Governmental policies deny individuals federal aid based on gender and life choices.

originally posted by: Grambler
How about the rest of the legal world. Do you acknowledge that men are treated far more harshly in arrests, convictions and sentencing?

I've never researched any of that. I'd be willing to hear out an argument, though. I imagine rape and domestic abuse against men are a couple that might be unjust.

But then again... I think that has more to do with men being the victim rather than women being the suspect. I've heard of domestic abuse cases not being taken seriously with male gay couples, as well.

So... no clue. Maybe you should make a thread on it. I'd totally read it.

a reply to: Abysha

So you are saying that improvement in the sports arena, specifically, will be like resistance strength training. By having women compete with faster men, women will naturally become faster. I can see this through a motivational model and a competitive model theory structure, as it will press women who are competing to become more focused on being 'the best' and not 'the best woman'. I suppose my next questions would be: Have there been studies to show marked improvement in performance with co-ed integration? Does co-ed integration pull down the top performers?

Also, I want to -thank you- for coming to post here. It seems to me there is a large amount of people who have taken a one-sided stance on the issue of gender ideology. Though I tend to agree with what they say more than that ---------> I love, and find so refreshing to have a voice that is not afraid to be different and point out a new perspective. See, now I am going to go research gender integration and sports and performance outcomes! It's like... ideology resistance training. We all get stronger from testing our points of view. I value it. Thank you. Thank you for taking the time to challenge my brain part.

a reply to: Abysha

I think it would be rad to see the occasional female quarterback on an otherwise male team. Or goalie. Or anything, really.

Do you think it would be funny to watch a female get sacked by a 300 lb locomotive?
She most likely would be killed.

originally posted by: Abysha

originally posted by: KaDeCo
a reply to: Abysha

Or at least have it as a third option. It likely wouldn't be 50/50 ratios but I think it would be rad to see the occasional female quarterback on an otherwise male team. Or goalie. Or anything, really. I did just watch Shaolin Soccer, though.

This is a genuinely great solution. 50/50, full integration. It is not to say that there can't be a female quarterback, and co-ed teams are usually very interesting to me (visually, thoughtfully). Having a third way is a nice marriage of having to eliminate the either/or argument. Yet, what happens say if you go beyond the team sports and say end up with running. Just pure, 'the best runner' integrated 50/50. Yes, some of the women will be faster than the men, but overwhelmingly men tend to be faster than women. The equality in result will be absent which then begs the question why? If they are identical?

The current men's world record is 9.58 seconds, set by Jamaica's Usain Bolt in 2009, while the women's world record of 10.49 seconds set by American Florence Griffith-Joyner in 1988 remains unbroken.

There's a weird phenomenon that happens in sports. Men with men's competition and women with the women's. Decades might go by with a record that is unbroken. Once it gets broken, it's sometimes followed quickly by more athletes who then break the new record.

I think if men and women were integrated, it would eventually balance out after a couple of generations of women aspiring to be athletes against men and growing up training that way, as well.

Humanity has an amazing ability to rise to challenges given but not much further. Having sports with men and women both competing would serve as a new challenge to many new generations of athletes.

Hahahaha! Yeah, and it would lead to many hospitalizations!

Women quarterbacks? Are you insane?

This is the madness that feminism is causing. There are massive biological differences between men and women. In any contact sport, 99.999% of all women would be absolutely crushed by professional male athletes, and its probably 100%.

This is not to say woman cant beat any men. I am sure an athletic woman would shame me in many sports, and I have no shame saying that.

There is no rule that says women can't participate in almost all professional sports in the USA. If women were remotely capable someone would have hired them not only to help the team, but as an excellent PR move.

Now in non contact sports, there is a chance that a great woman could compete. I could see a woman pitcher, or golfer making the cut eventually.

But its not a matter of fostering a competitive nature, it is biology (in fact why do you think men have a more competitive nature as you are explaining?). The more people try to ignore this and suggest things like integrating sports, the more harm it will cause for women.

originally posted by: thesaneone
a reply to: Abysha

I think it would be rad to see the occasional female quarterback on an otherwise male team. Or goalie. Or anything, really.

