

No i would not agree. Its possible for white men to win Olympic medals.
Are you aware that between 1984 and 2016, all of the Olympic 100 meter finalists have been of African descent? https://en.wikipedia.org...

If you're saying that it's technically possible for a white male to medal in a 100 meter race nowadays, then I'll counter that it's technically possible for a woman to medal in a swimming event. For example, Katie Ledecky claims that she has beaten male swimmers in practice.

How are young girls going to be inspired to take up sports if they think it's impossible for them to compete at an elite level if hypothetically 99% of Olympic competitors were men? Do you think discouraging women from taking up sports is a good idea? If so, why?

If you think young girls would be discouraged because 99% of Olympic competitors would be male, then you must also agree that white males are currently being discouraged from training to be sprinters, because 100% of the finalists are black.

I don't think we should discourage women to take up sports. There's nothing wrong with funding boys and girls athletic programs in high school to promote good exercise habits. But there's no reason to create a distinction in professional sports and Olympic competitions because they aren't about promoting public health. They are about watching the strongest, fastest, most talented athletes in the world compete at a high level.

I used to dislike you, but now you're being very agreeable.
If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there'd be a shortage of sand. - Friedman

Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. -Friedman

Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program. - Friedman

Society will never be free until the last Democrat is strangled with the entrails of the last Communist.
Chloe8
Posts: 2,579
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2016 9:01:42 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/19/2016 12:24:08 AM, intellectuallyprimitive wrote:
At 8/18/2016 8:54:36 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
Despite significant improvements since the first Olympic games in 1896 when women made up less than 5% of competitors at the Olympic games a significant difference still exists. Despite the IOC (International Olympic Committee) publicly supporting a policy of gender equality women still only make up 45% of the total number of competitors at the Olympics and compete in 137 events while men make up 55% of the total number of competitors at the Olympics and compete in 169 events.

The IOC gives individual sports federations a set number of medals and allows the federation's to choose which events to include in the Olympics. Many sports such as boxing (10 events for men, 3 for women) and wrestling (12 events for men, 6 for women) choose to have more events for men than women. This in my opinion is blatant discrimination on the grounds of gender. If I was in charge of the IOC I would make it mandatory that each sport has an equal number of events for men and women. I see no reason to allow sports the opportunity to discriminate on the grounds of gender when the stated goal of the organization is to achieve gender equality at the Olympics. Unless it cracks down on sports that discriminate against female competitors such as wrestling and boxing the gender gap in the Olympics and sport in general will remain.

I challenge you to find any evidence demonstrating the denial of women into the Olympics. I am not referring to the disparity you claim. If you are able to locate such evidence, then we can both agree that this is morally distasteful. As it pertains to inequality, let us review these two crucial questions:

http://www.wsj.com...

Why are there more men involved in PROFESSIONAL and COLLEGIATE American football, baseball, and even basketball?

I'm from the UK so unfortunately know extremely little about these particular sports. I don't even know the rules! I know however they are popular in the USA. I don't know anything about the collegiate system so don't feel I have a great deal of knowledge on the issue.

These particular sports are more appealing to men. This makes more men more likely to participate in these sports on a recreational level and makes men more likely to watch these sports live in stadiums or on tv. As they are not seen as cool for women to be involved in with few female role models playing at an elite level not many girls take up an interest in or participate in these sports. When combined with the influence of society that these sports are not really for women female involvement is further deterred.

It's a vicious circle. The more women are discouraged from involvement the fewer get involved. The more encouragement they receive the greater the involvement. Watching female basketball players at the Olympics might inspire young girls to take it up recreationally. How can that be a bad thing?

Why do these sports receive more spectators and television air time than the counterpart?

Because the male competition is played at a higher level and the audience is predominantly male.

It may be a result of men inherently, on average, being more competitive, physically adept (strength and power), faster, and more neurologicaly inclined to perform these sports in a fashion that is not only more attractive or entertaining to viewers, but also capable of generating SUBSTANTIALLY more revenue as a result of the former.

I'm not arguing about this. I know men's sport is a lot more successful commercially.

You perhaps then ruminate:
The Olympics is not intended to generate revenue.

