"How Feminism Hurts Men"

[Ryrin]

http://news.yahoo.com/kurdish-female-fighters-face-jihadists-iraqs-north-071035585.html

 

Kurdish female fighters face jihadists in Iraq's north.

 

Tekoshin, 27, says she and other women are fighting the group not only because of the threat it poses to Kurds but because it "is against women's liberation".

 

"They don't allow women in areas under their control to go to the market" and force them to wear headscarves, she says. "Our struggle against (the IS) is to defend women from them and from that kind of thinking."

 

On the mountainside, the PKK fighters live a communal life. Normally they take turns cooking, but in wartime, male volunteers from nearby Arbil city take care of feeding the fighters.

 

For Shimal, a 26-year-old fighter, the anti-IS battle is as much about solidarity with women who have fallen victim to the jihadists as it is about the Kurdish national cause.

 

IS "turns women into slaves," she says.

[The_Fnorrll_Reborn]

http://m.bbc.co.uk/sport/golf/29242699

[Elgee]

It really is unfathomable that sexism is still so rife everywhere, but especially in sport. That is usually the place where boundaries are broken first, because let's face it, the people who excel in sport are the daring, the brave, the committed, the talented, the fearless, the determined. It always comes down to the same thing: some people thinking they have the right to decide on behalf of other people.

[The_Fnorrll_Reborn]

Whats interesting in that article G is that it seems professional sports women are sometimes the ones against change.

[Elgee]

Sometimes change isn't needed, but surely it would be up to the people who it affects, to decide?

[The_Fnorrll_Reborn]

Well as a blanket rule that really depends on the situation. Lighter sentances for convicts in prison, for example. Of course this situation isnt like that one and im not disagreeing with you. I found the bbc article interesting for a few reasons.

[Elgee]

True enough *nods*

 

Yes I must say, I found it interesting too.

[The_Fnorrll_Reborn]

A spot of bright news linked to the above, even if in a small way.

 

http://m.bbc.co.uk/sport/golf/29246741

[Elgee]

Lordy, I hope some half-aware newsie didn't go report "the Scots voted yes!".

[Jak 0' the Shadows]

The sports thing is tough. They mention that the sexes are 'kept apart' but in some cases, that's a good thing. Are they really going to ask men to box women? Does anyone really want that? I understand in a sport like golf, or tennis (there are some ladies that are REALLY good at tennis) but that doesn't mean they have to always be integrated. I think it's fine to have football (American football) be a sort of guys thing. I mean if I was playing, I wouldn't want to play if I was having to tackle ladies. Not happening. Same with wrestling or boxing. Never. I also don't think it's bad that the guys don't want music with their floor routines. That's their business, if they don't want it then that's fine. 

[The_Fnorrll_Reborn]

Im not sure if you read the whole article but it is quite clear it isnt talking about integration and direct competition (due to the fact that men and women are still physically quite different, on average) but equal standards. Womens tennis would still exist, but should they play 5 sets like men? This has been an argument I have made in previous years when prize money was an issue; if you want equality in terms of reward doesnt that mean equality in terms of effort? IE the same number of sets. Similarly women will swim against women, but should they do so in 1500meters like men rather than 800? Should women compete with other women in a decathlon rather than only heptathlon?

 

Opinion seems to be mixed both within and without of sport.

[Jak 0' the Shadows]

Im not sure if you read the whole article but it is quite clear it isnt talking about integration and direct competition (due to the fact that men and women are still physically quite different, on average) but equal standards. Womens tennis would still exist, but should they play 5 sets like men? This has been an argument I have made in previous years when prize money was an issue; if you want equality in terms of reward doesnt that mean equality in terms of effort? IE the same number of sets. Similarly women will swim against women, but should they do so in 1500meters like men rather than 800? Should women compete with other women in a decathlon rather than only heptathlon?

 

Opinion seems to be mixed both within and without of sport.

 

I read it. They routinely used the words 'men and women in *blank* sport are 'set apart''. I may have misconstrued the MEANING, but I read it. But you can't really count effort toward prize money. Who are we to say that an 800 to ladies isn't equivalent effort to a 1500 meters for men? 