Do you think it would be funny to watch a female get sacked by a 300 lb locomotive?
She most likely would be killed.

If she was a 300 pound quarterback? Yeah.

Stop thinking Paris Hilton and start thinking Chyna.

a reply to: Abysha

start thinking Chyna.

So we make football fake?


Oh, she is dead.

originally posted by: KaDeCo
a reply to: Abysha
I can see this through a motivational model and a competitive model theory structure, as it will press women who are competing to become more focused on being 'the best' and not 'the best woman'. I suppose my next questions would be: Have there been studies to show marked improvement in performance with co-ed integration?

No clue, haven't studied it. I'm just going by what I learned in college with the weird phenomenon of "impossible hurdles" only being impossible until somebody jumps it and then suddenly several people can jump it.

If women athletes are only going against other women athletes, in a sport that systemically limits their expectations based on gender, who knows what would happen if those limitations vanished?

originally posted by: Abysha

originally posted by: Grambler
How about the rest of the legal world. Do you acknowledge that men are treated far more harshly in arrests, convictions and sentencing?

I've never researched any of that. I'd be willing to hear out an argument, though. I imagine rape and domestic abuse against men are a couple that might be unjust.

But then again... I think that has more to do with men being the victim rather than women being the suspect. I've heard of domestic abuse cases not being taken seriously with male gay couples, as well.

So... no clue. Maybe you should make a thread on it. I'd totally read it.

If you’re a convicted criminal, the best thing you can have going for you might be your gender.

A new study by Sonja Starr, an assistant law professor at the University of Michigan, found that men are given much higher sentences than women convicted of the same crimes in federal court.

The study found that men receive sentences that are 63 percent higher, on average, than their female counterparts.

Starr also found that females arrested for a crime are also significantly more likely to avoid charges and convictions entirely, and twice as likely to avoid incarceration if convicted.

www.huffingtonpost.com...

You honestly didn't know that men are treated much more harshly by the legal system than women?

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Abysha

originally posted by: Grambler
How about the rest of the legal world. Do you acknowledge that men are treated far more harshly in arrests, convictions and sentencing?

I've never researched any of that. I'd be willing to hear out an argument, though. I imagine rape and domestic abuse against men are a couple that might be unjust.

But then again... I think that has more to do with men being the victim rather than women being the suspect. I've heard of domestic abuse cases not being taken seriously with male gay couples, as well.

So... no clue. Maybe you should make a thread on it. I'd totally read it.

If you’re a convicted criminal, the best thing you can have going for you might be your gender.

A new study by Sonja Starr, an assistant law professor at the University of Michigan, found that men are given much higher sentences than women convicted of the same crimes in federal court.

The study found that men receive sentences that are 63 percent higher, on average, than their female counterparts.

Starr also found that females arrested for a crime are also significantly more likely to avoid charges and convictions entirely, and twice as likely to avoid incarceration if convicted.

www.huffingtonpost.com...

You honestly didn't know that men are treated much more harshly by the legal system than women?

Honestly, no. Like I said, it makes sense but I never looked it up. And by "makes sense", I mean "wouldn't be surprised", not that I think it is a sensible thing.

I never said misandry didn't exist.

originally posted by: Abysha

originally posted by: KaDeCo
a reply to: Abysha
I can see this through a motivational model and a competitive model theory structure, as it will press women who are competing to become more focused on being 'the best' and not 'the best woman'. I suppose my next questions would be: Have there been studies to show marked improvement in performance with co-ed integration?

No clue, haven't studied it. I'm just going by what I learned in college with the weird phenomenon of "impossible hurdles" only being impossible until somebody jumps it and then suddenly several people can jump it.

If women athletes are only going against other women athletes, in a sport that systemically limits their expectations based on gender, who knows what would happen if those limitations vanished?

This is total nonsense!

How are women systemically limited?

What you are inadvertently doing is basically saying all female athletes are not training as hard as they can because they are not expected to be that good.

