Happy Atheist forum

General => Sports => Topic started by: Dave on April 26, 2018, 05:05:09 PM

Title: Man? Woman?
Post by: Dave on April 26, 2018, 05:05:09 PM
Seems there is a controversy going on in the athlectics world about whether sone of the tge seemingly female runners were born female, are just females with naturally high testosterone or are dosing on the stuff. Obvious problems about invasive genetic testing not being looked at with favour.

One suggestion was that such females could run with men, since their times are equal to those of men - well above most women. Perhaps it is time that all runners were entered into races according to their times and not their gender? Competing on equivalent ability?

OK, there is the obvious problem there that "normal" women would never get a medal. So classify the runners in close ability groups (as in the paralympics) and medalise the winners in each class? Still open to abuse by those who will run a little slower to get into a lower class, then speed up in the final (similar to paralympists allegedly faking their disability to get into a lower class.)
Title: Re: Man? Woman?
Post by: Bad Penny II on April 26, 2018, 05:46:45 PM
There was this thread: https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/index.php?topic=15375.0
Title: Re: Man? Woman?
Post by: Dave on April 26, 2018, 06:00:14 PM
Forgot thst one. These people deny they are transgender but it's in the same ball park.
Title: Re: Man? Woman?
Post by: Bad Penny II on April 26, 2018, 06:19:48 PM
You haven't linked to anything
Title: Re: Man? Woman?
Post by: Dave on April 26, 2018, 06:48:17 PM
You haven't linked to anything

It was just a mention on BBC radio but I think it's a story that has been bubbling on for some time. Probably been an issue since a certain Russian shot putter An African runner, Caster Semenya, was named on the radio.

https://qz.com/1262941/caster-semenya-new-iaaf-rules-on-testosterone-likely-affect-star-athlete/

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tamara_Press

Title: Re: Man? Woman?
Post by: Arturo on April 26, 2018, 08:04:34 PM
Seems there is a controversy going on in the athlectics world about whether sone of the tge seemingly female runners were born female, are just females with naturally high testosterone or are dosing on the stuff. Obvious problems about invasive genetic testing not being looked at with favour.

One suggestion was that such females could run with men, since their times are equal to those of men - well above most women. Perhaps it is time that all runners were entered into races according to their times and not their gender? Competing on equivalent ability?

OK, there is the obvious problem there that "normal" women would never get a medal. So classify the runners in close ability groups (as in the paralympics) and medalise the winners in each class? Still open to abuse by those who will run a little slower to get into a lower class, then speed up in the final (similar to paralympists allegedly faking their disability to get into a lower class.)

From some tests that have been done, I'm told, that men and women have the same capacity for physical ability since the DNA and structure are almost entirely the same. But this may have been just for muscle building since that is what I am more geared towards caring about. It could be entirely possible that they are dosing T but men have naturally higher T than girls, and anybody in competition is doing that stuff anyway. But I don't think they are freaks just come out of no where. Suddenly a bunch of outliers fly out of the bag and into the fridge? Something doesn't seem right.
Title: Re: Man? Woman?
Post by: Icarus on April 28, 2018, 12:25:15 AM
Dave, females do not run as fast as males. not that they cannot, they just have not done so to date. Close but not equal.  Neither do they develope weight lifting capacity that equals the male contingent, nor shot put, discus throw distance, long jump, high jump, pole vault. 

That said, my high schools near and far have taken up weight lifting as a varsity sport. Some very pretty and otherwise feminine girls, of about my own weight can lift a helluva lot more than I can....or wish to, or probably ever could. 

One thing I can say for certain is that female athletes are every bit as tough and durable and damned well determined as any of their their male counterparts. I was for many years involved in serious women's sports on a national scope..  I learned to have the highest regard for the female athletes who play when hurt, and fight just as hard or even harder because they have something to prove and they do prove it.

