Feminism, Eqaulity and the Olympics

Ok i know i'm going to be ripped apart for this but i have to say it.

If women want to be equal then why exactly do we have womens categories? Surely the very existence of a womens category means that women aren't equal physically to men. Now whilst i have met many very logical women who agree to this obvious point of biology, i have also met extreme neo-feminists who think that men and women are exacty equal in every possible way. A woman in their view can lift as much weight as a man and other such nonsense.

Now obvioulsy this isn't an important point in todays age of machines but if we want equality then surely we should abolish the seperate caterogies. If a woman can keep up with a man under the same circumstances, without any time penalties then that woman has my absolute blessing and proves equality.

I know it's a small point in this day and age however i think it's about time the idea of equality, strictly in biological terms was rubbished. Men generally are stronger than women, women generally are better than men at multi-tasking. It's about time we start embracing the differences in our genders and strengthening them instead of making it sound like the sexes are absolutely equal.

There will be abberations but it's a rare thing, this doesn't mean men are overall better than women or that women are overall better than men. It simply states the biology as we know it, that mena nd women both have small advantages over each other in certain areas.

So forgive me for asking for this, but i think that there should only be one category, that being the best. No mens and womens categories, just the sport and the best at it.

Originally posted by ImaginaryReality1984
Now whilst i have met many very logical women who agree to this obvious point of biology, i have also met extreme neo-feminists who think that men and women are exacty equal in every possible way.

I think you should be asking your question to those who think that men and women are physically equal. It's true that there are some physically strong women who are stronger than some men, but anyone who claims that overall women and men are physically equal is just... well... wrong. Men are larger and have larger muscles and testosterone, which helps build that muscle mass.

In general, men are physically stronger than women. No ripping.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


I suppose that is the basis of my point BH. That extreme feminists deny and i thinkt he olympics are about physical human achievment, and therefore there should not be a seperate female and male category if we want the best of physical prowess. That way women would be on an equal footing of men, and as they have campaigned, quite rightly for equal rights, that shoudl be given to them.

Originally posted by ImaginaryReality1984

If women want to be equal..

I don't know about where you come from where i am from, the concept of non equality is laughable.

Then why exactly do we have womens categories? Surely the very existence of a womens category means that women aren't equal physically to men.

welterweight boxer
middleweight boxer
heavyweight boxer

Why should a welterweight fight against a heavyweight, he would get knocked out in one punch. All sports are catagorized.

Now whilst i have met many very logical women who agree to this obvious point of biology, i have also met extreme neo-feminists who think that men and women are exacty equal in every possible way.

Those women have a chip on their shoulder from being brought up in a non equal rights setting.
They are completely wrong, women can do a number of things than men cannot and visa versa. Neo feminists are just like any other extreme group. I understand their point but in most cases they should be told to shut up because they just want to belittle men and don't seem to care about actual equality.

It's about time we start embracing the differences in our genders and strengthening them instead of making it sound like the sexes are absolutely equal.

I completely agree



[edit on 16/8/08 by Dermo]

reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984


Strange, because I consider myself an extreme feminist. And I've never campaigned to have men physically compete with women (without weapons, that is). Equal rights, yes, absolutely! But physical competition? Not so much.

The best physical prowess is the point of the Olympics, but with level playing fields. Even within certain sports, there are different classes. Boxing has weight classes because it would be unfair for a 160 pound man to fight against a 250 lb man, right? Same with men and women. It would be unfair for them to compete against each other because men are generally stronger than women.

I hope you find your answer. Better yet, I hope your friends realize their mistake.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Strange, because I consider myself an extreme feminist. And I've never campaigned to have men physically compete with women (without weapons, that is). Equal rights, yes, absolutely! But physical competition? Not so much.

Well that's my issue, we talk of equality and so please let it be equal.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
The best physical prowess is the point of the Olympics, but with level playing fields. Even within certain sports, there are different classes. Boxing has weight classes because it would be unfair for a 160 pound man to fight against a 250 lb man, right? Same with men and women. It would be unfair for them to compete against each other because men are generally stronger than women.

Well i'm glad you agree however my point still stands in even this case. You could have equal weight classes and still have men and women competing. A welterweight woman against a welterweight man. Then it comes down to only the physical.

As a side note i prefer the light weight boxing than heavyweight. There's less leaning on each other and more skill, my humble opinion

Originally posted by Dermo

welterweight boxer
middleweight boxer
heavyweight boxer

Why should a welterweight fight against a heavyweight, he would get knocked out in one punch. All sports are catagorized.

My apologes for missing your post. My point still stands even here, you wouldn't simply take a woman heavyweight, middleweight or welterweight and put them against a man. That is equality becuase it treats them as the same. Classes of weight aren't the problem, equality of the sexes is.

What are you trying to say exactly? That because women aren't as physically strong as men that we aren't "equal" and perhaps shouldn't have equal rights? Unless women can prove that they are physically as strong as men, they shouldn't have equal rights? Forgive me if I've misunderstood, but I feel like I'm missing your point. Sorry.