It has many purposes of which generating revenue is one element.

I assure you that the above idea is quite the opposite.
The Olympics seek to involve the best of the BEST, and that is, on balance, typically men. I am not patronizing female events nor the competitors, albeit the nature of reality suggests that men excel more than the counterpart at sports, thereby rendering the Olympics disproportionate in regards to the competitors

I don't agree that the only purpose of the Olympics is generating profit. Obviously it's important it's a commercial success but it's main purpose is a sporting competition to showcase the most talented individuals over a range of sports, inspiring people to take up sports recreationally and maybe even aim for the Olympics themselves one day.

Consider this, if only 1% of Olympic competitors were female would young girls around the world would think sport must be for men only? Would it not deter their involvement?

It's important also that the Olympics sets an example on the issue of gender equality to the world. We both live in nation's of supposed equal rights but don't you think its important to set an example to women living in openly sexist countries that they don't have to be second class citizens? Also show misogynistic men in these countries that women are capable of extraordinary things too and Maybe their attitude towards women is wrong?
Chloe8
Posts: 2,579
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2016 9:13:31 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/19/2016 7:28:19 PM, Heterodox wrote:
At 8/19/2016 7:17:02 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
At 8/19/2016 12:31:02 PM, Heterodox wrote:
At 8/18/2016 8:58:18 PM, ford_prefect wrote:
If female athletes want gender equality they should compete in the same events as the men. No restrictions, only the best athletes qualify and compete. I wonder what the percentage of women would be then...

Is discrimination otherwise. Which would qualify it as sexist too. In fact I think we should do that with all sports.

So your saying that it's unfair for women to have seperate competitions to men?

What benefits do you believe would be seen by excluding women from competing at an elite level?

Not what I am saying at all. I am saying the very act of having separate competitions is discrimination (based on sex or gender, not sure which), which means it qualifies as being sexist.

I get why we have them separated, men are generally physically stronger and more capable (this is a fact). If they weren't separated you would see far fewer women in the Olympics (or any sport).

However, if you want equality in every aspect, you would have to desegregate sports.

Let's look at this differently. There are different weight classifications in boxing. Obviously a heavyweight would knock out a lightweight fairly easily. You could argue the world champion lightweight boxer is rubbish in comparison to the 20th ranked heavyweight.

So that's an example of classifications based on physical characteristics. Are you saying this is wrong as well?

I think in this instance it is fairly clear physical characteristics make it impossible for women to play certain sports to the same level as men. So it's a question of choosing to allow sports to be entirely male dominated and having no role models for young girls to look up to as an inspiration to take up sports or having an equal number of events for men and women where young girls around the world can be inspired by positive role models to get involved in sports. Don't you think a field of Olympic competitors all being men would be a big deterrent to girls thinking of taking up sport recreationally? Or don't you see this as a problem?
Chloe8
Posts: 2,579
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2016 9:26:04 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/19/2016 3:25:15 AM, ford_prefect wrote:
Let me put it another way: currently males under 5'6 have no chance of being selected for an Olympic basketball roster. Should we create an "under 5'6 men's basketball" event, because otherwise short men would be discouraged from taking up basketball?

I don't find it a terrible idea. Boxing for example has different weight classifications as does wrestling and taekwondo. Obviously the 50th ranked heavyweight boxer would knockout the best lightweight boxer but the presence of the lightweight division encourages smaller people to get involved in boxing who otherwise would not. Maybe a basketball competition for smaller people would encourage more small people who like basketball to take up the sport? Sunday leagues for under 5ft10 players and another for under 5ft6 or something? If you were small but liked playing basketball it would be a good thing. Maybe the small players would be more nimble and faster with a different tactical element as height makes scoring more challenging?

The reality is that nobody wants to watch short guys play basketball. They are objectively worse and less entertaining than the 6 and 7 footers who can jump out of the gym.

Why do people watch lightweight boxing? As I said above its possible height limit basketball could get a following and have a positive influence.

So why do women get their own event for basketball? There are over 300 players in the NBA who would dominate if they played against the Olympic women's teams. How is it fair that they don't get to be Olympians, if they are better at basketball than every single woman currently at the games?