Strength...maybe not quite....determianation?.... there is no doubt.
Title: Re: Man? Woman?
Post by: Arturo on April 28, 2018, 12:49:40 AM
Dave, females do not run as fast as males. not that they cannot, they just have not done so to date. Close but not equal.  Neither do they develope weight lifting capacity that equals the male contingent, nor shot put, discus throw distance, long jump, high jump, pole vault. 

That said, my high schools near and far have taken up weight lifting as a varsity sport. Some very pretty and otherwise feminine girls, of about my own weight can lift a helluva lot more than I can....or wish to, or probably ever could. 

One thing I can say for certain is that female athletes are every bit as tough and durable and damned well determined as any of their their male counterparts. I was for many years involved in serious women's sports on a national scope..  I learned to have the highest regard for the female athletes who play when hurt, and fight just as hard or even harder because they have something to prove and they do prove it.

Strength...maybe not quite....determianation?.... there is no doubt.

I wanted to stay away from running but lifting can definitely be argued. Just that society has raised women to be one way, and men to be a different way. So that we may all have the same capacity for lifting performance (as far as weight is concerned) but we just do not achieve it because boys are supposed to do that.

Off topic but I think I see that pattern repeating itself despite every urge to stop it. "Men leave women to do the heavy lifting" Then people raise their boys to be more stoic and harder workers...more manly...and then they run off, because they need a break(?)

Maybe it's just me but there seems to be another movement to depower others and claim that power for their own. Not just in men to women, but from race to race and class to class.
Title: Re: Man? Woman?
Post by: Davin on April 30, 2018, 03:23:06 PM
There is good science to show that there are gender differences in physical ability. I concede that there might be a small chance that it will show out that there is no difference. I don't think that the difference matters all that much though. Especially not with normal people, because there is also good science that shows that women develop muscle and endurance well when they work on it. I think there is a difference, but I think that the difference is much smaller than most people think. Strength studies show that muscle mass, no matter which gender, is the best indicator of strength. So a woman with the same muscle mass as a man are going to be about as strong as each other. So the difference is more in the building of muscle than the having of muscle.

There is also the problem of trials and support. I think the difference in where women and men are presently is part societies fault in who are encouraged to fill certain roles.

Nearly 100% of all males when they are growing up are tested for physical ability, pitted against their friends, starting sports early, and we see who develops skill and physical prowess. This is encouraged play, trying out all kinds of sports... etc. Even in males I think that "failures" are discouraged too early without attempting different training techniques that may work better for them.

However females are rarely encouraged to go through the same trials, and the ones that self select aren't that big of a percentage of a population either. I would say generously that 70% of the female population is tested for physical prowess and ability.

That means that there is a near 100% chance (excluding the possibility of poor training techniques), of finding the best of the best of male athletes, and only a 70% chance of finding the best of the best of female athletes. And I think that until we are checking females at the same rate as the males we can't just point to where women and men are currently in terms of straight up ability stats for what the gender differences are. There are some studies that show that women do better than men in muscles growth and recovery when they start later in life (starting in their 30s to 50s), not overall strength, but strength increases. I think that shows that women have untapped potential, but we are a long way from finding out how much potential there actually is.
Title: Re: Man? Woman?
Post by: Dave on April 30, 2018, 03:47:57 PM
Some good arguments there, Davin.

In terms of performance and women running alongside men my thought was all those with a similar ability profile run together, regardless of gender. There may have to be a "seed" rating on their overall continuing performance over the year; then they compete equally in the same races at the major events at least.
Title: Re: Man? Woman?
Post by: Davin on April 30, 2018, 05:01:37 PM
I would also add that with females, they are generally discouraged, whether they self select or not. And it takes a lot to overcome almost everyone being against you, so I think that hurts the numbers for women even more. No matter how good a woman is at sports, there is going to be a significant portion of the population (not just men, but some women discourage other women too), that will actively try to discourage her from even playing sports. With male athletes, while they may be disliked and find people against them, there is much less "you shouldn't even be playing sports" than there is for women.

Of course these are not absolutes, and there are definitely some male and female athletes that break from the average, but I think that the data shows out in aggregate.