Could you restate your position, please?

I mean, everyone here is saying that men are stronger (a 160 lb man is likely to be stronger than a 160 lb woman)... and that men and women shouldn't compete with each other because of their inherent physicalities... With whom are you arguing?

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
What are you trying to say exactly? That because women aren't as physically strong as men that we aren't "equal" and perhaps shouldn't have equal rights? Unless women can prove that they are physically as strong as men, they shouldn't have equal rights? Forgive me if I've misunderstood, but I feel like I'm missing your point. Sorry.

No no, please god no lol. I will restate my point because that's is the opposite of what i'm saying. I'm saying women should be equal when they can prove they're equal. Basically i want to treat everyone like a human being. So in the business, scientific and other intellectual worlds women are obviously equal and have proven it.

Why however should we make exceptions in physical prowess is my question if women talk of equality shoudln't we extend that to all areas?

I appreiciate your questions.

reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984


Actually there are some sports at Olympics that women will dominate if for some weird reason someone will unite female and male competitors.
The equality in question is not about two genders being equally strong/weak or whatever, it is about same rights. Man have a right to compete - so should females. And since there are two different "designs" - each with its unique strong and weak points, there is a distinction between two groups. I believe that it is what different weights analogy by Benevolent Heretic was describing.
Throwing women and man in the single pile will lead to devision between completely male-dominated sports and female-dominated ones. Not a lot of fun in that, i guess.

reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984


Every woman should watch this clip and know their limits!


www.youtube.com...

Originally posted by ZeroKnowledge
Actually there are some sports at Olympics that women will dominate if for some weird reason someone will unite female and male competitors.
The equality in question is not about two genders being equally strong/weak or whatever, it is about same rights. Man have a right to compete - so should females. And since there are two different "designs" - each with its unique strong and weak points, there is a distinction between two groups. I believe that it is what different weights analogy by Benevolent Heretic was describing.
Throwing women and man in the single pile will lead to devision between completely male-dominated sports and female-dominated ones. Not a lot of fun in that, i guess.

So i will state again. When women talk of eqaulity why shouldn't that be equal? Why should they have other standards or only compete against other women? We could extend this to the army, a point addressed quite well in the film G.I Jane. If a woman can compete on equal ground to a man then i honestly have no issue with them, but please don't say we are equal.

The S.A.S in the UK is a prime example, accepting only men because they realised that men are the ones who can carry the weight and cover the distance. The green berets accepted a woman but with "equal standards". that statement is wrong because she had a different course to the menadn that seems wrong to me. When we are talking about life and death of your comrades.

Surely when we talk of equality it really should be equal is all i'm asking.

reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984


No no, please god no lol.

Thats right, all good god fearing christian women should know their place , In the home raising the kids

Even secular law (in the UK) makes it quite clear where a womans place should be.

The idea that women should be in someway equal to a man was agreed to by some politically influential men trying to get their wives to shut up and get naked

We are now all doomed thanks to a woman getting all flirty with a snake

Olympic games? this for men absolutely

decent christian women are quite happy competing in their own sporting events, such as the egg and spoon race at the church summer fair etc.

Originally posted by moocowman
reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984

 

No no, please god no lol.

Thats right, all good god fearing christian women should know their place , In the home raising the kids

Even secular law (in the UK) makes it quite clear where a womans place should be.

Err you confused me as i'm an atheist. I use the word god simply as a word and nothing more, an exaderation of my feelings.

Originally posted by moocowman
The idea that women should be in someway equal to a man was agreed to by some politically influential men trying to get their wives to shut up and get naked

We are now all doomed thanks to a woman getting all flirty with a snake

Olympic games? this for men absolutely

decent christian women are quite happy competing in their own sporting events, such as the egg and spoon race at the church summer fair etc.

Again read above before you think you know the poster. Got to love assumption.

Women who think they are equal to men lack ambition...

The day I see men giving birth and breast feeding his child for it's first year is when I will know true equality between the sexes. Having this topic begin if the physical category, and then discussing equality between the sexes is a no brainer.

The whole Equality issue is more about pay equity and the ability to follow your dreams and be anything you want to be. The truth is that traditional male dominated jobs pay far better than traditional female jobs.

Just an example from my own life. I was a Correctional Officer that paid almost $20 a hour back in the 1990's. I usually supervised 80 -100 inmates. My sister was a certified Nurses Aid working for minimum wage. You could not have paid me enough money to do her job... all those body fluids, open sores, people in pain, people treating you like a 2nd class citizen... Omg... I wouldn't have lasted one shift as a Nurses Aid...

Most men I know could never handle the traditionally female jobs, the lack of respect, much less the wage and no benefits... but most women I know could easily do the traditional male jobs...