Because the female players are the best women at playing basketball. There presence at the Olympics acknowledges this while inspiring girls around the world to take up basketball. Obviously as a female you are inspired by seeing the female body at its limit physically, maybe some men can't understand or appreciate this element.

If a woman is good enough to hold her own in an event, whether it be running, swimming, or basketball, let her challenge the rest of the world's best athletes. No discrimination, no categories, let the best of the best compete.
Chloe8
Posts: 2,579
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2016 9:34:58 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/19/2016 3:19:36 AM, ford_prefect wrote:
At 8/18/2016 9:46:55 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
At 8/18/2016 9:28:19 PM, ford_prefect wrote:
At 8/18/2016 9:23:05 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
At 8/18/2016 9:08:42 PM, ford_prefect wrote:
At 8/18/2016 9:03:29 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
At 8/18/2016 8:58:18 PM, ford_prefect wrote:
If female athletes want gender equality they should compete in the same events as the men. No restrictions, only the best athletes qualify and compete. I wonder what the percentage of women would be then...

I advocate this sort of attitude in the workplace but I don't see a reasonable argument to apply it to sport. What is it about an equal number of events for men and women you find unreasonable?

It's discriminatory to not allow the best athletes to compete in the Olympics. If the top 10 male sprinters and top 10 female sprinters get to attend, why should the 11th-20th fastest men have to lose their spots to 10 women who are all slower than them?

Because that would exclude the 10 best female sprinters. Seeing the fastest woman competing is far more important than seeing the 11th fastest man.

So slower women are more important than faster men? In that case, why don't we have a white 100 yard race and a black 100 yard race? As far as I know most of the medalists in that event are black. So we are excluding the 10 best white sprinters. Would you agree that seeing the fastest white man run is far more important than seeing the 11th fastest black man?

No i would not agree. Its possible for white men to win Olympic medals.
Are you aware that between 1984 and 2016, all of the Olympic 100 meter finalists have been of African descent? https://en.wikipedia.org...

I was not aware of that although I'm not particularly surprised. I did however check the results of the 200m at this Olympics and noticed a white French athlete called christophe lemaitre got the bronze medal.

If you're saying that it's technically possible for a white male to medal in a 100 meter race nowadays, then I'll counter that it's technically possible for a woman to medal in a swimming event. For example, Katie Ledecky claims that she has beaten male swimmers in practice.

I'm not saying it's impossible for women to compete with men in some circumstances. It's obvious though men on average have superior athletic capabilities and would win nearly every Olympic competition.

How are young girls going to be inspired to take up sports if they think it's impossible for them to compete at an elite level if hypothetically 99% of Olympic competitors were men? Do you think discouraging women from taking up sports is a good idea? If so, why?

If you think young girls would be discouraged because 99% of Olympic competitors would be male, then you must also agree that white males are currently being discouraged from training to be sprinters, because 100% of the finalists are black.

That's true. Hopefully christophe lemaitre will provide some inspiration. I checked his wiki, he has run under 10 seconds for 100m. Unfortunately no woman has ever run under 10. 5 seconds. The difference between black males and white males in terms of sprinting ability is smaller than the comparison between men and women.

I don't think we should discourage women to take up sports. There's nothing wrong with funding boys and girls athletic programs in high school to promote good exercise habits. But there's no reason to create a distinction in professional sports and Olympic competitions because they aren't about promoting public health. They are about watching the strongest, fastest, most talented athletes in the world compete at a high level.

Promoting public health is in my opinion one of the big benefits of the Olympics. You have to admit an Olympic games full of men would deter women from taking up sports.
intellectuallyprimitive
Posts: 1,000
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2016 9:40:42 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/19/2016 9:01:42 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
At 8/19/2016 12:24:08 AM, intellectuallyprimitive wrote:
At 8/18/2016 8:54:36 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
Despite significant improvements since the first Olympic games in 1896 when women made up less than 5% of competitors at the Olympic games a significant difference still exists. Despite the IOC (International Olympic Committee) publicly supporting a policy of gender equality women still only make up 45% of the total number of competitors at the Olympics and compete in 137 events while men make up 55% of the total number of competitors at the Olympics and compete in 169 events.

