Social Construction of Gender & Intersexed Individuals

[loseyourname]

Perhaps we also need more sports/games that are less violent.

I think we should have whatever sports a person wants to play. Some people are fine with shuffleboard and squash, but I happen to enjoy contact sports. You don't get the same adrenaline rush without them.

Sports don't have to be centered on physical size and muscle (male characteristics). Sports don't even have to be competitive. There are plenty of sports that other cultures play in which the goal is not to accumulate more points than the other (which is tied to our notion of status), but instead to have fun.

There are plenty of sports in our in which women can comfortable compete with men. In the sports in which they cannot, however, do you or do you not agree that it is a good idea to segregate according to sex? For that matter, we actually segregate further than that, according to age-level and ability within that sex-group/age-level. This is all done with the enjoyment and safety of the participants in mind.

My point is that American sports are designed to have one side clearly win and one clearly lose and are also tailored so that those with masculine attributes win.

If you want to call them "masculine" attributes. I thought we were trying to get away from that. Actually, in the elite-level of athletic competition, pretty much everyone is equally matched physically. The team, or individual, that wins is the one with the best strategy, or the best coaching, or simply the most mental strength or ability to concentrate. I hope you aren't insinuating that the ability to strategize smartly and execute are masculine traits.

Where are the sports that are tailored to females? Gymnasitcs? Where are the sex-neutral sports?

Females are free to invent sports that they are better suited for, just as males invented most of the sports we currently have.*

Card games might be considred a good sport that is sex-neutral, as it doesn't rely whatsoever on physical ability. A lot of people will tell you that card games are not sport, but they are covered by ESPN. Let's face it, though - sport pretty much means physical ability. A large part of the point is to get out and exercise, to feel good in a way that purely mental activities cannot bring about. Whenever we engage in physical activity, elite-level men are almost always going to have an advantage over elite-level women.

*Actually, I should mention that all of my sisters have been involved in sports at one time or another, and they enjoyed them very much. To imply that our current sports are not tailored to females might be a little insulting to the average female athlete. Who are you to tell her that she isn't suited to run around and kick a ball into a goal?

 

[0TheSwerve0]

They are 20% certain I am male. 11% are more male than me, 4% are the same, and 85% are more female than me.

 

[0TheSwerve0]

I think we should have whatever sports a person wants to play. Some people are fine with shuffleboard and squash, but I happen to enjoy contact sports. You don't get the same adrenaline rush without them.

True, but if those sports aren't out there, I'm not about to create new ones. Similarly, if there are only crappy movies available, I don't really have a choice but to either watch them or not see movies at all.

There are plenty of sports in our in which women can comfortable compete with men. In the sports in which they cannot, however, do you or do you not agree that it is a good idea to segregate according to sex? For that matter, we actually segregate further than that, according to age-level and ability within that sex-group/age-level. This is all done with the enjoyment and safety of the participants in mind.

I agree that it is safer for women if we segregate the sexes. Just feel left out More fun to play with everyone, that's why I like to play tag.

If you want to call them "masculine" attributes. I thought we were trying to get away from that. Actually, in the elite-level of athletic competition, pretty much everyone is equally matched physically. The team, or individual, that wins is the one with the best strategy, or the best coaching, or simply the most mental strength or ability to concentrate. I hope you aren't insinuating that the ability to strategize smartly and execute are masculine traits.

I'm talking about physical attributes. The major sports are tailored to emphasize the male's physical body. While cheerleaders emphasize the "female."

Females are free to invent sports that they are better suited for, just as males invented most of the sports we currently have.*

Yes, but a lot of what regard as "choice" is really an http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2005/726/profile.htm" . EG elections

Card games might be considred a good sport that is sex-neutral, as it doesn't rely whatsoever on physical ability. A lot of people will tell you that card games are not sport, but they are covered by ESPN. Let's face it, though - sport pretty much means physical ability. A large part of the point is to get out and exercise, to feel good in a way that purely mental activities cannot bring about. Whenever we engage in physical activity, elite-level men are almost always going to have an advantage over elite-level women.

Yeah, I like playing cards. Sometimes it's fun to run around tho. I usu play racquetball or volleyball for those times.

