I'm not much into sports. I've only ever enjoyed participating in long-distance running, and that's it. But when I tune in to watch a sporting event, especially the Olympics, I expect to see good competition. When you divide men and women up because "women can't compete" with men, what're you're doing is creating a B team. A team universally recognized as being not quite as good as the A team, but you're too sympathetic to them to tell them to get the hell out and train harder.
Feminists want women to receive equal treatment, and equal social respect. Often times women are derided for not being a good as men when it comes to physical things. Women are seen as weaker, and it's common to use this perception as an insult or reason to train harder. Phrases like "you hit like a girl" come to mind. If feminists actually want this perception to stop, then they need to encourage women to compete on the same level as men, instead of competing on the B team. If that means fewer women compete, oh well. I personally couldn't give a damn about that. I want to see the best compete against the best, male or female. And Feminists want women to have more respect when it comes to their physical capabilities.
Because really, if you're going to argue for women being able to hold the same positions as men in the military, what excuse do you have then to keep them from competing on the same level as men in a sport?
It makes sense that the categories should be dissolved. It will suck in the beginning, but gradually the sexes will start competing on the same level as is evident already in some sports. This is what equality is about, so lets embrace it and while it will suck in the beginning it can only get better.
I look forward to the days when gender will not bar female athletes from adequate funding and adequate respect. There is something to be said though for the argument that forcing the categories to be abolished immediately will cause women to be generally under-represented in sports. However, I'm looking forward to those days of genuine and not thinly-veiled equality between the genders and sexes.
Gender is a combination of many variables : hormones, genitalia, chromosomes, psychological gender and sociological gender, and so on. The real "biological" division is not between men and women but between these others variables, so if you want a competition to be really fair, you should divide the people competing by their hormone level or weight or force and not by their gender.
1) Men and Women should compete against other in every Olympic sport (Summer and Winter). There should be no separate divisions, even in sprinting and boxing. Separate is inherently not equal. People say they are for gender equality but if you suggest that they actual compete against each other in an event where men inherently have an advantage they go nuclear on you and say you are a terrible person, etc. Logical or emotional?!
2) Why are there separate gender divisions in sports that don’t primarily rely on strength, speed, weight, or height….Such as billiards, darts, chess, or Olympic curling?
3) Hypothetically speaking, let's say one ethnicity/race tends to be faster than another ethnicity/race in terms of the top performers....Would we ever consider having separate Olympic divisions for Whites, Blacks, Asians, etc!!!?? Of course not. Ask yourself why and you will discover your sexism.
4) If the top female runner wins in a time of 11.00 seconds and the last place male runner loses with a time of 10.99 seconds, does the female runner really deserve a gold medal? Isn't this like giving 9th place a medal in a kiddie competition?
5) Separate gender divisions is inherently unfair to men (I’m assuming they would win most of the events if there was gender integration). Assume there is a limited budget, or air time, or whatever, and thus there can only be XYZ number of Olympic events in total. Currently, it is about a 50/50 split between the male and female events. But, if you had full integration you could have a greater number of different types of events….Like golf, baseball, etc… If we assume that most of those new events would be won by men then in effect the separate Olympic divisions by gender effectively divert success, money, prestige, and gold medals from men to women on a systematically sexist way. This is nothing new of course. This is the way American society is designed and men are too afraid to say anything against in public without the veil of anonymity.
6) You want the truth? You can’t handle the truth.
In no other aspect of life do we separate men and women in such a way. Imagine in the business world if we had companies that only employed men and these companies were only allowed to compete against other companies that only employed men, and the same for women only companies. Absurd. Yet that's exactly what we're trying to do in the sporting world. If we truly believed in equal rights, then we would award based solely on ability. If I can play basketball better than someone else (regardless of sex), I should make the team every single time. Yet inequality occurs in our public school systems when boys who are better than the best girls get cut from their school basketball team while the less talented girls get to use public funds to play a game, a game the more talented boy is denied access to.
Females can play in a male league if they are good enough. As an example, there was a female pitcher in the Little League World Series a year ago. And if a female was good enough, she could pitch in pro baseball too. But the opposite wouldn't be allowed. Males are banned from playing in a women's league. Talk about discrimination! One league for all would solve the problem of discrimination. Having women only leagues is a bigoted idea.
Women earn wages in major sports that are not proportional to their talent. Men with more skill in said sport aren't high ranking athletes in the men's side so earn considerably less than a top female athlete. Why should the women gain money and medals solely because of their sex.
If women are good enough to join fighting units in the army, they're good enough to compete with men in the same competitioon.
'Hostile environment' can't be worse that Jews and black athletes had to face in 1936 Berlin, and it doesn't prevent them to win.
Equality is a hard thing to achieve, but it's a necessity.
