Austin Improv

shando wrote:

Jastroch wrote:The problem with sweeping generalities is that there are always exceptions.

I'm guessing the exception to this statement then is that some sweeping generalities are absolutley air tight.

Man, I'm having fun being an ass today!

Sweeping generality: "all yellow things are yellow"

"confirmed mommy" heh.

There was a timme when it was a generally accepted scientific fact that black people were just not as smart as white people and that no matter what their schooling, they could never hope to excel academically at the same level as white people. You could even look at the statistics and "the big picture" today and see that standardized test scores and college graduation rates have significant differences correlated to race, but I doubt anyone would attribute that to biological differences.

I'm not saying there are no biological differences between men and women, but there are certainly significant socially created differences, and it's nearly impossible from within that inescapable infrastucture to sort out what's what objectively. If no one ever challenges common wisdom and tests alternate theories, we never will come closer to uderstanding our similarities and differences, and letting each person exist and achieve to their highest personal potential.

valetoile wrote:There was a timme when it was a generally accepted scientific fact that black people were just not as smart as white people and that no matter what their schooling, they could never hope to excel academically at the same level as white people. You could even look at the statistics and "the big picture" today and see that standardized test scores and college graduation rates have significant differences correlated to race, but I doubt anyone would attribute that to biological differences.

I'm not saying there are no biological differences between men and women, but there are certainly significant socially created differences, and it's nearly impossible from within that inescapable infrastucture to sort out what's what objectively. If no one ever challenges common wisdom and tests alternate theories, we never will come closer to uderstanding our similarities and differences, and letting each person exist and achieve to their highest personal potential.

I hear you, sister. Speak on. However...

There is a way to sort it out objectively. That's what sports is. There is head to head competition where the rules are exactly equal on both sides -- that's as objective as it gets. A lot more goes into the debate of white versus black intelligence, namely that black people did not have access to the same intelligence-building methods, etc. as whites did before the standarized testing referred to in Val's quote. Men and women, on the other hand, have equal access (we're talking on the professional level here) to all of the athleticism-building methods, etc. such as weight training and the time and ability to practice with top notch instruction.

I'm not saying what can't be. Who knows -- maybe there will be a drug invented that only works on women and gives them super athleticism. I'm saying what is. I'm sorry if I'm a downer here. I believe in the truth, even if it stings.

valetoile wrote: I'm not saying there are no biological differences between men and women, but there are certainly significant socially created differences.

I saw this thing on animal planet that said that men have leveled off in the hundred meter dash, but women are still improving, and if the numbers stay the same then women will actually be faster. But then... animal planet, so... grain of salt, etc.

DollarBill wrote:

valetoile wrote: I'm not saying there are no biological differences between men and women, but there are certainly significant socially created differences.

I saw this thing on animal planet that said that men have leveled off in the hundred meter dash, but women are still improving, and if the numbers stay the same then women will actually be faster. But then... animal planet, so... grain of salt, etc.

I saw some documentary or news thing that said that women are more physically suited to distance running and that it should be more common for women to win marathons, etc.

York99 wrote: I believe in the truth, even if it stings.

But it's not really "truth", it's still just a widely-accepted theory.

Men and women, on the other hand, have equal access (we're talking on the professional level here) to all of the athleticism-building methods, etc. such as weight training and the time and ability to practice with top notch instruction.

But that's the thinig- they don't. How many more examples do you need of the discrimination and harassment women face when they try to compete head to head? There is a huge social experiment called life going on, and we are always inside of it, and can never be entirely objective about it. How many historical examples do you need of "the truth" being proved completely wrong to let a glimmer of doubt into your belief?

kaci_beeler wrote:

York99 wrote: I believe in the truth, even if it stings.

But it's not really "truth", it's still just a widely-accepted theory.

have you been hanging out with ID supporters?

Is anyone denying that there are, on AVERAGE, physical differences between men and women. And, that all things being equal, men TEND to be bigger and physically stronger than women? Tell me that and then I'll move on to my next point.

I don't think anyone is denying that. Although that doesn't really tell you much about sports, as sports are socially constructed events that were created by people to play to certain of these traits. In some sports, size and strength aren't part of the equation, or aren't nearly so as in say the NFL. Badmitton, anyone? So in those areas, differences between the sexes don't count for nearly as much.

kaci_beeler wrote:

York99 wrote: I believe in the truth, even if it stings.

But it's not really "truth", it's still just a widely-accepted theory.

There's no theory involved in actual, measurable, comparable statistics. It's right there.

Take a step back and look at this discussion objectively and it is a lot like the creation vs evolution argument. Like with evolution, there is very strong evidence. At its base, it's still a theory, but come on.

shando wrote:I don't think anyone is denying that. Although that doesn't really tell you much about sports, as sports are socially constructed events that were created by people to play to certain of these traits. In some sports, size and strength aren't part of the equation, or aren't nearly so as in say the NFL. Badmitton, anyone? So in those areas, differences between the sexes don't count for nearly as much.

So, at least we can agree that there are some sports, i.e. football, where the seperation makes sense. What other sports does it make sense to seperate men and women.

I'll name basketball.

So far, Badmitton is a contender for a coed sport. Any others? I'll say Frizbee Golf.

valetoile wrote:

Men and women, on the other hand, have equal access (we're talking on the professional level here) to all of the athleticism-building methods, etc. such as weight training and the time and ability to practice with top notch instruction.

But that's the thinig- they don't. How many more examples do you need of the discrimination and harassment women face when they try to compete head to head? There is a huge social experiment called life going on, and we are always inside of it, and can never be entirely objective about it. How many historical examples do you need of "the truth" being proved completely wrong to let a glimmer of doubt into your belief?

I'm talking about sports here. Where do they not? Annika Sorenstam had the same benefits of a male golfer. Olympic athletes have the same access to the benefits on these hight levels. Look at the olympic record book. You'll also notice things in there that have no male record.... because women ARE suited better for some events (balance beam comes to mind), and with that there is an exception that proves the rule.

This isn't about believing in your hopes and dreams and chasing them. This is about accepting limitations. We all have limitations.

deroosisonfire wrote:

kaci_beeler wrote:

York99 wrote: I believe in the truth, even if it stings.

But it's not really "truth", it's still just a widely-accepted theory.

have you been hanging out with ID supporters?

I have no idea what this means.