So on one hand, you will bend over backwards to explain why the statistics on custody don't prove women have an advantage because of their sex, but on the other hand you think mysterious systemic advantages are the reason women don't do as well as men in sports?

This is unreal.

Please make a thread on how women could compete with men in sports if it wasn't for these "systemic limits".

a reply to: KaDeCo

As far as the draft is concerned, NO ONE should have to register. Free service is how it's supposed to be.

The rest? Yeah, men and women are different. We are supposed to be different. That means some jobs will have more of one sex than the other, because of the nature of people, and the job. Nothing wrong with that! It's ridiculous, I agree, to claim that some jobs should be more "inclusive" of women, while ignoring other jobs.

originally posted by: Abysha

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Abysha

originally posted by: Grambler
How about the rest of the legal world. Do you acknowledge that men are treated far more harshly in arrests, convictions and sentencing?

I've never researched any of that. I'd be willing to hear out an argument, though. I imagine rape and domestic abuse against men are a couple that might be unjust.

But then again... I think that has more to do with men being the victim rather than women being the suspect. I've heard of domestic abuse cases not being taken seriously with male gay couples, as well.

So... no clue. Maybe you should make a thread on it. I'd totally read it.

If you’re a convicted criminal, the best thing you can have going for you might be your gender.

A new study by Sonja Starr, an assistant law professor at the University of Michigan, found that men are given much higher sentences than women convicted of the same crimes in federal court.

The study found that men receive sentences that are 63 percent higher, on average, than their female counterparts.

Starr also found that females arrested for a crime are also significantly more likely to avoid charges and convictions entirely, and twice as likely to avoid incarceration if convicted.

www.huffingtonpost.com...

You honestly didn't know that men are treated much more harshly by the legal system than women?

Honestly, no. Like I said, it makes sense but I never looked it up. And by "makes sense", I mean "wouldn't be surprised", not that I think it is a sensible thing.

I never said misandry didn't exist.

So you admit that misandry exists in the court system when it comes to criminality.

But that couldn't be the case in divorce court.

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Abysha

originally posted by: KaDeCo
a reply to: Abysha
I can see this through a motivational model and a competitive model theory structure, as it will press women who are competing to become more focused on being 'the best' and not 'the best woman'. I suppose my next questions would be: Have there been studies to show marked improvement in performance with co-ed integration?

No clue, haven't studied it. I'm just going by what I learned in college with the weird phenomenon of "impossible hurdles" only being impossible until somebody jumps it and then suddenly several people can jump it.

If women athletes are only going against other women athletes, in a sport that systemically limits their expectations based on gender, who knows what would happen if those limitations vanished?

This is total nonsense!

How are women systemically limited?

What you are inadvertently doing is basically saying all female athletes are not training as hard as they can because they are not expected to be that good.

So on one hand, you will bend over backwards to explain why the statistics on custody don't prove women have an advantage because of their sex, but on the other hand you think mysterious systemic advantages are the reason women don't do as well as men in sports?

This is unreal.

You keep skimming over what I said. I never said they are "systemically limited". I said their performance expectations are limited. Meaning, their metrics for success is lessened simply because they are women. So they train to meet those expectations.

If those expectations were raised, you don't think their performance would improve? To what limit?

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Abysha

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Abysha

originally posted by: Grambler
How about the rest of the legal world. Do you acknowledge that men are treated far more harshly in arrests, convictions and sentencing?

I've never researched any of that. I'd be willing to hear out an argument, though. I imagine rape and domestic abuse against men are a couple that might be unjust.

But then again... I think that has more to do with men being the victim rather than women being the suspect. I've heard of domestic abuse cases not being taken seriously with male gay couples, as well.

So... no clue. Maybe you should make a thread on it. I'd totally read it.

If you’re a convicted criminal, the best thing you can have going for you might be your gender.

A new study by Sonja Starr, an assistant law professor at the University of Michigan, found that men are given much higher sentences than women convicted of the same crimes in federal court.