Special rules, special class, different treatment. How can there be equality without everyone being treated the same? Feminists want equality, except when they don't, which usually means maintaining a protected area for women only. Let's stop the hypocrisy and be gender neutral in opportunity and accomplishment and not try to fix the outcomes so a certain group "feels better."
I don't see how categorizing sports by Gender violates Women's right and equality while both genders are allowed to participate in the Games. If the Olympics did not allow Women to participate at all, THIS would be inequality. Given this, if you are fighting for gender equality, you should be asking for Female Boxing in the Olympics (and Men Synchronized swimming), not to put women in the ring with 200 pound men.
Evolutionarily, women are 'designed' to bear the weight of a her child. Which is why the lower half of the Female body is strongly structured and giving women superior balancing and flexibility. If you look at the Olympics records for the last couple of decades for weightlifting, Men score almost twice as much as female weightlifters (around 3/2). And no, putting them in the same competition grounds will not eventually make women feel the need to self-improve, but rather the opposite. The reason women weightlifters don't score as high as men doesn't mean that they don't work as hard (perhaps even more), it is just that their body structures aren't made for weightlifting.
Additionally, there is no harm done in separating Women and Men in the Olympics as this decision isn't made by blind sexism, but to conserve the integrity and fairness of the Olympics.
There is no way in hell women would compete with men let alone win any medals. The only medals they would win would be gymnastics. When you think about it, it would be unfair for women. It has been proven women are more agile, but men are stronger. They shouldn't even try.
However to argue be in denial that women can do everything a man can do and even vice versa is idiocy. Like it or not differences in physical and even mental capabilities will be there.
Equal rights as in a man and woman both with equal qualifications and for all purpose the man is a bigot and the woman is of good character. Yet she loses out in gaining the job because her gender is female. Now that is sexism.
However to admit one's capabilities and compete on those basis. It is very rational to do that. You don't compare a cat to a lion. Sure both are felines. However their physical capabilities are different. A domestic cat or even non domestic one. When put against a lion to say compare bite strength. The cat will always and always lose.
Is it prejudice to say, that the cat should not be compared against a lion? No, it's an unfair fight. If any not comparing the cat to the lion is real fairness to the cat.
The feminist movement in it's originality was about actual equal rights to be treated equally, neither be put on a pedestal nor be stepped on. The current feminist movement has been hijacked by "Feminazis" masking the actual purpose with their own agendas.
Feminism is about equality between socially constructed categories of gender. Feminism has nothing to do with biological sex--that is something out of the control of humans. One of the consequences of biological sex is the fact men tend to be significantly stronger and larger than women, and this puts physical females at a disadvantage in physical competitions (aka sports). Sports is about matching athletes of similar physical capabilities.
This question would be tantamount to asking if disabled (i.E. Parathletes) should be asking to compete against able bodied athletes, or asking if senior athletes should be allowed to compete against junior athletes. The obvious answer to all those is NO. It would be absolutely silly for someone to say a baby should be allowed to compete against a world-class athlete, and even though that example is extreme, I think it drives the point home. Athleticism is not about socially constructed categories but about physical ability. Period. I think it is sad that this is even a question. Just shows how ignorant or lazy individuals are when it comes to understanding common sense issues versus political and social issues.
Women fought for the right to be equal with men all throughout history! When we finally received those equal rights we celebrated and now they want us to be separate from men in the Olympics. If women compete against men we can show them that anything they can do we can do just as good!
If women were to start competing at the same level, then it would have already happened. Competing in different categories does not mean that women cannot reach their potential. Women would never qualify, would never participate in the Olympics, and this whole debate would start all over again. One of the building blocks of seeking HEALTHY equality is being realistic and not basing everything off of wishful thinking. In which sports is this evident?
I hate to be blunt lime that but there 's a reason we have different teams: differemt body types. Simply put, most women will not be as tall, strong, or large as men, and thus would be disadvataged. You can argue that gender isn't universal, but sex is and it does affect ability. It would almost be sexist to put women up against men.
Feminists argue for equality between men and women. Although I hold a firm point that I am against feminism, and feminists themselves are the sexists of the 21st century, I am inclined to disagree with this point. Before a feminist comments on this post, I am not against women and men having equal rights, I believe that should be how we live in todays society, I am against the idea of feminism, and I believe that feminists are hugely detrimental in balancing the equality of rights. For example, no, we should not be fighting for 50% women, 50% men in the Houses of Parliament, we should be voting for the best candidates. If 70% of the best candidates are women, we should have 70% of women in parliament. However, if 70% of the best candidates are men, then we should have 70% of men in parliament, it works both ways and feminists blow it out of proportion. Now, moving on to the point at hand. Feminists argue for equal rights between men and women, this does not mean men and women should fight against one another as out genetic build up could not comprehend such a task in such a physical climate. Feminists will ask for equal opportunities, as long as the same events are available for women as their are for men, and both have the same length of TV coverage, then that is equality. Putting men up against women is not equal, and is a bigoted idea.