In terms of performance and women running alongside men my thought was all those with a similar ability profile run together, regardless of gender. There may have to be a "seed" rating on their overall continuing performance over the year; then they compete equally in the same races at the major events at least.
Kind of like in boxing with weight classes?

I worry that rating a runner by their times and then lumping them together according to those times. Competition, while I don't think it's a great tool for all areas like some do, is effective in competitive sports to bring out the best in ones abilities, and I would worry that that kind of rating thing would hurt competition more than help. I don't think it would prevent moving up, but I think it would create some harder to pass barriers for both men and women.

But I'm willing to try something new instead of sticking with the same old, same old. My worries are often found out to be unwarranted.
Title: Re: Man? Woman?
Post by: Dave on April 30, 2018, 05:13:22 PM
Quote
Kind of like in boxing with weight classes?

Aw, c'mon Davin, there is absolutely no comparison between a man and a woman running parallel race and a mixed pair slugging it out!

Hmm, in some of the more "acrobatic" martial arts betcha there are women who would give a man a good fight!
Title: Re: Man? Woman?
Post by: Arturo on April 30, 2018, 06:11:49 PM
Quote
Kind of like in boxing with weight classes?

Aw, c'mon Davin, there is absolutely no comparison between a man and a woman running parallel race and a mixed pair slugging it out!

Hmm, in some of the more "acrobatic" martial arts betcha there are women who would give a man a good fight!

There really is no difference if they aren't going head. They aren't fighting each other. And in fighting people change weights all the time. I see no problem with pitting men against women in a foot race.

Quote
Hmm, in some of the more "acrobatic" martial arts betcha there are women who would give a man a good fight!
I'm not sure society would be okay with a man hitting a woman. Especially if he wins.
Title: Re: Man? Woman?
Post by: Arturo on April 30, 2018, 06:15:16 PM
There is good science to show that there are gender differences in physical ability. I concede that there might be a small chance that it will show out that there is no difference. I don't think that the difference matters all that much though. Especially not with normal people, because there is also good science that shows that women develop muscle and endurance well when they work on it. I think there is a difference, but I think that the difference is much smaller than most people think. Strength studies show that muscle mass, no matter which gender, is the best indicator of strength. So a woman with the same muscle mass as a man are going to be about as strong as each other. So the difference is more in the building of muscle than the having of muscle.

There is also the problem of trials and support. I think the difference in where women and men are presently is part societies fault in who are encouraged to fill certain roles.

Nearly 100% of all males when they are growing up are tested for physical ability, pitted against their friends, starting sports early, and we see who develops skill and physical prowess. This is encouraged play, trying out all kinds of sports... etc. Even in males I think that "failures" are discouraged too early without attempting different training techniques that may work better for them.

However females are rarely encouraged to go through the same trials, and the ones that self select aren't that big of a percentage of a population either. I would say generously that 70% of the female population is tested for physical prowess and ability.

That means that there is a near 100% chance (excluding the possibility of poor training techniques), of finding the best of the best of male athletes, and only a 70% chance of finding the best of the best of female athletes. And I think that until we are checking females at the same rate as the males we can't just point to where women and men are currently in terms of straight up ability stats for what the gender differences are. There are some studies that show that women do better than men in muscles growth and recovery when they start later in life (starting in their 30s to 50s), not overall strength, but strength increases. I think that shows that women have untapped potential, but we are a long way from finding out how much potential there actually is.

You pretty much repeated everything I said in more words.

The studies are mixed. But the potential for muscle growth has been shown to be equal in men and women. But the way society raises boys and girls are different so men get a head start. And the way development works is kind of like a stack. If you keep healthy for long enough you can push beyond those barriers eventually. Just as well if you discontinue for some reason your gains are easier to come back than if you were to start from scratch.
Title: Re: Man? Woman?
Post by: Dave on April 30, 2018, 07:01:47 PM
Quote
Kind of like in boxing with weight classes?

Aw, c'mon Davin, there is absolutely no comparison between a man and a woman running parallel race and a mixed pair slugging it out!