The study found that men receive sentences that are 63 percent higher, on average, than their female counterparts.

Starr also found that females arrested for a crime are also significantly more likely to avoid charges and convictions entirely, and twice as likely to avoid incarceration if convicted.

www.huffingtonpost.com...

You honestly didn't know that men are treated much more harshly by the legal system than women?

Honestly, no. Like I said, it makes sense but I never looked it up. And by "makes sense", I mean "wouldn't be surprised", not that I think it is a sensible thing.

I never said misandry didn't exist.

So you admit that misandry exists in the court system when it comes to criminality.

But that couldn't be the case in divorce court.

I admit I read your statistics on violent crimes and it seems lop-sided.

I also admit that I've actually spent time researching divorce statistics and understand why the lop-sidedness exists for custody.

You keep trying to paint me as a sexist when I've said nothing negative about men.

originally posted by: Abysha

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Abysha

originally posted by: KaDeCo
a reply to: Abysha
I can see this through a motivational model and a competitive model theory structure, as it will press women who are competing to become more focused on being 'the best' and not 'the best woman'. I suppose my next questions would be: Have there been studies to show marked improvement in performance with co-ed integration?

No clue, haven't studied it. I'm just going by what I learned in college with the weird phenomenon of "impossible hurdles" only being impossible until somebody jumps it and then suddenly several people can jump it.

If women athletes are only going against other women athletes, in a sport that systemically limits their expectations based on gender, who knows what would happen if those limitations vanished?

This is total nonsense!

How are women systemically limited?

What you are inadvertently doing is basically saying all female athletes are not training as hard as they can because they are not expected to be that good.

So on one hand, you will bend over backwards to explain why the statistics on custody don't prove women have an advantage because of their sex, but on the other hand you think mysterious systemic advantages are the reason women don't do as well as men in sports?

This is unreal.

You keep skimming over what I said. I never said they are "systemically limited". I said their performance expectations are limited. Meaning, their metrics for success is lessened simply because they are women. So they train to meet those expectations.

If those expectations were raised, you don't think their performance would improve? To what limit?

I think your premise is flawed. Their expectations are based on their performance.

As any elite athlete will tell you, they don't focus on other expectations, they make their own.

Are you claiming that a woman sprinter for example is saying "Hey I did the 100 meter in 11 seconds! No one expects me to do better, so I am done training!"

This is ridiculous, and actually sexist!

I am sorry you don't want to admit it, but no amount of expectations changing will make women biologically change to be able to compete with men in sports.

originally posted by: Abysha

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Abysha

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Abysha

originally posted by: Grambler
How about the rest of the legal world. Do you acknowledge that men are treated far more harshly in arrests, convictions and sentencing?

I've never researched any of that. I'd be willing to hear out an argument, though. I imagine rape and domestic abuse against men are a couple that might be unjust.

But then again... I think that has more to do with men being the victim rather than women being the suspect. I've heard of domestic abuse cases not being taken seriously with male gay couples, as well.

So... no clue. Maybe you should make a thread on it. I'd totally read it.

If you’re a convicted criminal, the best thing you can have going for you might be your gender.

A new study by Sonja Starr, an assistant law professor at the University of Michigan, found that men are given much higher sentences than women convicted of the same crimes in federal court.

The study found that men receive sentences that are 63 percent higher, on average, than their female counterparts.

Starr also found that females arrested for a crime are also significantly more likely to avoid charges and convictions entirely, and twice as likely to avoid incarceration if convicted.

www.huffingtonpost.com...

You honestly didn't know that men are treated much more harshly by the legal system than women?

Honestly, no. Like I said, it makes sense but I never looked it up. And by "makes sense", I mean "wouldn't be surprised", not that I think it is a sensible thing.

I never said misandry didn't exist.

So you admit that misandry exists in the court system when it comes to criminality.

But that couldn't be the case in divorce court.

I admit I read your statistics on violent crimes and it seems lop-sided.

I also admit that I've actually spent time researching divorce statistics and understand why the lop-sidedness exists for custody.