The IOC gives individual sports federations a set number of medals and allows the federation's to choose which events to include in the Olympics. Many sports such as boxing (10 events for men, 3 for women) and wrestling (12 events for men, 6 for women) choose to have more events for men than women. This in my opinion is blatant discrimination on the grounds of gender. If I was in charge of the IOC I would make it mandatory that each sport has an equal number of events for men and women. I see no reason to allow sports the opportunity to discriminate on the grounds of gender when the stated goal of the organization is to achieve gender equality at the Olympics. Unless it cracks down on sports that discriminate against female competitors such as wrestling and boxing the gender gap in the Olympics and sport in general will remain.

I challenge you to find any evidence demonstrating the denial of women into the Olympics. I am not referring to the disparity you claim. If you are able to locate such evidence, then we can both agree that this is morally distasteful. As it pertains to inequality, let us review these two crucial questions:

http://www.wsj.com...


Why are there more men involved in PROFESSIONAL and COLLEGIATE American football, baseball, and even basketball?

I'm from the UK so unfortunately know extremely little about these particular sports. I don't even know the rules! I know however they are popular in the USA. I don't know anything about the collegiate system so don't feel I have a great deal of knowledge on the issue.
I wrongly precluded that you could have been a non U.S resident. The majority of professional sports teams and collegiate sports teams are primarily occupied by men. I believe there are 30 male NBA teams to the WNBA's (female) 12.

These particular sports are more appealing to men. This makes more men more likely to participate in these sports on a recreational level and makes men more likely to watch these sports live in stadiums or on tv. As they are not seen as cool for women to be involved in with few female role models playing at an elite level not many girls take up an interest in or participate in these sports. When combined with the influence of society that these sports are not really for women female involvement is further deterred.
Could you elaborate as to why these sports are not seen as "cool" for women? Moreover, please provide examples of how society influences that "sports are not really for women."
It's a vicious circle. The more women are discouraged from involvement the fewer get involved. The more encouragement they receive the greater the involvement. Watching female basketball players at the Olympics might inspire young girls to take it up recreationally. How can that be a bad thing?
Contemplating whether it is a 'bad' or 'good' thing is irrelevant. Male sports are higher demanded, hence the superior quantity of male participants in the Olympics. Additionally, as it was posted previously, men hold more higher qualifying spots than the counterpart. This may appear discouraging to females who aspire to participate in sports, but it is the dispassionate nature of reality. An almost equal, yet rotated, comparison to consider would be the discouragement of male educators, provided the counterpart occupies the profession substantially more.
http://nces.ed.gov...

Why do these sports receive more spectators and television air time than the counterpart?

Because the male competition is played at a higher level and the audience is predominantly male.
Could this statement apply to the Olympic games, and if so, does it justifiably account for the inequality you propose?
It may be a result of men inherently, on average, being more competitive, physically adept (strength and power), faster, and more neurologicaly inclined to perform these sports in a fashion that is not only more attractive or entertaining to viewers, but also capable of generating SUBSTANTIALLY more revenue as a result of the former.

I'm not arguing about this. I know men's sport is a lot more successful commercially.
If you do not reject that, then perhaps you could concede that the inequality in the Olympics (MORE THAN LIKELY) is not a result of sexism, oppression, or malfeasance.
You perhaps then ruminate:
The Olympics is not intended to generate revenue.

It has many purposes of which generating revenue is one element.
We both concur.
I assure you that the above idea is quite the opposite.
The Olympics seek to involve the best of the BEST, and that is, on balance, typically men. I am not patronizing female events nor the competitors, albeit the nature of reality suggests that men excel more than the counterpart at sports, thereby rendering the Olympics disproportionate in regards to the competitors

I don't agree that the only purpose of the Olympics is generating profit. Obviously it's important it's a commercial success but it's main purpose is a sporting competition to showcase the most talented individuals over a range of sports, inspiring people to take up sports recreationally and maybe even aim for the Olympics themselves one day.
We both concur.
Consider this, if only 1% of Olympic competitors were female would young girls around the world would think sport must be for men only? Would it not deter their involvement?
This does not serve as a robust argument given that women have attempted to participate in men's boxing, men's wrestling, and American Football. The results are consistent, failure. The women who genuinely and profoundly aspire to participate would not be deterred, albeit the majority of women may be discouraged.
It's important also that the Olympics sets an example on the issue of gender equality to the world. We both live in nation's of supposed equal rights but don't you think its important to set an example to women living in openly sexist countries that they don't have to be second class citizens? Also show misogynistic men in these countries that women are capable of extraordinary things too and Maybe their attitude towards women is wrong?

