Women should just train harder

[FairfaxAikman]

Peak WokeBro stupidity.

Debating the trans issue on FB and a friend of a friend says the biomechanical differences between men and women should be disregarded on the sports field because women are always saying they can do anything a man can so we should just train harder.

The stupid actually burns with this one.

Not to worry - no one takes this post seriously.

In this forum? No, possibly not. That's the problem with highlighting some feminists paradoxical demands; they don't formulate those demands based on logic, so pointing out a logical flaw in their argument is met with sarcasm, non sequiturs, insults, specious analogies to female fighter pilots and so on.

Caroline

It's just a baby step from what your friend of a friend said to the barely concealed glee we are seeing now from some men at the negative impacts on women of losing single sex spaces, because feminists 'asked for it' and are now apparently getting exactly what they deserve.

Feminisms support of the LGBTXYZ_!+ movement was a strategic howler along the 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend' line. Rather than crying about it the feminist movement would be better off ditching their false ally. But that will require RadFem lesbians to put the feminist cause before their own LGBT self interests, which is unlikely to happen, given they couldn't manage it first time round.

Makes you wonder why a men's Volleyball net is 19 cm higher than a women's one if women could just train more and play a the same height.

I always point out to the male slobs (usually) who make such comments, that while on average men have more physical strength and are bigger and stronger, that there are plenty of women who could beat him at running/lifting/throwing/whatever.

Train harder, speak softer, smile more, cook n clean more, exist less.... anything else?

Could you just show a little more boob please? .....no, not that much, are you some sort of slut?

What is interesting is that organised sports test the very things men do well at. It is entirely possible to have sports that test other things. Some First Nations' and Inuit games test things like balance, pain endurance and so on. Short, chubby women do better with food shortages, including starvation. Cold tolerance is another interesting thing. Shit, multi-tasking and social problem solving! All of which could be useful in the military, just saying.

But most Olympic sports test strength, visuospatial awareness and speed, which men score much higher in. Then men want to argue that they have no advantage at the things they invented to test their advantage.

Women are very good at endurance. We have to endure men coming out with this sort of crap, for one thing.

Is everyone still honing their "walking under a low beam" skills, as previously suggested on here?

I'd agree to a point that there are other factors beyond physical differences, in that women and girls are socialised to not take up space (look at school play grounds, and you frequently observe the boys playing football in the middle and the girls playing and chatting around the edges, for example) and to be nice (being very competive and wanting to win is often seen as "unfeminine")

But let's be honest, when all of these things are taken out of consideration - such as with the Williams sisters, who were primed from childhood to be champions - women are still weaker / slower / smaller as a group than men

Yeah, tell Serena Williams to just ‘train harder’ and play with the lads.

That’ll work.

www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.firstpost.com/sports/serena-williams-would-rank-700-in-the-mens-game-says-john-mcenroe-3745691.html/amp

www.espn.co.uk/tennis/story/_/id/19747505/tennis-world-no-701-dmitry-tursunov-weighs-john-mcenroe-serena-williams-controversy

I don’t even particularly like sport but this latest cycling shitshow has incensed me!

There are physical differences between men and and women that affect what they can physically achieve,

This does not mean that their brains are different. It does not mean that wome are inferior.

As a feminist, I would like the later and the former respected. Simultaneoulsy, Gosh that’s a lot to ask for.

It does mean that in some situations you might expect far fewer women to make the grade. Arm to arm combat for example. If a woman makes the grade they should not be excluded because they are a woman . But it should be based on making the grade. Not on their sex.

Interestingly, the army has just redesigned their combat fitness tests - because they realised that a lot of the old tests were simply grunt physical strength and bore little to no resemblance to what you'd actually be expected to do on an actual battlefield.

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/09/21/gender-neutral-fitness-tests-soldiers-enemy-does-not-discriminate/

(Apologies - it's behind a pay wall.)

And the other thing to remember is that armies tend not to fight one another in hand-to-hand combat any more... they have stuff like guns, and artillery, and drones, and shit loads of tech. Being stronger than the other guy is no longer the main thing at issue, and hasn't been for, oh, well over a century.