Hmm, in some of the more "acrobatic" martial arts betcha there are women who would give a man a good fight!

There really is no difference if they aren't going head. They aren't fighting each other. And in fighting people change weights all the time. I see no problem with pitting men against women in a foot race.

Quote
Hmm, in some of the more "acrobatic" martial arts betcha there are women who would give a man a good fight!
I'm not sure society would be okay with a man hitting a woman. Especially if he wins.

Perhaps the saying, "You wanna join the club you gotta take the lumps" applies? Any woman that wishes to compete, in any way, with men on an equal footing has to take equal punishment - unless they can get the rules changed. Er, martial arts without violence is just ballet dancing!
Title: Re: Man? Woman?
Post by: Arturo on April 30, 2018, 07:28:26 PM
Quote
Kind of like in boxing with weight classes?

Aw, c'mon Davin, there is absolutely no comparison between a man and a woman running parallel race and a mixed pair slugging it out!

Hmm, in some of the more "acrobatic" martial arts betcha there are women who would give a man a good fight!

There really is no difference if they aren't going head. They aren't fighting each other. And in fighting people change weights all the time. I see no problem with pitting men against women in a foot race.

Quote
Hmm, in some of the more "acrobatic" martial arts betcha there are women who would give a man a good fight!
I'm not sure society would be okay with a man hitting a woman. Especially if he wins.

Perhaps the saying, "You wanna join the club you gotta take the lumps" applies? Any woman that wishes to compete, in any way, with men on an equal footing has to take equal punishment - unless they can get the rules changed. Er, martial arts without violence is just ballet dancing!

I meant to say "would NOT be okay with a man hitting a woman". But yes I agree with your statement that you have to suffer to get to the top. Life isn't a fairy tale. But I think instead of getting rid of the men and women divisions all together, you could keep them and have a mixed division where all competitors are allowed. (Would probably lead to a "slippery slope" of circus freak type situation where they might start allowing bears to fight in the octagon or boxing ring.)
Title: Re: Man? Woman?
Post by: Davin on April 30, 2018, 07:43:11 PM
Quote
Kind of like in boxing with weight classes?

Aw, c'mon Davin, there is absolutely no comparison between a man and a woman running parallel race and a mixed pair slugging it out!

Hmm, in some of the more "acrobatic" martial arts betcha there are women who would give a man a good fight!

There really is no difference if they aren't going head. They aren't fighting each other. And in fighting people change weights all the time. I see no problem with pitting men against women in a foot race.

Quote
Hmm, in some of the more "acrobatic" martial arts betcha there are women who would give a man a good fight!
I'm not sure society would be okay with a man hitting a woman. Especially if he wins.

Perhaps the saying, "You wanna join the club you gotta take the lumps" applies? Any woman that wishes to compete, in any way, with men on an equal footing has to take equal punishment - unless they can get the rules changed. Er, martial arts without violence is just ballet dancing!
I think the problem, from what I have seen, is that if a woman tries to enter competition with men, she gets more lumps than a man would get.
Title: Re: Man? Woman?
Post by: Davin on April 30, 2018, 08:40:46 PM
There is good science to show that there are gender differences in physical ability. I concede that there might be a small chance that it will show out that there is no difference. I don't think that the difference matters all that much though. Especially not with normal people, because there is also good science that shows that women develop muscle and endurance well when they work on it. I think there is a difference, but I think that the difference is much smaller than most people think. Strength studies show that muscle mass, no matter which gender, is the best indicator of strength. So a woman with the same muscle mass as a man are going to be about as strong as each other. So the difference is more in the building of muscle than the having of muscle.

There is also the problem of trials and support. I think the difference in where women and men are presently is part societies fault in who are encouraged to fill certain roles.

Nearly 100% of all males when they are growing up are tested for physical ability, pitted against their friends, starting sports early, and we see who develops skill and physical prowess. This is encouraged play, trying out all kinds of sports... etc. Even in males I think that "failures" are discouraged too early without attempting different training techniques that may work better for them.