*Actually, I should mention that all of my sisters have been involved in sports at one time or another, and they enjoyed them very much. To imply that our current sports are not tailored to females might be a little insulting to the average female athlete. Who are you to tell her that she isn't suited to run around and kick a ball into a goal?

I was actually talking more about football, the most popular (right?) sport in America. I made no comment on ability to kick a ball in the goal. I was, as I said before, talking about the extreme emphasis on muscle, size, and violence. And why is soccer segregated? Would females actually be ok playing with males.

 

[Smurf]

K, must have misunderstood what you were saying. I thought you meant that if I wanted to get a "male" job I would be suffering from gender crisis, as if I were dysfunctional.

No dysfunction in individuals is usually caused by already existing dysfunction in society.

Can you explain more of this? Do you mean that society is simply wrong? If you think that this confusion of gender in a society is a sign of dysfunction, then you may as well call of all society dysfunctional to a degree since a large part of culture and societal frameworks operate as gender does. Not an incorrect surmise in my understanding.

Yes.

btw, where on the gender spectrum would consider yourself and why?
and, for anyone who is interested, the http://community.sparknotes.com/gender/"

The very idea of a gender spectrum is just stupid. And you need an account for that link.

 

[russ_watters]

Somewhat interesting thread, but it mostly comes down to an argument over definitions. For example:

I'm talking about physical attributes. The major sports are tailored to emphasize the male's physical body. While cheerleaders emphasize the "female."

...I was actually talking more about football, the most popular (right?) sport in America. I made no comment on ability to kick a ball in the goal. I was, as I said before, talking about the extreme emphasis on muscle, size, and violence.

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.

And why is soccer segregated? Would females actually be ok playing with males.

No, they wouldn't. The best male soccer players can run faster an kick harder than the best female soccer players.

 

[hitssquad]

Ultramarathon competitiveness, female vs male

The only sport I can think of in which the elite-level women are capable of seriously competing with the elite-level men is ultramarathon running.

As of 4/5/05, females might not seem to be very fast at ultramarathons.

pacificstriders.org/data/records/recordUltra.html

 

[loseyourname]

As of 4/5/05, females might not seem to be very fast at ultramarathons.

pacificstriders.org/data/records/recordUltra.html

Those must be records specific to a certain course. The world records are much faster for both sexes. I'm thinking specifically of Ann Trason, who would be top ten in the world amongst men. Looking at everyone else, however, she might just be one of those Michelle Wie types that is hugely exceptional.

 

[0TheSwerve0]

The very idea of a gender spectrum is just stupid. And you need an account for that link.

So we should just have the sexes and no gender then, right? It seems that gender isn't a helpful category or meaningful. We could just call some things sex-specific rather than speaking of gender specific, gender oriented, or gender roles. It almost seems redundant and isn't always correct.

I've also been informed that you see behavior as primarily influenced by nurture rather than nature. In which case I'd be interested in discussing how you see some other things I was addressing.

 

[0TheSwerve0]

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.

 

[hitssquad]

Western States 100 records, female and male

Those must be records specific to a certain course.

They are specific to a certain running club. As can be seen in the table the records were set on a number of different courses.

The world records are much faster for both sexes. I'm thinking specifically of Ann Trason

Ann Trason destroyed her legs by running and no longer competes.

The top females do seem to be pretty fast.
http://www.ws100.com/recordholders.htm

The fact that females have smaller brains might help in an ultramarathon since that means they are carrying around less weight. Ditto for the rest of the upper body which is typically smaller and lighter in females and which might not help as much in an ultramarathon as it would in other types of competition.

 

[Smurf]

[/RIGHT]ve0]So we should just have the sexes and no gender then, right? It seems that gender isn't a helpful category or meaningful. We could just call some things sex-specific rather than speaking of gender specific, gender oriented, or gender roles. It almost seems redundant and isn't always correct.

Depends. Some people would say that gender (and most aspects of socialization) are vital for a society to function.

I've also been informed that you see behavior as primarily influenced by nurture rather than nature. In which case I'd be interested in discussing how you see some other things I was addressing.

heh, who told you that?

I'll write more later, I actually found an essay that argues not only are there multiple genders, but multiple sexes. I'll post it later - I'm going to be late for a philosophy meeting.

