Homestar Runner Wiki Forum
http://forum.hrwiki.org/

Men VS. Women- Is there a greater of these two?
http://forum.hrwiki.org/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=12049		 Page 2 of 2
Author:  furrykef [ Sat Aug 11, 2007 8:33 pm ]
Post subject: 
Duecex2 wrote:
Choc-o-Lardiac Arrest wrote:
No. Neither of us are greater, yet neither of us are equal.


That makes sense. Thread's over.


Not until it's clear that there's nowhere for the thread to go, it ain't...
Author:  ed 'lim' smilde [ Sat Aug 11, 2007 9:40 pm ]
Post subject: 
Mike D wrote:
ed 'lim' smilde wrote:
Women's golf is actually a very developed sport.


Nonetheless, the only conclusion we can reach here is "men who play golf do better than women who play golf." This is still not conclusive proof that men are inherently better golfers. (It is evidence of that, yes, but ultimately inconclusive.)
That's not the only evidence. There's also the fact that the average man is stronger, so even if men and woman had equal golf skills other than strength, men would still have a big enough advantage. I dunno how many younger golfers there are for males and females, but there are male golf teams and female golf teams of equal size through high school and college, so it's not like girls who compete in golf are rare. If you consider all that and still assume women are as good at men in golf, it seems like someone would've done better than T-97th of 111 in an open championship in golf's long history.
Quote:
Something on that wiki page interested me: American women seem to do very poorly at golf compared to non-American women. What do those numbers tell us?
Yeah, those types of things are harder to explain. A lot of Major League Baseball players come from Latin American countries (especially Venezuela), and there are a lot of female tennis stars from Russia. Then, male distance running is dominated by the Kenyans and Ethiopians, but a lot of top female distance runners are from Scandinavian countries.
Author:  Mike D [ Sun Aug 12, 2007 7:12 pm ]
Post subject: 
ed 'lim' smilde wrote:
Yeah, those types of things are harder to explain. A lot of Major League Baseball players come from Latin American countries (especially Venezuela), and there are a lot of female tennis stars from Russia...


Probably has to do with a given country's overall interest in a sport. If you've got a lot of people playing you increase your overall talent pool. Back to the golf thing, apparently in America about 22% of players are female. This means there are 3.54 male players for every female player. This will affect the overall player pool.

I'm not saying that men aren't generally stronger than women. The increased production of testosterone in our bodies all but guarantees that. What I'm saying is there's more going on with your female golf statistics than strength difference.

Mike
Author:  ed 'lim' smilde [ Mon Aug 13, 2007 2:28 am ]
Post subject: 
But still, if there are 3 or 4 male golfers to every female golfer (and still assuming they have equal average talent), you'd still expect at least a few females to have won tournaments before. Instead, the best anyone that I can remember has ever done was Annika Sorrenstam in '03 (she wasn't the only woman EVER to do that, but probably the first in about 50 years).
Quote:
I'm not saying that men aren't generally stronger than women. The increased production of testosterone in our bodies all but guarantees that. What I'm saying is there's more going on with your female golf statistics than strength difference.
I'm not saying that there isn't. I'm just saying, if someone decided to de-segregate sports (okay, actually the PGA isn't segregated, but if they decided to get rid of the LPGA), women wouldn't have nearly the opportunity to play. Even if there were 3 or 4 Annika Sorrenstams instead of 1.
Author:  furrykef [ Mon Aug 13, 2007 2:54 am ]
Post subject: 
We're focusing way too much on this golf issue. At this point, it's only peripherally related to the topic. My point was, and is, that it should depend on whether the player is good enough for the job, not his or her sex. If it turns out that it is indeed the case that women rarely can compete with men in sports, so be it. Physical strength isn't everything. My issue isn't with the reality of the matter; it's with prejudice.

Now, taking on a completely different issue, but still related to the topic...

What do you think about etiquette rules such as "ladies first"? It seems strange to me that some women demand to be treated equally, and still expect doors to be held open for them and the like. To me, equal means equal. This is not at all a slam on anybody; I'm just pointing out that it doesn't make sense to me.

There are far worse double standards, though. For instance, a guy who goes out with a lot of girls is a "stud" (very complimentary), but a girl who goes out with a lot of guys is a "slut" (very derogatory). That's just stupid...

- Kef
Author:  PianoManGidley [ Mon Aug 13, 2007 12:41 pm ]
Post subject: 
I for one am rather disgruntled with such double standards. Though the one I'm really peeved about is how people have much less of a problem in general with accepting lesbians as they have with accepting gay men. Once again, rooted in our patriarchal society, since men can more easily relate to a lesbian's desires than a gay man's desires. Like that bumper sticker/T-shirt: "I approve of gay marriage only if both chicks are hot."
Author:  Mike D [ Mon Aug 13, 2007 10:47 pm ]
Post subject: 
Well, I think Ed and I can agree to disagree on the golf thing, so sure.

I think "ladies first" etiquette is fine if that's how a particular couple wants it to be. It can be fun on a formal date. Some people also enjoy reversing roles and having the woman open doors and what not for the guy. I know some gay couples who've done the same thing for a laugh. As an optional activity for couples, the etiquette thing is fine. As a societal expectation, though, its time has long passed.

With the slut / stud dichotomy it's worth noting that women generally do not respect a promiscuous man; it's mostly other men that see it as admirable. It's still a silly double standard, though.

As for lesbians, in my experience men mostly accept "media lesbians" who are displayed for their entertainment. They find real lesbians less palatable. Still, I think straight men see gay men as much more threatening than lesbians, so a major difference still exists.

Mike
Author:  Simon Zeno [ Tue Aug 14, 2007 2:09 am ]
Post subject: 
I, for one, welcome gay men. It means less competition for me during the mating season.
Author:  Choc-o-Lardiac Arrest [ Tue Aug 14, 2007 3:52 am ]
Post subject: 
Simon Zeno wrote:
I, for one, welcome gay men. It means less competition for me during the mating season.
Not even gay men would help your chances, Zeno. best be getting a new horn call or something.
Page 2 of 2 All times are UTC
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/