However females are rarely encouraged to go through the same trials, and the ones that self select aren't that big of a percentage of a population either. I would say generously that 70% of the female population is tested for physical prowess and ability.

That means that there is a near 100% chance (excluding the possibility of poor training techniques), of finding the best of the best of male athletes, and only a 70% chance of finding the best of the best of female athletes. And I think that until we are checking females at the same rate as the males we can't just point to where women and men are currently in terms of straight up ability stats for what the gender differences are. There are some studies that show that women do better than men in muscles growth and recovery when they start later in life (starting in their 30s to 50s), not overall strength, but strength increases. I think that shows that women have untapped potential, but we are a long way from finding out how much potential there actually is.

You pretty much repeated everything I said in more words.

The studies are mixed. But the potential for muscle growth has been shown to be equal in men and women. But the way society raises boys and girls are different so men get a head start. And the way development works is kind of like a stack. If you keep healthy for long enough you can push beyond those barriers eventually. Just as well if you discontinue for some reason your gains are easier to come back than if you were to start from scratch.
I wanted to reply to this, but I couldn't find what I read that addressed this. So I'm not even sure of this. There was something I read recently (again, I couldn't find it), that tested for this and found that getting back a previous level was pretty easy, but increasing strength tends to be very difficult. I wanted to confirm it more reliably, but all I have is saying that I agree with this and find this to be true with my own experiences.
Title: Re: Man? Woman?
Post by: Dave on April 30, 2018, 08:50:08 PM
Quote
Kind of like in boxing with weight classes?

Aw, c'mon Davin, there is absolutely no comparison between a man and a woman running parallel race and a mixed pair slugging it out!

Hmm, in some of the more "acrobatic" martial arts betcha there are women who would give a man a good fight!

There really is no difference if they aren't going head. They aren't fighting each other. And in fighting people change weights all the time. I see no problem with pitting men against women in a foot race.

Quote
Hmm, in some of the more "acrobatic" martial arts betcha there are women who would give a man a good fight!
I'm not sure society would be okay with a man hitting a woman. Especially if he wins.

Perhaps the saying, "You wanna join the club you gotta take the lumps" applies? Any woman that wishes to compete, in any way, with men on an equal footing has to take equal punishment - unless they can get the rules changed. Er, martial arts without violence is just ballet dancing!
I think the problem, from what I have seen, is that if a woman tries to enter competition with men, she gets more lumps than a man would get.

Almost certainly, but if some still insist on equality then they will have to find ways of avoiding the lumps.

When I was in the RAF most of the airwomen insisted on equal respect and treatment for equal work, reasonably, but the blokes ended up doing the heavy lifting (they already got equal pay for rank). But, somehow we blokes were also supposed to give up seats to them in the enlisted club.

Now, its horses for courses for me, the person most able to fo a job does it. But if I did all the lifting who's going to fo all the housework?
Title: Re: Man? Woman?
Post by: Davin on April 30, 2018, 09:04:18 PM
I think the problem, from what I have seen, is that if a woman tries to enter competition with men, she gets more lumps than a man would get.

Almost certainly, but if some still insist on equality then they will have to find ways of avoiding the lumps.

When I was in the RAF most of the airwomen insisted on equal respect and treatment for equal work, reasonably, but the blokes ended up doing the heavy lifting (they already got equal pay for rank). But, somehow we blokes were also supposed to give up seats to them in the enlisted club.
There has been a documented thing where men overestimate their contributions and women underestimate theirs. Not always, but in general, that's the way it goes. There are also physical differences. Even when I compare myself to other men, if I move 5 bricks for every 4 another man does in the same amount of time, is that me doing the heavy lifting or are we both putting in an equal amount of effort? To me, it's the effort that counts more than number of items.

Quote from: Dave
Now, its horses for courses for me, the person most able to fo a job does it. But if I did all the lifting who's going to fo all the housework?
I don't always agree with this sentiment. How does one pass the torch if they're always doing the thing that they are best at? People need to be given a shot even if they are not the best for the job at first.