 

[0TheSwerve0]

heh, who told you that?

Someone who posts on this board

I'll write more later, I actually found an essay that argues not only are there multiple genders, but multiple sexes. I'll post it later - I'm going to be late for a philosophy meeting.

Sweet, have fun.

 

[Smurf]

Ditto for the rest of the upper body which is typically smaller and lighter in females and which might not help as much in an ultramarathon as it would in other types of competition.

Then again there are lots of girls that carry around quite a bit of weight on their chest.

 

[0TheSwerve0]

Found a site on androgyny that may be useful material as well
http://androgyne.0catch.com/

 

[Smurf]

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/gender/fs.html"

In 1993 I published a modest proposal suggesting that we replace our two-sex system with a five-sex one. In addition to males and females, I argued, we should also accept the categories herms (named after "true" hermaphrodites), merms (named after male "pseudohermaphrodites"), and ferms (named after female "pseudohermaphrodites").

 

[Smurf]

Oh Boy!
By*SARA WILSON
Saturday, Aug 28, 2004

Nickolaus Ludavicius started shopping when he was 5. His mother would drive him from their home in Sault Ste. Marie, Ont., "at least 100 times a year" to upscale children's boutiques in Toronto and Michigan, where she would lay selected items on the counter and ask him to pick.
Gradually, he began to develop his own taste, favouring high-end designer kids labels like Jean Bouget, David Charles, Nautica and Oilily. He became vocal about his likes and dislikes. Once, upon discovering that a certain Toronto boutique carried his favourite footwear, he pressed his hands to his face, à la Macaulay Culkin in Home Alone, and cried: "Yummy! European Import Shoes!" He was 10.
Now, at 13, his unofficial school uniform is a Dolce & Gabbana junior jersey and Lucky Brand Jeans. He visits a stylist regularly for highlights and haircuts. His toilette consists of Nolita moisturizing shampoo and conditioner, Vagheggi face cream, Sebastian shaper massage texture gel mist, and Ice hair spiker blast. He does not, he says, "use drugstore stuff."
Tween boys, like Nickolaus, are fast becoming a force to be reckoned with. They're buying clothing, shoes and even jewellery in record numbers. They're shopping for skin and hair-care products. And they're booking cut and colour appointments at high-end salons. The new metrosexual has arrived, and he's barely hit puberty.
If parents can't -- or won't -- pay for their tween's indulgences, the kids buy what they like, thanks to their staggeringly high disposable incomes. According to Toronto-based youth marketing firm Youthography, 90 per cent of tween boys receive an average of $90 for their birthdays, with 66 per cent receiving about $91 as a gift on major holidays and 85 per cent receiving money as needed. And in this post-nuclear-family era, kids often have access to funds from multiple family sources. Marketers have dubbed this "the six-pocket syndrome," and it's the driving force behind tween boys' annual discretionary income of roughly $920-million.
Old-guard American brands such as Perry Ellis, Ralph Lauren and Guess, and newer hip-hop labels like Sean John and Rocawear have all spawned mini-me offspring with unisex offerings. Even mainstream department stores such as Sears and Zellers have caught the wave.
Diane Brisebois, president and CEO of the Retail Council of Canada, a non-profit industry association representing 9,000 retailers across the country, says the trend hasn't even peaked yet: In the next five years, "you're going to see more and more manufacturers developing for that age group and retailers selling to that age group."
"I would never have dreamt that he'd be into that stuff," Toronto mother Brenda McNee says, recounting her surprise upon learning that her nine-year-old son, Spencer, wanted a beaded necklace.
The necklace, which retails for $19 at Toronto children's boutique Bon Lieu, was one of 50 that owner Cerissa Abbott ordered in June for the back-to-school rush. Instead, they sold out in three days. "Jewellery's hot right now," Abbott says. "If you're a boy, you have to have a necklace. Rings are big too."
When Abbott opened her shop 18 years ago, she says, fashionable clothes for tween boys simply did not exist in Canada. "Parents would dress their baby boys well," she says. "But as soon as they started to walk, there was nothing to buy unless it had a truck or a maple leaf on it." Now, she says the city's tony Rosedale clientele typically spend at least $3,000 per season, per kid.
Whereas shopping used to be the domain of the parent, Laurie Mah of Youthography says that today kids tag along. According to the YTV 2003 Tween Report, tweens now influence $20-billion worth of purchases in Canada each year.
Mah also says the trend may have something to do with the fact that busy parents are increasingly desperate to connect with their youngsters in any way they can. "A lot of parents are aiming to please. And they do it through shopping and buying."
So taboo is the only impediment left to boys shopping -- and that's been eliminated too. Television shows like Queer Eye for the Straight Guy, in which straight men are made-over by a team of über-stylish gay guys, men's magazines that treat shopping as this generation's answer to hunting, male celebrities like Ashton Kutcher, Adrien Brody and Usher, who divulge their grooming rituals in the international media, and a glut of just-for-men grooming products have banished any stigma that once surrounded male style-consciousness.
True, the term "metrosexual" was never intended to describe tween boys, but the trickle-down effect is real. Today, it's easy to find boys like 10-year-old Torontonian Daniel Luftspring, who counts among his hobbies basketball, soccer, baseball, video games and critiquing the stars' gowns on Oscar night. (Some think that style is "wearing what a famous person wears," he says, "but the point of style is to invent your own.")
Or Aaron Sommerhalder, an eight-year-old who scours his mom's issues of InStyle, Fashion and Flare for inspiration. "That's where I get all my ideas for new clothes and highlights," he says.
Sommerhalder isn't alone. Many boys visit mom's hairstylist for haircuts and colour treatments. Justin German, co-owner of Toronto salon Shagg, where clients 12 and over pay up to $95 for a haircut and $150 for a colour treatment, says the salon frequently serves tween boy customers, some as young as 8.
Bon Lieu owner Abbott's son, Brennan Dumas, now 7, was just 3½ when he announced to her that he wanted everything she bought him to feature an alligator logo -- he was referring, of course, to Lacoste's trademark image. "He just loved the little alligators," she says with a grin.
While some parents find their kids' brand consciousness cute, it's not necessarily benign. The lessons that tween marketing teaches kids -- among them, that self-expression can be bought, that personality can be defined through a brand, that clothes aren't meant to last and can, in fact, substitute for genuine emotion -- have the potential to wreak havoc on boys' fragile, still-forming identities. For now, though, most boys, like Luftspring, aren't cognizant of that. "It's exciting when you get new clothes and you look good in them," he says. "When you look good, you feel good. That's kind of basic human nature."

