|
ToxicSlurpee posted:Yup. You have no idea how bafflingly dumb people can be about that sort of thing. One very important thing about fighting in general is that skill is way more important than anything else. Best sparring partner I ever had was a woman because she was way, way better at fighting than I could ever be. I found that out when she kicked my rear end pretty easily. "Women can't fight" is utter nonsense.  This idiotic D&D influenced  poo poo about how women can't be fit and strong or can't fight is just downright baffling.
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2015 15:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 23:03 |
|
|
What are you going on a out Klaus?
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2015 15:35
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:Yup. You have no idea how bafflingly dumb people can be about that sort of thing. One very important thing about fighting in general is that skill is way more important than anything else. Best sparring partner I ever had was a woman because she was way, way better at fighting than I could ever be. I found that out when she kicked my rear end pretty easily. "Women can't fight" is utter nonsense. From what the Drill Sergeants in Basic Training said, women are generally better shots than men as well. I know my wife always outdid me on the range. As a vet, I have no issues with women in combat roles. Hell, they are already in the poo poo anyway, so the arguments that they can't do it are moot. As for SOF, if you meet their high standards and can make it through the hell they put you through, you should be in, penis or no penis.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2015 15:42
|
|
|
Klaus88 posted:
You're being completely silly. Dungeons and Dragons views human men and women as equivalent statistically. Silly. (no really are you saying that D&D influenced 4-chan toward misogyny? You realize that quote's not from D&D, right?)
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2015 15:45
|
|
|
Bait and Swatch posted:From what the Drill Sergeants in Basic Training said, women are generally better shots than men as well. I know my wife always outdid me on the range. As a vet, I have no issues with women in combat roles. Hell, they are already in the poo poo anyway, so the arguments that they can't do it are moot. As for SOF, if you meet their high standards and can make it through the hell they put you through, you should be in, penis or no penis. I'm guessing it is just pure old fashioned male chauvinism that womenfolk aren't supposed to be getting shot at when menfolk are available instead. Pander posted:You're being completely silly. Dungeons and Dragons views human men and women as equivalent statistically. Oops, I'm wrong and a moron.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2015 15:46
|
|
|
Pander posted:You're being completely silly. Dungeons and Dragons views human men and women as equivalent statistically. I'm honestly surprised I've never heard a conservative/Gamergator going on about how D&D and other RPGs push a liberal agenda by stating in the PHB that men and women are equally able to do any task.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2015 15:57
|
|
|
Hulk Krogan posted:I'm honestly surprised I've never heard a conservative/Gamergator going on about how D&D and other RPGs push a liberal agenda by stating in the PHB that men and women are equally able to do any task. They're too busy defending D&D for their chainmail bikinis.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2015 15:59
|
|
|
computer parts posted:They're too busy defending D&D for their chainmail bikinis. 2nd Edition, specifically, where women have a lower maximum strength score than men.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2015 16:04
|
|
|
I mean, I got accused of in D&D once because I expressed the opinion that it was unlikely a woman would ever play in the NFL because women don't tend to become 6'5" 250+lb monstrosities without doing too many 'roids to be mobile, but I somehow doubt anyone in D&D thinks that a random man off the street could possibly take Ronda Rousey in a fight. As bad as women's MMA is comapred to men's (mostly due to the youngness of the women's divisions), I doubt a random man off the street could take anyone in the top 10 of women's 135 in a fight. Physical attributes don't trump all unless the sport is explicitly about physical attributes first and foremost.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2015 16:14
|
|
|