I totally see what you are getting at, and in the premise you have laid out... but I think equality, as it is applied by Affirmative Action, is not about physicality... but more about pay equity and the ability to have any career so long as you can do the job.








[edit on 16-8-2008 by yankeerose]

Thanks for your answers.

Originally posted by ImaginaryReality1984
I'm saying women should be equal when they can prove they're equal. Basically i want to treat everyone like a human being. So in the business, scientific and other intellectual worlds women are obviously equal and have proven it.

And by the same token as your paragraph above, men can be equal when the prove they're equal. I wonder why it's the woman who has to prove that she's equal to the man in your mind - rather than the man having to prove that he's equal to the woman...

I think the confusion (at least mine) is what we might mean by the word "equal". To me, "equal" does not necessarily mean "the same" as it would in a math problem (2+2=4). Clearly, women's physical strength does not equal a man's physical strength. It's a biological thing. Proven. It's ALREADY been proven that women are not as physically strong as men. There's no need to try to prove that they are.

It's been suggested, however (although it's more difficult to prove) that emotionally, women are stronger than men, as well as more able to handle physical pain. so even though men have their strengths and women have their strengths, as far as a person's merit and significance in life, legally and morally, women and men are equally important and valuable and deserve all the same entitlements. That's what I mean when I say that we're equal.

Why however should we make exceptions in physical prowess is my question

That's been answered: Because it's already been proven that women are NOT as physically strong as men.

moocowman, that video was hilarious!


[edit on 16-8-2008 by Benevolent Heretic]

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
And by the same token as your paragraph above, men can be equal when the prove they're equal.

I wonder why it's the woman who has to prove that she's equal to the man in your mind - rather than the man having to prove that he's equal to the woman...

Absolutely correct and we have proven they're equal in these ares. Basically my point boils down to human equality not men vs women equality. I may have worded it badly

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I think the confusion (at least mine) is what we might mean by the word "equal". To me, "equal" does not necessarily mean "the same" as it would in a math problem (2+2=4). Clearly, women's physical strength does not equal a man's physical strength. It's a biological thing. Proven. It's ALREADY been proven that women are not as physically strong as men. There's no need to try to prove that they are.

Then they should have to undergo the same physical trials in a sporting event or more importantly the armed services.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
It's been suggested, however (although it's more difficult to prove) that emotionally, women are stronger than men, as well as more able to handle physical pain. so even though men have their strengths and women have their strengths, as far as a person's merit and significance in life, legally and morally, women and men are equally important and valuable and deserve all the same entitlements. That's what I mean when I say that we're equal.

Actually the study about pain was quite inconclusive. When a man and women were wired up to electric current and gave up via a buzzer. The women gave up half the time before the men. However women have twice as many pain sensing nerves and so they are basically equal

Morally i agree with you fully, that's why i want absolute equality, where humans are judged solely on their attributes without special circumstances.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
That's been answered: Because it's already been proven that women are NOT as physically strong as men.

moocowman, that video was hilarious!

I saw that video when it was first aired in the UK and i take the insinuation as unfair. My thread isn't about doing down women as stupid and that would be quite unkind to my ideas here.

If it's proven women generally aren't as strong as men, then why exactly should we make seperate categories for the olympics? To me the olympics are about maximal human ability, not two categories of it.


[edit on 16-8-2008 by Benevolent Heretic]

[edit on 16-8-2008 by ImaginaryReality1984]

Originally posted by yankeerose
I totally see what you are getting at, and in the premise you have laid out... but I think equality, as it is applied by Affirmative Action, is not about physicality... but more about pay equity and the ability to have any career so long as you can do the job.

Just to address this, i agree about the pay and conditions absolutely and without a doubt. What i am annoyed about is the idea that neo-feminists have about absolute equality.

If you want absolute equality then please do the jobs under the same conditions and tests. This is mainly aimed at sport and military.

Originally posted by ImaginaryReality1984
Then they should have to undergo the same physical trials in a sporting event or more importantly the armed services.

Why?

(Are the physical trials in the armed services still segregated?)

If it's proven women generally aren't as strong as men, then why exactly should we make seperate categories for the olympics?

Oh! So they'll have an equal chance at winning a prize! If women and men competed against each other in a test of physical strength, KNOWING than men are physically stronger, the women would almost always lose. That's no fun. The only way to give the players an equal chance at winning in a battle of physical strength, is to pit men with men and women with women.

AND, the Olympics aren't just about the strongest person. It's not a Strong Man Competition. We have bicyclists, swimmers, tennis players... that require other physical skills besides brute strength. If it were JUST about being strong, there would be no need for women to compete at all, because you know what's already proven? That men are physically stronger than women.

[edit on 16-8-2008 by Benevolent Heretic]

Personally I think they should have separate events for women.

Instead of womens weight lifting, why not "Dishwasher Loading"?

instead of synchronized swimming, why not synchronized sandwich making?

I would really like to see a vacuum pushing event mixed in as well.