^
A little something on Gender roles

 

[russ_watters]

Why would men be better in general at physical activities? Are there not a wide range of physical activities for both sexes?

Is that a joke? Men are, in general, stronger than women and in most sports - major ones, anyway - that trait factors heavily in success.

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 ...

Ok... So?

I'm sure we could even create new sports based on traits females excel at...

Certainly. But to me, the idea of creating a sport with specific attributes designed to favor one sex over the other seems vaguely sexist.

There is nothing wrong with existing sports. There is nothing wrong with the fact that men are better suited to play at the highest levels of the existing major sports. There is also nothing wrong with the fact that female tennis and volleyball and figure skating and gymnastics get more viewership than male tennis and volleyball and figure skating and gymnastics. In these cases, women are better able to provide the most important aspect of spectator sports: they are more interesting to watch than their male counterparts.

Here's an interesting twist: would Michelle Wie be the highest paid female athlete in the world today had there been no novelty to her ability to compete with men? Its ironic, but the rarity of that ability in a woman makes her pretty special. I'll be rooting for her.

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.

That's highly debatable because it depends entirely on what field you get into. There are still quite a few where pure physical strength is important. I suppose that should distress me, since I'm only 5'7" and 150lb, but it doesn't...

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...

My sister runs marathons better than I do (she's run two, I've run none). Does that distress me because she's female? No, it distresses me because she's 5'1" and a year and a half older than me.

 

[0TheSwerve0]

Is that a joke? Men are, in general, stronger than women and in most sports - major ones, anyway - that trait factors heavily in success.

Why must sports primarily favor strength? They do in America, but I'm not sure it is just a universal truth that this is the "way things are." I am suggesting that perhaps we've made it this way and thus it is not set in stone.