No woman will ever compete in a man's sport because professional athletes are such huge outliers. Which cuts both ways; there are a ton of male golfers, tennis players, etc, out there that have trained with women because women at that skill level are still freakishly better than the average person. In the end, and I think Gawker or someone just ran an article about it, the testosterone/male physique just make any physical sports competition unfair which causes BIOTRUTHS!!! but ignores that there are a ton of women that are loving awesome at sports that are rec/co-ed (i.e. stuff we're, the average person, are likely to play) which don't overly favor absolute strength or height. Also Ronda Rousey would probably kick the poo poo out of a ton of people who said they'd win in a fight and I'd pay to see that happen 
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2015 16:21
|
|
|
hallebarrysoetoro posted:
If they set up a pay-per-view stream of "Ronda beats up a bunch of gaters/redpillers/d&dgrongards/" I would be among the first to sign up. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2015 16:27
|
|
|
^^Agreed. Let's bring back Toughman contests but everyone has to fight Ronda NHB instead.hallebarrysoetoro posted:No woman will ever compete in a man's sport because professional athletes are such huge outliers. Which cuts both ways; there are a ton of male golfers, tennis players, etc, out there that have trained with women because women at that skill level are still freakishly better than the average person. Yeah. In a lot of cases, I think we'd even lose something in gender-integrated sports. Women's tennis plays out much differently from men's tennis, and I frankly far prefer to watch the women's game, where it's not just too drug monsters standing at the far ends of the court blasting massive heat at each other until one's reflexes give out. There's a lot more movement and setting up of shots in the women's variety. Where I do have a problem is something like softball. It's really loving condescending, in my view, that women have to play on a child-sized field with a giant ball and are required to pitch underhand with a silly little skip. Why aren't they just playing baseball, on a baseball field? Softball exists so that kids and people who want to play a casual game can do so. Women competing as athletes want to play the real thing. Sure, you won't see as many massive moonshots or 98mph pitches, but you might see completely different styles of game emerge. Not having human cannons for infielders might mean that bunt-oriented strategies and contact hitters can thrive legging out infield singles or executing squeeze bunts. Pitchers, relying more on command and deception, could perhaps master more unusual arsenals of pitches. But nope, instead they play on the mini field with the underhand pitching so that every woman at one of the good softball universities has a .450 batting average and it's just insanely boring to watch. Most of my opinions on this topic are derived from my wife, who actually went to college on a softball scholarship, so I don't feel like I'm just manwhining on this topic. Hell, I even think a female pitcher with elite command and the right mix of pitches could play in the big leagues one day. Baseball is unique in that it's not a directly physical-on-physical game like the other big American sports.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2015 16:30
|
|
|
LeftistMuslimObama posted:I mean, I got accused of We'll probably never actually know which women could compete professionally in many sports, because men don't want women to play most of them at all. Wasn't there some Olympic sport that was split (and then the female version modified to not be comparable) explicitly to prevent male records from being surpassed by female athletes and thus "insulting" the previous record holders? One of the shooting events, I believe. It's actually pretty messed up. Edit: Looked it up, biggest one was Zhang Shan, a woman, won a mixed event in 1992. In 1996, they just straight up banned women from the event, period, to prevent it from happening again. In 2000 they introduced a "Woman's" version of the shooting event which had fewer targets so that no woman could ever beat the men's record. It happened a few times though and it's now standard that women's events are designed so that even a woman with a perfect score can not score higher than the average male competitor. GlyphGryph fucked around with this message at 16:48 on Aug 19, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2015 16:37
|
|
|