As for housework, the way it works with my GF and I, is that we try to do about an equal amount of work, and sometimes she does more and sometimes I do more. We have some tasks that are exclusive to ourselves, but if one of us were not there, we could do them.
Title: Re: Man? Woman?
Post by: Arturo on April 30, 2018, 10:48:50 PM
I think the problem, from what I have seen, is that if a woman tries to enter competition with men, she gets more lumps than a man would get.

Almost certainly, but if some still insist on equality then they will have to find ways of avoiding the lumps.

When I was in the RAF most of the airwomen insisted on equal respect and treatment for equal work, reasonably, but the blokes ended up doing the heavy lifting (they already got equal pay for rank). But, somehow we blokes were also supposed to give up seats to them in the enlisted club.
There has been a documented thing where men overestimate their contributions and women underestimate theirs. Not always, but in general, that's the way it goes. There are also physical differences. Even when I compare myself to other men, if I move 5 bricks for every 4 another man does in the same amount of time, is that me doing the heavy lifting or are we both putting in an equal amount of effort? To me, it's the effort that counts more than number of items.

Quote from: Dave
Now, its horses for courses for me, the person most able to fo a job does it. But if I did all the lifting who's going to fo all the housework?
I don't always agree with this sentiment. How does one pass the torch if they're always doing the thing that they are best at? People need to be given a shot even if they are not the best for the job at first.

As for housework, the way it works with my GF and I, is that we try to do about an equal amount of work, and sometimes she does more and sometimes I do more. We have some tasks that are exclusive to ourselves, but if one of us were not there, we could do them.

I pretty much agree with everything you've said here Davin. Especially where it comes to men overestimating their contributions. There is this teenager I know. He's probably about 17 or 18. Struggling with depression and what appears to be borderline tendencies stemming from a fear of abandonment and expresses thoughts and feelings of inferiority.

I've spoken to him about his life before I knew these things. He said that he once was an amazing artist and showed me (what could have been his own work) some paintings he did and there were amazing. He said that he was in 3rd grade when he made them and I congratulated him on his painting. He said that he applied for an artistry school and never heard back from them so he slipped into depression (from what I could tell). He ended up going to an all boy's school for high school and says he cannot get girls or things like that. But that was all starting because he couldn't get into an artist school.

So from what I could gather was that his ego was hurt and that stemmed from blowing things out of proportion. He only had one set back and he hates himself for it. He is blowing up his "contributions" to say that he has done everything he can when really he has not.
Title: Re: Man? Woman?
Post by: Arturo on April 30, 2018, 11:01:43 PM
There is good science to show that there are gender differences in physical ability. I concede that there might be a small chance that it will show out that there is no difference. I don't think that the difference matters all that much though. Especially not with normal people, because there is also good science that shows that women develop muscle and endurance well when they work on it. I think there is a difference, but I think that the difference is much smaller than most people think. Strength studies show that muscle mass, no matter which gender, is the best indicator of strength. So a woman with the same muscle mass as a man are going to be about as strong as each other. So the difference is more in the building of muscle than the having of muscle.

There is also the problem of trials and support. I think the difference in where women and men are presently is part societies fault in who are encouraged to fill certain roles.

Nearly 100% of all males when they are growing up are tested for physical ability, pitted against their friends, starting sports early, and we see who develops skill and physical prowess. This is encouraged play, trying out all kinds of sports... etc. Even in males I think that "failures" are discouraged too early without attempting different training techniques that may work better for them.

However females are rarely encouraged to go through the same trials, and the ones that self select aren't that big of a percentage of a population either. I would say generously that 70% of the female population is tested for physical prowess and ability.

That means that there is a near 100% chance (excluding the possibility of poor training techniques), of finding the best of the best of male athletes, and only a 70% chance of finding the best of the best of female athletes. And I think that until we are checking females at the same rate as the males we can't just point to where women and men are currently in terms of straight up ability stats for what the gender differences are. There are some studies that show that women do better than men in muscles growth and recovery when they start later in life (starting in their 30s to 50s), not overall strength, but strength increases. I think that shows that women have untapped potential, but we are a long way from finding out how much potential there actually is.