Certainly. But to me, the idea of creating a sport with specific attributes designed to favor one sex over the other seems vaguely sexist.

Would you not agree, then, that the "major" sports are sexist? They favor males over females. If there aren't enough sports for females, why shouldn't we create more? I assume this hasn't occurred to most people, but what if it was in demand, would you have a problem with it then?

There is nothing wrong with existing sports. There is nothing wrong with the fact that men are better suited to play at the highest levels of the existing major sports. There is also nothing wrong with the fact that female tennis and volleyball and figure skating and gymnastics get more viewership than male tennis and volleyball and figure skating and gymnastics. In these cases, women are better able to provide the most important aspect of spectator sports: they are more interesting to watch than their male counterparts.

Good point, why do you think that is? I don't want to be watched because my female parts are exposed and bouncing about. You forgot about cheerleading/dance competitions

Here's an interesting twist: would Michelle Wie be the highest paid female athlete in the world today had there been no novelty to her ability to compete with men?

I assume she wouldn't, but you know what they say about assumptions...

Its ironic, but the rarity of that ability in a woman makes her pretty special. I'll be rooting for her. That's highly debatable because it depends entirely on what field you get into. There are still quite a few where pure physical strength is important. I suppose that should distress me, since I'm only 5'7" and 150lb, but it doesn't... My sister runs marathons better than I do (she's run two, I've run none). Does that distress me because she's female? No, it distresses me because she's 5'1" and a year and a half older than me.

Not sure why you would be in distress, I'm not in distress because others are more physically fit than me. Anyhow, my purpose is not to critique our culture just for the heck of it. I'm interested in doing things that are not available to me because of my culture limits my opportunities due to cultural ideals and social aspects. What can I say, I'm a dreamer. I'd also like to convert our freeways into rollercoasters because it'd make driving to work worth it.

 

[Lisa!]

Why must sports primarily favor strength? They do in America, but I'm not sure it is just a universal truth that this is the "way things are." I am suggesting that perhaps we've made it this way and thus it is not set in stone.

So what do you think sports should favor? Do you think we can name them sport if they don't favor strength at all? (I know sports aren't all about strength, but it has a very important role anyway.) And you know since we don't expect women to compete with men, I can't see what's the problem here. And you know we have other kind of sports like chess and it's not about physical strength I'm not sure but I think men are more successful than women in this case.

Would you not agree, then, that the "major" sports are sexist? They favor males over females. If there aren't enough sports for females, why shouldn't we create more? I assume this hasn't occurred to most people, but what if it was in demand, would you have a problem with it then?

Ok why not? But for sure it should be done by women not men. Women know their abilities better than men and they know what's better for them. If you expect men to do it for you, it can't help at all again!

 

[0TheSwerve0]

So what do you think sports should favor?

I'm not saying we should favor either sex, I'm pointing out that they do (the "major" ones that is) favor male morphology. Or at least, that is the consensus, which won't change since people don't see lots of females participating. Not surprising tho, this is a Western culture is preoccupied with masculinity (or at least what we consider masculine).

Do you think we can name them sport if they don't favor strength at all?

sport

1. Physical activity that is governed by a set of rules or customs and often engaged in competitively.
2. A particular form of this activity.
2. An activity involving physical exertion and skill that is governed by a set of rules or customs and often undertaken competitively.

Doesn't say anything about strength, tho you could say that males excel at physical exertion, or at least high levels...Perhaps it depends on the type of exertion.

Card playing, if you agree it is a sport. Darts, bowling, racquetball (that's more fine control than strength), ...yeah, seems like most of the sports we develop are biased, as I was pointing out.

(I know sports aren't all about strength, but it has a very important role anyway.)

why do you think that is?

And you know since we don't expect women to compete with men, I can't see what's the problem here.

yeah, why do we expect that? Why can we not have competitions where both sexes compete together? For that matter, I have brought up the idea that sports do not have to be competitive. It's cool to have segregated sports, but it seems to be that the present situation is a bit lopsided and biased.

And you know we have other kind of sports like chess and it's not about physical strength I'm not sure but I think men are more successful than women in this case.