hallebarrysoetoro posted:No woman will ever compete in a man's sport because professional athletes are such huge outliers. Which cuts both ways; there are a ton of male golfers, tennis players, etc, out there that have trained with women because women at that skill level are still freakishly better than the average person. In some sports raw physical muscle mass gives a massive advantage to the point where having more muscle just plain makes you better at the sport. Which means women are extremely unlikely to be able to compete. The issue there though is then you get guys pumping themselves full of artificial testosterone to become far more muscly than is even within the natural limits for male bodies. Which is why we get steroid scandals like every other year. ToxicSlurpee fucked around with this message at 16:59 on Aug 19, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2015 16:40
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:We'll probably never actually know which women could compete professionally in many sports, because men don't want women to play most of them at all. Wasn't there some Olympic sport that was split (and then the female version modified to not be comparable) explicitly to prevent male records from being surpassed by female athletes and thus "insulting" the previous record holders? One of the shooting events, I believe. It's actually pretty messed up. Sure, but shooting isn't physical-on-physical. It's dumb that a sport like that is split up. I think the reason there's no women in football is more basic: why would you put a 170lb person (let's assume this woman is pretty tall and muscular) out on a field full of nearly 300lb people who are all crashing into each other? Not even accounting for gender, just size, you'd be crazy to do that. That person would be severely harmed. Women end up excluded, in this case, simply because the boundary on height and weight for women is, by-and-large, lower for women. There are obviously exceptions, but if you just grabbed 5000 random women off the street, it's pretty unlikely even one of them would be big enough that she wouldn't be severely injured by, like, Clay Matthews crashing into her as hard as possible. A sport like the NFL is a freakshow of strength and size and it means that even the men have to be ridiculous statistically outliers for their gender to compete. It'd be irresponsible to put women out there. I do think it's hosed up that there's not a women's football league that doesn't require them to degrade themselves by dancing around in their underwear, however. gently caress the LFL so hard.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2015 16:49
|
|
|
LeftistMuslimObama posted:Sure, but shooting isn't physical-on-physical. It's dumb that a sport like that is split up. I think the reason there's no women in football is more basic: why would you put a 170lb person (let's assume this woman is pretty tall and muscular) out on a field full of nearly 300lb people who are all crashing into each other? Not even accounting for gender, just size, you'd be crazy to do that. That person would be severely harmed. Women end up excluded, in this case, simply because the boundary on height and weight for women is, by-and-large, lower for women. There are obviously exceptions, but if you just grabbed 5000 random women off the street, it's pretty unlikely even one of them would be big enough that she wouldn't be severely injured by, like, Clay Matthews crashing into her as hard as possible. A sport like the NFL is a freakshow of strength and size and it means that even the men have to be ridiculous statistically outliers for their gender to compete. It'd be irresponsible to put women out there. This would explain why there would be exceptionally few women in the NFL, but if you grab 5000 random anyones off the street you wouldn't be likely to get an NFL-quality player. Larger women are rare, but they do exist. Ultimately though, there's a lot of cultural pressure for them to definitely not get into professional men's football either way though. The innate statistical differences interact with the cultural expectations to make a woman playing professional NFL very unlikely, it's definitely not just the statistics alone (and the two reinforce each other, since most people wouldn't even want their daughter to think about playing football, so even if the genetics turn out in their favour it will never be discovered). That's the way it tends to be with minorities all the time though - to succeed, they don't have to be as good individually as the average majority-member that succeeds, they have to be even better, because they are fighting against the expectations of those who see them and they're going to wind up in the spotlight no matter what, and it's often significantly easier to just... not compete. Go somewhere else where you don't find opposition, or split things off and play a "minority-only" version of the activity where you won't just be average but the best (but not as good as they could be since the environment is unlikely to exist that will push their skills to the next level).