"It may be a result of men inherently, on average, being more competitive, physically adept (strength and power), faster, and more neurologicaly inclined to perform these sports in a fashion that is not only more attractive or entertaining to viewers, but also capable of generating SUBSTANTIALLY more revenue as a result of the former."

" I'm not arguing about this."

I provided reasons as to why men excel and participate in sports more frequently than women. This leads to and can account for why there are more professional and financial opportunities for men. Injecting women into sports primarily because there is a disparity or a gap, is detrimental and disrepectful to the women who have worked diligently and hard to become involved in the Olympics. You are mistaking the reason why the gap exists. It is not a result of sexism nor is it a reflection of intentional gender inequality. It is a reflection of biology and demand.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,212
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2016 9:56:16 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/18/2016 9:23:05 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
At 8/18/2016 9:08:42 PM, ford_prefect wrote:
At 8/18/2016 9:03:29 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
At 8/18/2016 8:58:18 PM, ford_prefect wrote:
If female athletes want gender equality they should compete in the same events as the men. No restrictions, only the best athletes qualify and compete. I wonder what the percentage of women would be then...

I advocate this sort of attitude in the workplace but I don't see a reasonable argument to apply it to sport. What is it about an equal number of events for men and women you find unreasonable?

It's discriminatory to not allow the best athletes to compete in the Olympics. If the top 10 male sprinters and top 10 female sprinters get to attend, why should the 11th-20th fastest men have to lose their spots to 10 women who are all slower than them?

Because that would exclude the 10 best female sprinters. Seeing the fastest woman competing is far more important than seeing the 11th fastest man.

Fine, make an all woman Olympics then. Good luck finding sponsors, people care about the best person, not "best person in class."

Para Olympics would get more sponsors.
Foodiesoul
Posts: 579
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2016 11:55:38 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/19/2016 9:56:16 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 8/18/2016 9:23:05 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
At 8/18/2016 9:08:42 PM, ford_prefect wrote:
At 8/18/2016 9:03:29 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
At 8/18/2016 8:58:18 PM, ford_prefect wrote:
If female athletes want gender equality they should compete in the same events as the men. No restrictions, only the best athletes qualify and compete. I wonder what the percentage of women would be then...

I advocate this sort of attitude in the workplace but I don't see a reasonable argument to apply it to sport. What is it about an equal number of events for men and women you find unreasonable?

It's discriminatory to not allow the best athletes to compete in the Olympics. If the top 10 male sprinters and top 10 female sprinters get to attend, why should the 11th-20th fastest men have to lose their spots to 10 women who are all slower than them?

Because that would exclude the 10 best female sprinters. Seeing the fastest woman competing is far more important than seeing the 11th fastest man.

Fine, make an all woman Olympics then. Good luck finding sponsors, people care about the best person, not "best person in class."

Para Olympics would get more sponsors.

NOPE! They should just stick with making the Olympics mixed gender! An all women Olympics would just lead to sexist backlash!

The Paralympics is different because that's made for disabled people to be able to have the chance to play sports!
Heterodox
Posts: 293
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2016 12:17:25 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/19/2016 9:13:31 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
At 8/19/2016 7:28:19 PM, Heterodox wrote:
At 8/19/2016 7:17:02 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
At 8/19/2016 12:31:02 PM, Heterodox wrote:
At 8/18/2016 8:58:18 PM, ford_prefect wrote:
If female athletes want gender equality they should compete in the same events as the men. No restrictions, only the best athletes qualify and compete. I wonder what the percentage of women would be then...

Is discrimination otherwise. Which would qualify it as sexist too. In fact I think we should do that with all sports.