I don't play chess, so I wouldn't know. I am pretty good at dominoes tho. That and monopoly (maybe I just play with easy opponents). And cards...

Ok why not? But for sure it should be done by women not men. Women know their abilities better than men and they know what's better for them. If you expect men to do it for you, it can't help at all again!

Perty much.

 

[0TheSwerve0]

There is one arena in which I think we can justify the separation of people according to physical traits that correlate with biological sex: sports. The only sport I can think of in which the elite-level women are capable of seriously competing with the elite-level men is ultramarathon running. In something like, say, hockey or the 100 meter dash, it is best to segregate - have women compete with women, and men with men.

I am, however, all for allowing the genetic freaks among the women - like Michelle Wie or Cheryl Miller - to at least attempt competing with the men.

btw, here's where this whole discussion on sports began. I agree that it does seem safer for women if they don't play these violent sports with men. My point was that the sexes don't have to be segregated for every sport. It also led me to the realization that we don't have a lot of sex-neutral sports or even sports where men and women can work together with their different abilties. Or very many sports for women that aren't male spin-offs and male biased.

 

[Lisa!]

I'm not saying we should favor either sex, I'm pointing out that they do (the "major" ones that is) favor male morphology. Or at least, that is the consensus, which won't change since people don't see lots of females participating. Not surprising tho, this is a Western culture is preoccupied with masculinity (or at least what we consider masculine).

Do you know why? Because they're mostly(or perhaps all) created by men!
You know what drives me crazy about women? They usually expect men to do something for them and change the situation. That's really funny. How on the Earth can we expect them to change the situation while they even can't see our problems most of time. I mean they're not able to see them. So if you think we need any change.

sport

1. Physical activity that is governed by a set of rules or customs and often engaged in competitively.
2. A particular form of this activity.
2. An activity involving physical exertion and skill that is governed by a set of rules or customs and often undertaken competitively.

Doesn't say anything about strength, tho you could say that males excel at physical exertion, or at least high levels...Perhaps it depends on the type of exertion.

Card playing, if you agree it is a sport. Darts, bowling, racquetball (that's more fine control than strength), ...yeah, seems like most of the sports we develop are biased, as I was pointing out.

Do you think these are interesting sports? I think they're but for the one who's playing them, but you have to accept sport isn't all about self-interest these days. In fact, it's more supposed to be money-making whether you want it to be or not. It's a kind of business.

why do you think that is?

Why do you think that isn't? You need to have enough strength to continue a sport. You can't win a tennis match if you're very talent but not strong enough.

yeah, why do we expect that? Why can we not have competitions where both sexes compete together? For that matter, I have brought up the idea that sports do not have to be competitive. It's cool to have segregated sports, but it seems to be that the present situation is a bit lopsided and biased.

Like what? I told you about chess when men and women compete together, but men are usually more successful. But ok, I have no problem with that unless you say both sexes shoud compete together in all sports or all sports should bein a way that both sexes could compete together!

I don't play chess, so I wouldn't know. I am pretty good at dominoes tho. That and monopoly (maybe I just play with easy opponents). And cards...

I do, and I don't think I'm not as good as men around me.(perhaps even better) But well I think the bests at chess are men now.

 

[arildno]

btw, here's where this whole discussion on sports began. I agree that it does seem safer for women if they don't play these violent sports with men. My point was that the sexes don't have to be segregated for every sport. It also led me to the realization that we don't have a lot of sex-neutral sports or even sports where men and women can work together with their different abilties. Or very many sports for women that aren't male spin-offs and male biased.

Role-playing games and "lives" are perhaps types of sports or games which could be considered gender-neutral?

In fact, if a live session is placed in some type of radically different society, and each participant is given a role to play within that game, then the game itself might be an entertaining way to explore different gender roles than those one experience in your daily life..

 

[Smurf]

Once again I find myself agreeing with the people I usually disagree with (that's happening a lot these last 2 days or so).

I think the idea of tayloring our culture specifically so that no aspect of it favours either sex is rather silly. I mean, would it actually serve any constructive purpose?

 

[russ_watters]

Why must sports primarily favor strength?