You keep trying to paint me as a sexist when I've said nothing negative about men.

I am not painting you as sexist.

I am saying that you are wrong about a lot of your beliefs on here. That doesn't mean you hate men at all, and nor would I presume to accuse you of that.

In all of the conversations I have had with you, you seem like a good person. This conversation does not change that at all for me.

I just think you are falling for feminists lies.

a reply to: Grambler

My advice to you is to be very, very sure about the woman before you marry her. I say that as a woman, even as one whose aunt wound up a single mother after divorce for the right reasons and not because the system is predisposed that way.

Things really are weighted in favor of women.

But I would prefer people work to fix things by creating solid bonds from the very beginning, and society through feminism has worked hard to twist that too.

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Abysha

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Abysha

originally posted by: KaDeCo
a reply to: Abysha
I can see this through a motivational model and a competitive model theory structure, as it will press women who are competing to become more focused on being 'the best' and not 'the best woman'. I suppose my next questions would be: Have there been studies to show marked improvement in performance with co-ed integration?

No clue, haven't studied it. I'm just going by what I learned in college with the weird phenomenon of "impossible hurdles" only being impossible until somebody jumps it and then suddenly several people can jump it.

If women athletes are only going against other women athletes, in a sport that systemically limits their expectations based on gender, who knows what would happen if those limitations vanished?

This is total nonsense!

How are women systemically limited?

What you are inadvertently doing is basically saying all female athletes are not training as hard as they can because they are not expected to be that good.

So on one hand, you will bend over backwards to explain why the statistics on custody don't prove women have an advantage because of their sex, but on the other hand you think mysterious systemic advantages are the reason women don't do as well as men in sports?

This is unreal.

You keep skimming over what I said. I never said they are "systemically limited". I said their performance expectations are limited. Meaning, their metrics for success is lessened simply because they are women. So they train to meet those expectations.

If those expectations were raised, you don't think their performance would improve? To what limit?

I think your premise is flawed. Their expectations are based on their performance.

As any elite athlete will tell you, they don't focus on other expectations, they make their own.

Are you claiming that a woman sprinter for example is saying "Hey I did the 100 meter in 11 seconds! No one expects me to do better, so I am done training!"

This is ridiculous, and actually sexist!

I am sorry you don't want to admit it, but no amount of expectations changing will make women biologically change to be able to compete with men in sports.

Actually, that's exactly what I'm implying. It's why I brought up that phenomenon. All athletes limit themselves to what they think is possible. You don't try to jump over a house because it's impossible. However, if your neighbor did it, don't tell me you wouldn't suddenly be improving your jumping by trying.

Sprint records are a great example of that. Once a new record is made, athletic performance improves for a whole ton of athletes.

I never said it would work. I just said it made sense.


ps edit - If that weren't true, how do records keep getting broken?

a reply to: Abysha

Women and men have different levels of performance capability.

Women will not be able to beat men on the power of their minds alone. Take it from someone who was a high level collegiate athlete at one point. I did the heptathlon, 100m and 400m hurdles and high jump. Women were not going to outperform men. Our hurdles were even set lower, and no I was not interested in trying to break that barrier. It would have taken me out of a natural running stride which is what the best hurdlers are all trying to achieve as much as possible.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Abysha

Women and men have different levels of performance capability.

Women will not be able to beat men on the power of their minds alone. Take it from someone who was a high level collegiate athlete at one point. I did the heptathlon, 100m and 400m hurdles and high jump. Women were not going to outperform men. Our hurdles were even set lower, and no I was not interested in trying to break that barrier. It would have taken me out of a natural running stride which is what the best hurdlers are all trying to achieve as much as possible.

Then what's the harm of opening it up for a possibility and not changing what it takes to be recruited to a team? If no women make the cut, then no women make the cut.

But don't you think that, within a generation or two, women athletes would start making the cut?


ps edit - Keep in mind, in my mental daydream of perfect scenarios, no team would be penalized for having an all-male team nor be rewarded for having men. In this "league", sex would simply be indifferent in determining who gets on the team.