So your saying that it's unfair for women to have seperate competitions to men?

What benefits do you believe would be seen by excluding women from competing at an elite level?

Not what I am saying at all. I am saying the very act of having separate competitions is discrimination (based on sex or gender, not sure which), which means it qualifies as being sexist.

I get why we have them separated, men are generally physically stronger and more capable (this is a fact). If they weren't separated you would see far fewer women in the Olympics (or any sport).

However, if you want equality in every aspect, you would have to desegregate sports.

Let's look at this differently. There are different weight classifications in boxing. Obviously a heavyweight would knock out a lightweight fairly easily. You could argue the world champion lightweight boxer is rubbish in comparison to the 20th ranked heavyweight.

So that's an example of classifications based on physical characteristics. Are you saying this is wrong as well?

I think in this instance it is fairly clear physical characteristics make it impossible for women to play certain sports to the same level as men. So it's a question of choosing to allow sports to be entirely male dominated and having no role models for young girls to look up to as an inspiration to take up sports or having an equal number of events for men and women where young girls around the world can be inspired by positive role models to get involved in sports. Don't you think a field of Olympic competitors all being men would be a big deterrent to girls thinking of taking up sport recreationally? Or don't you see this as a problem?

I'm not saying discrimination and/or sexism is wrong. So, of course I don't think different weight classes is wrong. However, different weight classes have nothing to do with discriminating based on sex (sexism). They are discrminating based on weight.
Fernyx
Posts: 306
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2016 8:54:26 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/18/2016 8:54:36 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
Despite significant improvements since the first Olympic games in 1896 when women made up less than 5% of competitors at the Olympic games a significant difference still exists. Despite the IOC (International Olympic Committee) publicly supporting a policy of gender equality women still only make up 45% of the total number of competitors at the Olympics and compete in 137 events while men make up 55% of the total number of competitors at the Olympics and compete in 169 events.

The IOC gives individual sports federations a set number of medals and allows the federation's to choose which events to include in the Olympics. Many sports such as boxing (10 events for men, 3 for women) and wrestling (12 events for men, 6 for women) choose to have more events for men than women. This in my opinion is blatant discrimination on the grounds of gender. If I was in charge of the IOC I would make it mandatory that each sport has an equal number of events for men and women. I see no reason to allow sports the opportunity to discriminate on the grounds of gender when the stated goal of the organization is to achieve gender equality at the Olympics. Unless it cracks down on sports that discriminate against female competitors such as wrestling and boxing the gender gap in the Olympics and sport in general will remain.

55/45 split isn't a problem, and the reason why women have fewer physical events is most likely down to profit based on viewership.
Chloe8
Posts: 2,579
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2016 11:24:19 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
I wrongly precluded that you could have been a non U.S resident. The majority of professional sports teams and collegiate sports teams are primarily occupied by men. I believe there are 30 male NBA teams to the WNBA's (female) 12.

Fair enough.

These particular sports are more appealing to men. This makes more men more likely to participate in these sports on a recreational level and makes men more likely to watch these sports live in stadiums or on tv. As they are not seen as cool for women to be involved in with few female role models playing at an elite level not many girls take up an interest in or participate in these sports. When combined with the influence of society that these sports are not really for women female involvement is further deterred.
Could you elaborate as to why these sports are not seen as "cool" for women? Moreover, please provide examples of how society influences that "sports are not really for women."

As I said I don't know a lot about those sports. I would say though they are seen as uncool for women because not many other women are playing these sports. It's just seen as abnormal by society. If a woman says to someone she just meets that she is into playing certain sports she is judged to be a bit strange in a lot of cases because it's seen as abnormal while if a man said he was into playing the same sport it would be looked upon more favourably.

Society creates pressure for a certain body image. Women feel pressured into maintaining/achieving a slim appearance. Sports often require a more muscular athletic stature that contradicts with societies idea of the perfect female body deterring female involvement in sport participation.