Because people who play sports and people who watch sports have decided that that is what they want. Sports have two purposes for players: they are fun and they are exercise (edit: and for a few, they are profitable). Sports have one purpose for fans: they are entertaining to watch.

Why shouldn't they favor strength? Why does that, alone, make sports sexist? And don't say that that means that women can't enjoy sports the way men do, because it simply isn't true. Women who play physical sports get as much enjoyment out of them as men do. It seems you want to convince women that they shouldn't even play games like soccer because they are unable to play at the same level as men. How awful! That's backwards - and even sexist against women!

They do in America, but I'm not sure it is just a universal truth that this is the "way things are."

Soccer is by far the world's most popular sport or game (in terms of time spent doing it or dollars spent on it).

I am suggesting that perhaps we've made it this way and thus it is not set in stone.

That's not a point. Of course we've made it this way and of course it can be changed. But so what? Why should it be changed?

What you are suggesting would mean telling my sister, "I'm sorry, Karen, but since you will never be able to compete on an even keel with men in lacrosse or track, you cannot compete in either sport." How fair is that?

Would you not agree, then, that the "major" sports are sexist? They favor males over females.

Something is sexist only if it is designed to exclude a specific gender and sports are not.

To echo what someone else said, people design sports to make them fun and interesting and that means the way a woman designs a sport and a way a man designs a sport may be different. There is nothing wrong with that, and...

If there aren't enough sports for females, why shouldn't we create more?

...if women want to design sports for women, they are welcome to. Go ahead! But as it turns out, most sports that men find enjoyable are also enjoyable for women. I doubt most women are bothered by that fact. It turns out, making a sport equally "winnable" by a man and a woman is not a very important feature for most people - including women.

I assume this hasn't occurred to most people, but what if it was in demand, would you have a problem with it then?

Absolutely not! What have we been talking about here?: My entire point has been that sports have been created the way they are because that's what people want. If you want to do/create something else, go ahead! I suspect, though, that you won't have much success convincing my sister that she shouldn't be a marathon runner or Michelle Wie that she shouldn't be a golfer because they can't compete on an even keel with men. They'd probably both call you sexist.

Good point, why do you think that is? I don't want to be watched because my female parts are exposed and bouncing about. You forgot about cheerleading/dance competitions

Wow. You have such a one-track mind. Did you happen to notice the demographics of the fans at the Women's World Cup when it was in the US 6 (?) years ago? I doubt that sex was what was on the minds of the predominantly young, female crowd. And gymnastics and figure skating - do you know any men who (voluntarily) watch either of those? Even the men's competitions?

And again - so what if men watch women's beach volleyball to look at the pretty women? Why does that bother you? It doesn't bother me that my female friends watched men's swimming for the same reason. And have a look into what Kerri Walsh said about the condition of her sport (she's a top female volleyball player) in SI recently. Looking good in a swim suit means money in her pocket. And I'm sure that Michael Jordan's appearances in underwear commercials didn't make him wish people appreciated his talent more.



I assume she wouldn't, but you know what they say about assumptions...

Not sure why you would be in distress, I'm not in distress because others are more physically fit than me.

Your posts very strongly imply that you are distressed about the state of current sports as a result of people being more physically fit than you. Isn't that your entire point here? That there is something wrong with physical fitness being important for success in sports?

I'm interested in doing things that are not available to me because of my culture limits my opportunities due to cultural ideals and social aspects.

What opportunities don't you have that you should?

why do you think that is? [sports having biases]

Everything has a bias. Basketball has a bias toward tall people. Gymnastics has a bias toward short and skinny people. Engineering has a bias toward smart and mathematically inclined people. That is a fact of life and there isn't anything wrong with it - indeed, it is not possible, nor is it desirable, to eliminate such biases.

yeah, why do we expect that? Why can we not have competitions where both sexes compete together?

It's cool to have segregated sports, but it seems to be that the present situation is a bit lopsided and biased.

What, you never heard of mixed-doubles? On a local recreational level, most sports are mixed and there isn't any problem with that. In professional sports, however, most male sports are actually open to women while female sports are not open to men. Female sports are segregated, and then only for the benefit of the women in them.

For that matter, I have brought up the idea that sports do not have to be competitive.