You pretty much repeated everything I said in more words.

The studies are mixed. But the potential for muscle growth has been shown to be equal in men and women. But the way society raises boys and girls are different so men get a head start. And the way development works is kind of like a stack. If you keep healthy for long enough you can push beyond those barriers eventually. Just as well if you discontinue for some reason your gains are easier to come back than if you were to start from scratch.
I wanted to reply to this, but I couldn't find what I read that addressed this. So I'm not even sure of this. There was something I read recently (again, I couldn't find it), that tested for this and found that getting back a previous level was pretty easy, but increasing strength tends to be very difficult. I wanted to confirm it more reliably, but all I have is saying that I agree with this and find this to be true with my own experiences.

Yeah exercise science is not perfect. There is a lot of conflicting research as to what this or that does when you exercise. What they tell people on youtube is to experiment because everyone is different. Which I think is not a bad idea anyway. I guess my job would be to at least inform them of the constraints, what can happen when you work within those constraints, and then see what works best for them. And encouraging them along the way for every little step they get.
Title: Re: Man? Woman?
Post by: Arturo on May 01, 2018, 04:07:02 AM
Everyone I think we have our answer

Title: Re: Man? Woman?
Post by: Dave on May 13, 2018, 07:10:32 PM
Quoting myself:

Quote
Now, its horses for courses for me, the person most able to fo a job does it. But if I did all the lifting who's going to fo all the housework?

Yeah, not the best constructed piece of English I have managed. Under "horses for courses" these days chances are I am nore suitsble to doing the washing up than the heavy lifting! It is the "person most able" - through knowledge, strength, skill or whatever, who "does the job". That goes for picking world leaders as much as doing the household chores. The concept of "positive discrimination" might mean the absolutely perfect candidate might not get a post in favour of a "good enough" of the right category.
Title: Re: Man? Woman?
Post by: Icarus on May 13, 2018, 11:01:35 PM
That ain't Japanese wrestling Arturo.  That is WWE style, decadent American, show business that caters to, and extracts money from,  mentally challenged audiences.
Title: Re: Man? Woman?
Post by: Arturo on May 14, 2018, 01:43:22 AM
That ain't Japanese wrestling Arturo.  That is WWE style, decadent American, show business that caters to, and extracts money from,  mentally challenged audiences.

New Japan Pro Wrestling

http://www.njpw.co.jp
Title: Re: Man? Woman?
Post by: Davin on May 14, 2018, 02:41:45 PM
That ain't Japanese wrestling Arturo.  That is WWE style, decadent American, show business that caters to, and extracts money from,  mentally challenged audiences.
I don't like that kind of wrestling either, but is there is reason you can't just stop at not liking it instead of going on to insult the entire audience?
Title: Re: Man? Woman?
Post by: Icarus on May 15, 2018, 01:08:46 AM
One who is entertained by the infliction of pain or of physical damage on another person is displaying evidence of savagery.  I have no reservations about demeaning savages or wann'a be savages.

That is not all, the latter day wann'a be savages pay perfectly good money to witness Roman coliseum like contests.  One would hope that we have gotten past the entertainment value for human destruction....or at least depictions of the lions mauling the Christians or whomever was unfortunate enough to be damned by one of the emperors. 

Call me a pussy if you choose.  What you do not know is that for a brief time I was a professional participant in wrestling show biz.  I have done a lot of different pursuits in my long life. That one is not one of my most proud ones.. One of the descriptions of the audience by the professionals was: rubes.... A pejorative.
Title: Re: Man? Woman?
Post by: Arturo on May 15, 2018, 03:05:39 AM
One who is entertained by the infliction of pain or of physical damage on another person is displaying evidence of savagery.  I have no reservations about demeaning savages or wann'a be savages.

That is not all, the latter day wann'a be savages pay perfectly good money to witness Roman coliseum like contests.  One would hope that we have gotten past the entertainment value for human destruction....or at least depictions of the lions mauling the Christians or whomever was unfortunate enough to be damned by one of the emperors. 