It's a vicious circle. The more women are discouraged from involvement the fewer get involved. The more encouragement they receive the greater the involvement. Watching female basketball players at the Olympics might inspire young girls to take it up recreationally. How can that be a bad thing?
Contemplating whether it is a 'bad' or 'good' thing is irrelevant. Male sports are higher demanded, hence the superior quantity of male participants in the Olympics. Additionally, as it was posted previously, men hold more higher qualifying spots than the counterpart. This may appear discouraging to females who aspire to participate in sports, but it is the dispassionate nature of reality. An almost equal, yet rotated, comparison to consider would be the discouragement of male educators, provided the counterpart occupies the profession substantially more.
http://nces.ed.gov...

Fair enough. That does not happen in my country though. There is no sexism in what we call teaching. In fact many head teachers are men, probably around 50% although the teachers of the younger age groups are almost exclusively female.

I don't think greater demand for men's sport is a sufficient reason for discrimination. You can simply increase the number of events for women to equal the number of events for men. How would that be a problem? It seems such a simple solution.

Why do these sports receive more spectators and television air time than the counterpart?

Because the male competition is played at a higher level and the audience is predominantly male.
Could this statement apply to the Olympic games, and if so, does it justifiably account for the inequality you propose?

I don't know if more men or women watch the Olympics on tv. I would guess probably more men but I doubt the gap is anywhere near as big as American football viewing figures. I don't see how more men watching though is a good argument for having more men's competitions. The way I look at it is the more even the number of events between men and women the more likely more women will watch. The viewing discrepancy could be partially explained by the unequal number of events. It's likely fat more women watch now than 30 years ago when the number of events was more uneven.

It may be a result of men inherently, on average, being more competitive, physically adept (strength and power), faster, and more neurologicaly inclined to perform these sports in a fashion that is not only more attractive or entertaining to viewers, but also capable of generating SUBSTANTIALLY more revenue as a result of the former.

I'm not arguing about this. I know men's sport is a lot more successful commercially.
If you do not reject that, then perhaps you could concede that the inequality in the Olympics (MORE THAN LIKELY) is not a result of sexism, oppression, or malfeasance.

I have not made such allegations. I think there is historically elements of sexism within the Olympic movement but it's likely that current discrepancies are based on a mixture of tradition and commercial considerations. That is not though a good reason for maintaining the unequal number of events for men and women. Simply create new events for women to equal the number of events for men.

Consider this, if only 1% of Olympic competitors were female would young girls around the world would think sport must be for men only? Would it not deter their involvement?
This does not serve as a robust argument given that women have attempted to participate in men's boxing, men's wrestling, and American Football. The results are consistent, failure. The women who genuinely and profoundly aspire to participate would not be deterred, albeit the majority of women may be discouraged.

You basically make my argument here. Currently the most talented women know they can compete in women only boxing or American football and achieve success. If women only events did not exist then the only women getting involved would be those not intelligent enough to realise it's impossible for women to box against men at the highest level. That would be a huge deterrent. The number of professional sports women would plummet as would female participation in sports. It would send a message, men are physically superior so women should not do sports. That's a sexist 19th century message that's detrimental to society, public health and women's rights.

It's important also that the Olympics sets an example on the issue of gender equality to the world. We both live in nation's of supposed equal rights but don't you think its important to set an example to women living in openly sexist countries that they don't have to be second class citizens? Also show misogynistic men in these countries that women are capable of extraordinary things too and Maybe their attitude towards women is wrong?

"It may be a result of men inherently, on average, being more competitive, physically adept (strength and power), faster, and more neurologicaly inclined to perform these sports in a fashion that is not only more attractive or entertaining to viewers, but also capable of generating SUBSTANTIALLY more revenue as a result of the former."

" I'm not arguing about this."

I provided reasons as to why men excel and participate in sports more frequently than women. This leads to and can account for why there are more professional and financial opportunities for men. Injecting women into sports primarily because there is a disparity or a gap, is detrimental and disrepectful to the women who have worked diligently and hard to become involved in the Olympics. You are mistaking the reason why the gap exists. It is not a result of sexism nor is it a reflection of intentional gender inequality. It is a ref

There is no good reason for more events for men at the Olympics than for women. Equalizing the number of events for each gender will have a negligible effect on commercial aspects while boosting female sport participation and viewing figures.

I don't see why men oppose equality. What have you got to fear about it?