View Single Post
Oct11-05, 02:54 PM
0TheSwerve0's Avatar
P: 405
Quote Quote by russ_watters
Somewhat interesting thread, but it mostly comes down to an argument over definitions. For example: The first word in the definition of "sport" is "physical". Because, by definition, sports are physical activities, they are going to be dominated by men. Its simply a biological reality. If you want to make them non-physical, then you can play "games" - but "sports" will continue to be male-dominated. No, they wouldn't. The best male soccer players can run faster an kick harder than the best female soccer players.
Why would men be better in general at physical activities? Are there not a wide range of physical activities for both sexes? I've been talking to my roommate (loseyourname) about this, and he's given numerous examples where women would excel - piloting, Indie car racing, croquet, climbing (depends on types of climbing, eg diff of strength vs dexterity and balance), balance beam/gymnastics, horse racing (why no female jockeys?), racquetball, darts and archery (fine motor control), skiing, snowboarding, skateboarding, surfing, diving ....

I'm sure we could even create new sports based on traits females excel at -
fine motor control, ability to withstand higher levels of pain and stress, grace, small size, nimbleness, flexibility, etc; and the mental traits that females excel at - memory recall, using landmarks, enhanced sense of smell, ...there has to be a website somewhere that lists all of these.

He even mentioned that females would be useful in war because of their small size, sharper senses (in some ways), fine motor control to operate, psychological strength and ability to withstand pain and stress....Oh one more endurance. I've heard that women have more endurance. This isn't possible in running since women expend more to run because of their pelvis is suited to birthing and bipedality whereas men are simply suited to bipedality.