[Barmacral]

The sports thing is tough. They mention that the sexes are 'kept apart' but in some cases, that's a good thing. Are they really going to ask men to box women? Does anyone really want that? I understand in a sport like golf, or tennis (there are some ladies that are REALLY good at tennis) but that doesn't mean they have to always be integrated. I think it's fine to have football (American football) be a sort of guys thing. I mean if I was playing, I wouldn't want to play if I was having to tackle ladies. Not happening. Same with wrestling or boxing. Never. I also don't think it's bad that the guys don't want music with their floor routines. That's their business, if they don't want it then that's fine. 

 

Or you could stop being a pig and respect women. If that girl wants to get into the defensive tackle line across from you then what right do you have to tell her no? Are you afraid that she'll flatten you and make you look less "manly"? Are you afraid she might get hurt? Guess what. If she didn't want to get hurt she wouldn't be plowing into other people full speed in football, she wouldn't be stepping into a boxing ring. Every time you say no you won't box against her, you won't tackle her you are saying you don't think she's as good as you, you don't think she's equal to you. You are saying that because she is a woman she is somehow inferior to you.

 

I get it, committing acts of violence against women (or men) is disgusting and wrong and should never be done. Don't hit the women in your life, don't rape them, don't do anything violent. But don't deny those women their chance to compete in sports because your sexist mind thinks they are too dainty to be tackled or take a punch they've been training for months or years to take in a boxing ring.

 

I read it. They routinely used the words 'men and women in *blank* sport are 'set apart''. I may have misconstrued the MEANING, but I read it. But you can't really count effort toward prize money. Who are we to say that an 800 to ladies isn't equivalent effort to a 1500 meters for men? 

 

And who are you to say that it is? Assuming that all women are going to be smaller and weaker than all men is stupid and wrong and perpetuating a bad stereotype. True, without taking testosterone a woman cannot build the same amount of muscle mass that a man can, and therefore might peak out at a lower top strength than a man, but that doesn't translate to women being inferior across the board and not being capable of running as far, jumping as high, etc.

[Barmacral]

The original reason I came to this thread. Emma Watson made a very good speech about feminism yesterday, everyone should read it.

[michellem]

I was coming to post that exact same thing, Barm!

[The_Fnorrll_Reborn]

Whilat i get and respect your point Barm i think it was a bit OTT. I certainly dont think it was appropriate to call someone a pig. Im trying to keep this thread civil, differences of opinion aside.

 

The bbc article i posted listed a wide range of physical differences between men and women that are fact and would really come into play. Obviously there are exceptions but apart from height and weight there is bone density, muscle mass, reach, power to weight ratio, red blood cell count, all sorts. I for one dont want to see men against women in the boxing ring. I dont see that as feminist at all, quite the opposite.

 

Would be interesting to see what our feminist members feel about that.

 

Would you like to see women compete at the same level as men, ie 5 sets of tennis, decathlon etc against other women?

 

 

Would you like to see men competing directly with women in some non contact sports or all sports, including the likes of boxing?

[Barmacral]

You are correct Fnorrll, my language was overly strong and wrong of me. My apologies for calling you a pig Jak.

 

I think that while in a minority of sports there are viable cases as to why it is beneficial to have separation of the sexes, these are few and far between and the vast majority of sports would be improved by allowing men and women to compete.

 

As for which sports to give it to: All of them. To say that women can compete against men in tennis but not boxing is very much a case of saying "we think you're good enough for us here, but not there". Having single gender leagues for both sexes is fine, many men and women may choose to stick to those leagues and that is great for them. But it needs to be their choice. Some tough lady decides she is capable of taking on the mens boxing champion then let her join the league and show her stuff. The highest levels of sports across the board should be co-ed.