Call me a pussy if you choose.  What you do not know is that for a brief time I was a professional participant in wrestling show biz.  I have done a lot of different pursuits in my long life. That one is not one of my most proud ones.. One of the descriptions of the audience by the professionals was: rubes.... A pejorative.

Well they will stay around as long as people keep watching them. And you're not doing a very good job of changing my mind. In fact I want to do a wrestling promo right now where I come out to my theme music and talk smack to you while you're here. And while I'm at it, I'll drop you on the mat for the 1-2-3 after a superkick to the face at SummerSlam.
Title: Re: Man? Woman?
Post by: Davin on May 15, 2018, 02:49:43 PM
One who is entertained by the infliction of pain or of physical damage on another person is displaying evidence of savagery.  I have no reservations about demeaning savages or wann'a be savages.

That is not all, the latter day wann'a be savages pay perfectly good money to witness Roman coliseum like contests.  One would hope that we have gotten past the entertainment value for human destruction....or at least depictions of the lions mauling the Christians or whomever was unfortunate enough to be damned by one of the emperors. 

Call me a pussy if you choose.  What you do not know is that for a brief time I was a professional participant in wrestling show biz.  I have done a lot of different pursuits in my long life. That one is not one of my most proud ones.. One of the descriptions of the audience by the professionals was: rubes.... A pejorative.
I know I'm crazy, but I think people can like different things without insulting the other. While there are accidents, that kind of wrestling doesn't cause much harm to the wrestlers. As long as people keep trying to dehumanize others, like insulting them because they like or dislike something, we're not going to get past much.

Given your view presented here, I'm sure that you never watch or read anything that has human violence.
Title: Re: Man? Woman?
Post by: Arturo on May 15, 2018, 03:42:13 PM
One who is entertained by the infliction of pain or of physical damage on another person is displaying evidence of savagery.  I have no reservations about demeaning savages or wann'a be savages.

That is not all, the latter day wann'a be savages pay perfectly good money to witness Roman coliseum like contests.  One would hope that we have gotten past the entertainment value for human destruction....or at least depictions of the lions mauling the Christians or whomever was unfortunate enough to be damned by one of the emperors. 

Call me a pussy if you choose.  What you do not know is that for a brief time I was a professional participant in wrestling show biz.  I have done a lot of different pursuits in my long life. That one is not one of my most proud ones.. One of the descriptions of the audience by the professionals was: rubes.... A pejorative.
I know I'm crazy, but I think people can like different things without insulting the other. While there are accidents, that kind of wrestling doesn't cause much harm to the wrestlers. As long as people keep trying to dehumanize others, like insulting them because they like or dislike something, we're not going to get past much.

Given your view presented here, I'm sure that you never watch or read anything that has human violence.

Yeah actually WWE is actually toned down alot. Which gives the context to that gif I posted. WWE is actually really docile compared to the WWE/F & WCW of the 90s and to New Japan Pro Wrestling. I posted the gif because it shows that women do just as much physically as a man and do it as a career just like a guy. And in this case with the gif, they do it better.
Title: Re: Man? Woman?
Post by: Davin on May 15, 2018, 03:57:08 PM
It's also a bit like a straw man. I knew people that liked to watch wrestling, they didn't watch specifically for the violence, they watched largely for the comeuppance of the "bad" wrestlers. Like any other story, people like to see bad people taken care of. The ways and means are different per genre, but that simplified and abstracted ideal is the same. Just because the means is violence, doesn't mean that is the reason people are watching. I wish I could just muscle through some of my problems, I can't because they are complicated real world problems, but I can see the appeal of watching people overcome problems by their strength and determination alone.

Just saying that people watch wrestling for the violence in it, I think is not really seeing things from their perspective. Calling them all rubes and deranged I think is unfair and incorrect.
Title: Re: Man? Woman?
Post by: Icarus on May 20, 2018, 03:00:22 AM
Duly noted and acknowledged Davin.