Posted: Mar 02, 2014 1:22 am
by Fallible
TMB wrote:Fallible, you said,
It's not that women aren't ''required'' to perform to the same level as men, it's that they can't. You could require them to run 100m in under 10 seconds all day long - you'd remain frustrated.

I agree with you and if I understand you correctly this means that this is due to a biologically immutable and cannot be changed.

Perhaps, but I don't know. It's the situation as it is at the moment at least.

If this is the case then can we not say the same about womens appearance being something that they will be judged upon more than men will be judged upon?

I don't really understand how you get to that from what I said. I can't see that the two are connected.

The same ''protection'' is given to male boxers who weigh less, disabled athletes and different age groups. Awards are still given out in all these areas as recognition for being the best in one's category.

I agree with you, however the awards usually have lesser value and the category protection only works in one way.

The awards usually have lesser value because overwhelmingly those who are the best are adult, able bodied men. My point is that you use the word ''protection'' to describe something that happens across every group, even that of adult able bodied men, who are ''protected'' from taking part with the best performers if they can't manage a certain time/height/length, and are left to compete lower down the scale for lesser rewards.

Also you keep referring to ''protection'', but I'm not sure that's what it is. It would seem to make sense that you pit those of comparable abilities against each other for various reasons - to ensure the contest is fair, to make it more exciting for the viewer, etc.

This means that a light heavy boxer can compete in a heavier group but a heavyweight boxer cannot compete downwards. Heavyweight fighters are given more value, just as ‘open’ competitors medals are worth more than the 50-60 year old category, just as the Olympics medals are seen as being of more value than para Olympics, for the simple reason is that the Olympics medals have no protection, it is the best of the best.

Again, the word ''protection''. You need to argue for why this word should be used. I don't understand much of what you said there about boxing, but those who perform the very best of all are obviously seen as the best - it just happens to be the case that built as they are, that's men the majority of the time. It seems to me that you are labelling any measures which enable anyone other than the very tip of the group called "able bodied, adult men" to compete in sporting events as protection. That seems an absurd stance to take.

However this is not the case in a number of sports when women are protected.

Again, that word.

Female Olympians enjoy the same elite status as male Olympians,

Because they represent the best of their group. Are you suggesting the fact that men out-perform them means that women should never be able to perform at the highest level, and that they are able to means they're being ''protected''? They're still elite athletes who have had to make qualifying times, etc. over months in order to gain a place on the squad.

the grand slam tennis tournaments pay female tennis players the same purse money as males, despite the fact that in both cases women are protected (presumably by benevolent sexism) from competing with men.

I knew you were going to bring up the tennis thing. There have been complaints that the women in certain tournaments receive the same prize money as men, despite them playing less sets (this was not always the case, it was changed recently). What is ignored here is that it's the same amount of effort for them to reach the very highest level as it is for men. Having put in the same effort, it makes sense that they should be rewarded the same. That said, I see no reason why women should not play the same number of sets as men - the fact that they do not seems to be based on the idea that women can endure less. Yet they are able to for example run marathons of the same distance as men.

Since it is the case that in terms of sheer ability of sprinting etc, women are not capable of meeting the standards men are required to meet, then they will be judged on something more subtle and that is their appearance.

What are you talking about? They're judged on and rewarded for their sporting achievements when they are competing.

Simple observation shows that this is exactly what does happen. Elite females, just like actresses and models are very much judged upon their appearance, what they wear, what they do with their hair etc, and for those women that win these contests against other women, they get big rewards and have significant power. But other women are losers in this contest as well.

You're mixing up how they're seen by the general public or media with how they're seen by those within the sporting arena, as far as I can see. Unless you mean to suggest that women get medals for looking nice, which is obviously crap.

Politically should we not argue that male actors should get as much attention on the red carpet for the way they dress as the women, or that male models should be household names just as female supermodels are? The reality is that these mechanism operate on market forces and the results show just how these genders differences work. What is different is the sense that women are victims in these cases and males are not, there is no lobby for men to get extra benefits through their looks, while women do take advantage of the power their looks give them, but they also want to be free of the responsibility that comes with this.

Nope, it's no good. I've read and re-read this and it still seems to be a big non-sequitur.