[WolfbrotherKronos]

I was gonna post the Emma Watson speech too.  I would love to be a part of HeForShe

[The_Fnorrll_Reborn]

With that in mind though barm I assume you would still stick to the same weight categories? Boxing has a lot of rules and regulations designed to protect two men when they go hell for leather against each other without bringing gender into it. So are we saying if a woman is in the same weight category as a man she can fight him? I do see your point- I'm just mulling it over. At the end of the day fights are called even now if the referee feels a persons life or long term health is in peril, even if the fighter wants to continue. Just look at groves v froch in their first match. So saying "if a woman feels tough enough you should let her" is one thing, but if a woman gets in the ring and takes punches that she clearly can't handle, I assume the fight is stopped? I ask because it's a biological fact that men are on average proportionally physically stronger than women. There's no two ways round that. (There are of course exceptions). A friend of mine works out and goes to the gym more than I do and is probably in better physical shape than I am and I admire her for it. But recently she came to my house and saw my barbell and couldn't even lift it. I curled it with one hand. She laughed at me for showing off. I don't see that as saying she is inferior, I see it as saying she is female. In my opinion true feminism embraces the differences between man and woman at the same time that it strives for equality, the same way that various races should celebrate their cultural differences whilst being perceived as equal. Women are beautiful creatures (I don't just mean physically) and to be admired for many things. I think there would have to be a long debate and some serious regulations before a woman should be allowed to jeapordise her health by getting in the ring with a man, regardless of if she is courageous enough and feels tough enough to do it. By the same token I wouldn't like to see a younger teenager get in the ring with a fully grown heavy weight, or a lightweight get in with a super heavy weight. Freedom of choice is one thing, if a woman thinks she can play tennis and compete with men, let her try. Worst case scenario (and I'm not saying this would happen) she fails. But situation where there are genuine health risks, it's more complex. We are talking about governed sport, not anything goes blood sports.

[MasterAblar]

The bbc article i posted listed a wide range of physical differences between men and women that are fact and would really come into play. Obviously there are exceptions but apart from height and weight there is bone density, muscle mass, reach, power to weight ratio, red blood cell count, all sorts. I for one dont want to see men against women in the boxing ring. I dont see that as feminist at all, quite the opposite.

 

 

There are a whole host of physical differences really, which make it pretty difficult for men and women to compete together at the highest level. Wikipedia gives a good rundown of them.

 

Would you like to see women compete at the same level as men, ie 5 sets of tennis, decathlon etc against other women?

 

 

I don't really consider a greater physical exertion to mean a higher level. Playing to 5 sets might typically be more tiring than 3, but it has it's upsides as well as it's downsides. The men can lose 2 sets and still make a comeback, whereas women can only afford to lose 1 set. I've no doubt the women could play in best of 5 if they had to, although the quality of play would tend to suffer more than for men in the last two sets, and injuries would also become more common. It would also prevent the top players from playing in doubles, just like the top men. And it would be an organisational problem since the matches would get longer and the schedule is already fairly tight in slams. That said if it can be worked out, and they want to do it, then it should be possible, but it isn't necessary to prove they play at the same level or justify equal pay. Neither of those are connected with the number of sets. As far as equal pay goes, players are payed for winning their matches, not for how much effort goes into it. Should Nadal be payed less at the French Open because he steamrolls everyone? It would be pretty ridiculous for someone to earn less for playing better tennis. Winning the match is all that matters, that and bringing in viewership which is where there could be arguments that men deserve greater compensation.

 

Would you like to see men competing directly with women in some non contact sports or all sports, including the likes of boxing?

 

As long as they are capable and it's safe, I'd say go for it. But frankly there are very few sports where I can see men and women capable of competing together at the highest level.

 

I think that while in a minority of sports there are viable cases as to why it is beneficial to have separation of the sexes, these are few and far between and the vast majority of sports would be improved by allowing men and women to compete.

 

As for which sports to give it to: All of them. To say that women can compete against men in tennis but not boxing is very much a case of saying "we think you're good enough for us here, but not there". Having single gender leagues for both sexes is fine, many men and women may choose to stick to those leagues and that is great for them. But it needs to be their choice. Some tough lady decides she is capable of taking on the mens boxing champion then let her join the league and show her stuff. The highest levels of sports across the board should be co-ed.

 

The problem with have men and women compete together is that you're risking women being pushed out of the highest level. Say you made Olympics completely co-ed. You're going to go from women having a spotlight moment with the final of 100, 200, 400m, etc, to them probably not competing at all, because the times set by the men are simply to quick. 