The women in combat analogy only works if both sides agree to slug it out with armies of Amazon warriors and one side sneaks in a few men evoked out in Womder Woman drag.

Combat isn’t competition. The point is to use every advantage you have to defeat the opposition, whether it be fielding Ninja assassins in invisibility cloaks, or napalming farmers armed only with pointy sticks.

Competition is a test of skill and an end in itself, not a means of obliterating your enemy in order to impose your will upon them.

Okay, for trans sports women maybe it is about obliteratingbthe enemy...

The responses to the combat question are, so far, typically rich in nonsense. Frontline combat isn't a computer game. A drone isn't going to carry your kit for you, or dig a trench, or haul your wounded fucking mate to safety under fire ASAP. Nor is it a place to expend significant resources accommodating one or two individuals out of every hundred, because you've read a gender studies book that says it should.

Time for a reality check:

www.telegraph.co.uk/men/thinking-man/how-the-army-must-reshape-after-chilcot/

Competition is a test of skill and an end in itself, not a means of obliterating your enemy in order to impose your will upon them.

That might be true of someone who lives in a robust mental bubble, disconnected from their peers. Suffice to say most sports people don't think like that even if they're being polite about it.

wonderfluid, your point is incorrect. Feminists do not claim that ‘women’ should be able to serve in combat infantry roles. They believe that anyone capable of reaching the required standards should be able to serve in combat infantry roles. Why would you wish to disallow that? (Other than the old chestnut that the men would want to protect the women which would affect group cohesion and endanger the unit blah blah sexist waffle.

That’s not at all the same thing as saying ‘feminists believe women are as fast and strong as men’. It’s saying that some women are as capable of doing x job as some men are. And I speak as a 5’2” ex female officer that was frequently accused of cheating by the men in basic training because I was faster and stronger than some of my male peers. Women often have greater pain resilience and ability to withstand different pressures. We are all different.

Should women be allowed to serve in combat roles? Of course. Anyone that meets the standard should be allowed to. Why would you disagree with that?

That was because ‘the wives and girlfriends wouldn’t like it’ though. At least it was harder to claim I wasn’t as good I suppose.

So, WonderFluid, because some feminist(s) some time said that women would be as good as men at front-line combat and they aren't, my dgd shouldn't have a chance at competing in athletics?

Totally fair of course.

OP perhaps ask your friend, when women are being attacked by men why don't they just run away faster or fight back harder....

Oh, to live in a world where females were physically equal or superior to males.

I should have said 'the majority of females'

Next we’ll be told that women should just try harder to grow tall and then we wouldn’t be shorter (on average) than men.

Interestingly, the army has just redesigned their combat fitness tests - because they realised that a lot of the old tests were simply grunt physical strength and bore little to no resemblance to what you'd actually be expected to do on an actual battlefield.

This is what I find interesting - it's like, the original tests were written to test that a person met a standard set with reference to average/trained men - not with reference to what the role requires.

For instance, I remember doing those assault classes on activity holiday at school - all the girls went under the cargo nets like whippets, but had trouble climbing the walls, the boys the exact opposite - simply because of height.

I realise that's a trivial example, but I see this in other areas - if a test is designed for the average man, of course the average woman is going to find it harder - she's 1/5th shorter for a start. The question is, is that 10' wall a reasonable requirement.

Can I suggest that we not let this get sidetracked into being about front-line combat? It’s a false equivalence, and really quite irrelevant to the subject of women in sport.

women are always saying they can do anything a man can so we should just train harder.

I know someone who takes that line. 'Well, you wanted equality didn't you?'

It's surely a coincidence that his other political views are extremely right-wing.

women are always saying they can do anything a man can so we should just train harder.

I know someone who takes that line. 'Well, you wanted equality didn't you?'

It's surely a coincidence that his other political views are extremely right-wing.

Every time I see or hear a man say this, I can only assume the following: these men must really, really hate their mothers, sisters, daughters and all the other women in their families.