Please reread definition 1, you posted.

Listen, if you don't like the fact that sports require physical fitness/activity, don't play them. There is nothing wrong with you not linking sports, but you not liking sports does not mean there is something wrong with sports.

Role-playing games and "lives" are perhaps types of sports or games which could be considered gender-neutral?

One of the neat things about doing almost anything online is that superficial differences such as gender, race, age, etc. are utterly irrelevant. In many pursuits, you won't even know such information about a person.

 

[Smurf]

Something is sexist only if it is designed to exclude a specific gender and sports are not.

And in that respect it could be argued that the current sports are entirely egalitarian since segregation makes it entirely possible for women to play as well.

 

[0TheSwerve0]

Do you know why? Because they're mostly(or perhaps all) created by men!
You know what drives me crazy about women? They usually expect men to do something for them and change the situation. That's really funny. How on the Earth can we expect them to change the situation while they even can't see our problems most of time. I mean they're not able to see them. So if you think we need any change.

Yeah, that is annoying. But hey, when men control society, what can one do? hehe, but anyhow, I hope that comment wasn't directed at me. I don't expect men to change things, I was thinking of society as a whole. This reminds me of a conversation I was having with a friend of mine about racism. He was saying how it's up to Africans to change Africa and stop blaming the white people. Guess the same applies here.

Do you think these are interesting sports? I think they're but for the one who's playing them, but you have to accept sport isn't all about self-interest these days. In fact, it's more supposed to be money-making whether you want it to be or not. It's a kind of business.

Actually football does reflect a lot of American ideology so that isn't a new idea for me. Esp the business part - playing on a level field and working together to score. Ideology about equal opportunity runs rampant, tho it never really is equal in either realm.

Why do you think that isn't? You need to have enough strength to continue a sport. You can't win a tennis match if you're very talent but not strong enough.

yeah, cause tennis requires the ability to hit hard...
I usu excel at air hockey, something that requires better aim rather than strenght alone, I find that pretty fun.

Like what? I told you about chess when men and women compete together, but men are usually more successful. But ok, I have no problem with that unless you say both sexes shoud compete together in all sports or all sports should bein a way that both sexes could compete together!

I'm more for getting past limitations (hard to do when they are so subtlely worked into our lives). I don't think all sports should be sex-neutral, I'm not trying to impose anything here. Obviously men and women like different things, so why try to impose something, esp something that isn't natural or beneficial?
Doesn't seem like there is any limitation to actually developing the things I'm talking about, but for some reason I just don't think that it'll happen.

I do, and I don't think I'm not as good as men around me. (perhaps even better) But well I think the bests at chess are men now.

Yeah, most chess players are nerds, and most nerds are men...

 

[0TheSwerve0]

Role-playing games and "lives" are perhaps types of sports or games which could be considered gender-neutral?
In fact, if a live session is placed in some type of radically different society, and each participant is given a role to play within that game, then the game itself might be an entertaining way to explore different gender roles than those one experience in your daily life..

yep, good example!

 

[0TheSwerve0]

Once again I find myself agreeing with the people I usually disagree with (that's happening a lot these last 2 days or so).
I think the idea of tayloring our culture specifically so that no aspect of it favours either sex is rather silly. I mean, would it actually serve any constructive purpose?

Read the above post to Lisa, where I mention I'm not trying to be controlling. I'm actually just pointing out the ways in which it is already controlled, and asking for some leeway. I'm not saying we should force behavior in any way. Did I say this before? I don't remember actually saying what you think I am saying.

 

[Smurf]

I'm fully against trying to start something just because women would be better at it then men. I think it's silly. We didn't start golf because blacks were kicking white ass at basketball. We shouldn't start some other crappy sport because men are kicking women's ass at everything else. It's pointless and it will only end up being segregated again. It will become famous among women because they'll continously see better games by women than the men side and they'll get their sad little feminist side ego's satisfied by that during their little girl parties after *****ing about their boyfriends who just dumped them.

[/rant]

arg. The idea that we need more sports (or anything) that group X is better than group Y at is inherently descriminatory and serves only to reinforce prejudices against both groups. Rationalizing it doesn't change that. This is not the right mindset for an egalitarian.