 

Making two single gender leagues and then a co-ed league which is also the top level, will simply turn into two men's leagues. Say there's WNBA, MNBA, and NBA. There simply aren't any women who could get into the "elite" NBA league. The issue with incorporating men's and women's leagues into the same pyramid, is that you're creating a hierarchy, in which the women will be confined to the bottom. And that is a terrible, terrible image to send. By having separate leagues, you're avoiding this altogether, you're not comparing them, which is essential because it is an unfair comparison. Instead you have them both compete at the highest level separately, and they have equal merit in reaching that level.

[The_Fnorrll_Reborn]

I think that is a well thought out answer, to be honest. To illustrate, in London 2012 in the 100m mens final all top 7 male athletes ran under 10 seconds. The WINNING time of the womens 100m was 10.75, which would have won an 8th place finish in the mens. I guess it comes down to your opinion. Would it do more to promote feminism to have women competing against men in an event where they realistically have little to no chance of ever winning, or to have their own event where they are allowed to shine and regularly win?

 

Perhaps the answer comes in giving the individual the choice. For example, should Shelly-Ann Fraser-Pryce have wanted to run against the men and finished 8th instead of winning an Olympic gold medal, she should have been allowed to have done so. After all, Oscar Pistorius was allowed to run against able bodied men despite being physically handicapped, even though he came last in the semi final race. That said, I think you will find that most professional sports women would rather win than compete against men, a point that the BBC article seemed to touch upon- or at least highlight reasons why prominent female athletes would not welcome the change of direct competition against men. There is also an argument to be made that an individual consistently deciding to compete against men and losing could do more to harm the feminist movement than help it, and should, one individual be allowed to take that stand? I'm playing devils advocate here.

 

Is change needed? Yes, certainly in some cases, debatably in more. Is it straightforward? No, I don't think so.

[MasterAblar]

The qualifying times for the Olympics were 10.07 (A standards) and 10.28 (B standards) for the men, and 11.13 (A standards) and 11.35 (B standards) for women.

 

A standard gets you in automatically, while B gets you in if there's still room. Each country also gets to send 1 athlete to the event of their choice regardless of qualifying times, which is why you have some men's times in the high 10 seconds in the heats. Those guys didn't make the qualifying times. Also the 8th place finisher in the men's final was Asafa Powell who injured himself midway through the race, which is why is time is so bad. Realistically, Shelly-Ann Fraser-Pryce would not even have been in the Olympics, not least because she's Jamaican, and Jamaica has excellent sprinters, so she wouldn't have had a spot

 

The official women's world record is 10.49 but this was heavily wind assisted with 4.3 m/s. Because the anemometer for 100 meters malfunctioned, the time was kept, which is unfortunate since it means it's very difficult for women to break the record. The unofficial record is 10.61. So 10.28 to possibly qualify, and the best women's time is 10.61. That's a big difference on the 100 meters. There's a similar distance throughout all running events, about 11% between the men's records and women's. 

 

The skier Lindsey Vonn wanted to compete against the men at Lake Louise where she is by far the best female skier. It didn't happen because she would have had to forfeit the women's race which is a few weeks before the men's, otherwise it would have given her an unfair advantage. I'm not sure the international federation would have accepted it anyway. Regardless of how she would have done against the men, the problem is the message she's sending which is that since she's the best she's going to race against the best which is the men. That places the women in an inferior league, diminishing their performance. The message she's sending is that she's too good to race against other women. Another thing to consider is that if she does compete in the men's league, does that mean the men can go compete in the women's league? Or at least the one man who's place she took on the the men's race?

 

I understand the desire for the challenge posed by competing against the men for the top women athletes, like what the Williams sisters wanted to do a while back. But it still sends a terrible message to the female athletes and to women in general really.

[michellem]

I think there's been a lot of talk here in Norway about ski jumping; the girls want to compete together with the guys, and at the same jumps. I think the jumps the girls compete at is smaller. I don't pay much attention to sports <.< But I know it's been a discussion point at least, and one brought up by the female skiers themselves.

[MasterAblar]

I don't know much about ski jumping, but if there's a sport where men and women might be able to compete together at the highest level it's probably it. My understanding that weight is very important, lighter being better. The federation has had to instill rules to stop athletes from losing too much weight. Women also need longer in-runs because of their typically lighter weight, which also makes them reach greater landing speed. As a result there were a lot of women who suffered knee injuries. 

[The_Fnorrll_Reborn]

See there are literally do many factors in sporting competition to think about.