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2015 16:56
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:This would explain why there would be exceptionally few women in the NFL, but if you grab 5000 random anyones off the street you wouldn't be likely to get an NFL-quality player. Larger women are rare, but they do exist. Ultimately though, there's a lot of cultural pressure for them to definitely not get into professional men's football either way though. The innate statistical differences interact with the cultural expectations to make a woman playing professional NFL very unlikely, it's definitely not just the statistics alone (and the two reinforce each other, since most people wouldn't even want their daughter to think about playing football, so even if the genetics turn out in their favour it will never be discovered). That's a fair assessment, and a way more reasonable response than what I got the last time this conversation came up. Yes, the women who are outliers and could play men's sports clearly are choosing not to, and there are a number of factors in our society directly connected to or correlated with gender that can explain this. I can get on board with that assessment. It's just that people are too quick to start shouting and don't give that level of analysis. They just get mad that you might suggest that men have a greater physical potential than women in terms of size and strength.I still want to see softball abolished at the high school/collegiate level. If the women aren't allowed to play with the men, at least let them play the same game. Softball is the sports equivalent of sitting at the kiddie table.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2015 17:05
|
|
|
I think women could definitely play in the MLB as there is almost no physical contact (player to player), and technique is almost everything huge part of it - the hitting leader last year is the shortest active player (Jose Altuve, a stocky 5'5"). I think one of the issues is that women usually grow up playing softball mostly, which is similar, but not really the same. Why the PGA isn't fully integrated is beyond me. I think it's because ultimately a sport that is usually completely dominated by white males would be decimated by the sheer golfing power that resides in Korean women.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2015 17:08
|
|
|
Seeing as there's only 1696 players across all NFL teams I don't see how it'd be hard to find a sufficent number of women of the right build. You could probably find a good say 500 bulky tough women across the country.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2015 17:13
|
|
|
Parachute posted:Why the PGA isn't fully integrated is beyond me. I think it's because ultimately a sport that is usually completely dominated by white males would be decimated by the sheer golfing power that resides in Korean women. Men drive the ball significantly further then women, anikka got wrecked when she attempted to play in the PGA.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2015 17:16
|
|
|
Like 80% of baseball is scratching your balls so I just don't see how women could possibly compete. Anyway even if it were allowed, the owners would probably express zero interest. The steroid era taught them that people are dummies who only want moonshot reels and 105mph fastballs, and fielding a small ball team is a great way to win but not a great way to put butts in seats More on topic though, whenever the MACHO MURRICA sport of the NFL argument comes up be sure to remind the person that it's pretty much the most socialist institution outside of 1960's Russia Then point right in their faces and tell them to gently caress the Yankees/Red Sox and gently caress not having a salary cap
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2015 17:17
|
|
|
I think there's plenty of sports where women could eventually be competitive but I don't see the NFL or other sports where strength and power are very important being among them. Your average good division one college player puts up lifting numbers in excess of the female world record numbers. http://www.powerliftingwatch.com/records/raw/women-world
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2015 17:20
|
|
|
Parachute posted:I think women could definitely play in the MLB as there is almost no physical contact (player to player), and technique is almost everything huge part of it - the hitting leader last year is the shortest active player (Jose Altuve, a stocky 5'5"). I think one of the issues is that women usually grow up playing softball mostly, which is similar, but not really the same. I think white males already got decimated by Koreans. It is called the Korean war. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2015 17:20
|
|
|
WoodrowSkillson posted:Men drive the ball significantly further then women, anikka got wrecked when she attempted to play in the PGA. Wendy's 3 Tour is split pretty evenly between seniors, men and women's players. Not exactly all top tier talent but golf is arguably the closest sport between the genders, especially at lower levels when consistency matter more than length. Klaus88 posted:I think white males already got decimated by Koreans. It is called the Korean war. trigger warning bro, my granpappy was shot by a Chinaman in the Korean war and had to recuperate in Honolulu 
hallebarrysoetoro fucked around with this message at 17:27 on Aug 19, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2015 17:25
|
|
|
Klaus88 posted:I think white males already got decimated by Koreans. It is called the Korean war. That's a strange way to spell Starcraft.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2015 17:39
|
|
|
Epic High Five posted:Like 80% of baseball is scratching your balls so I just don't see how women could possibly compete. Why would you want a salary cap? Salary caps enable owners to extract most of the profits from their laborers. Baseball's pay structure enables players to extract far more compensation from owners than would otherwise be possible.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2015 17:40
|
|
|
MaxxBot posted:I think there's plenty of sports where women could eventually be competitive but I don't see the NFL or other sports where strength and power are very important being among them. Your average good division one college player puts up lifting numbers in excess of the female world record numbers. Power lifting doesn't have anything to do with any popular team sports. I'm sure we can find 500 NFL-ready women out of 310 million plus people.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2015 17:43
|
|
|
LeftistMuslimObama posted:Why would you want a salary cap? Salary caps enable owners to extract most of the profits from their laborers. Baseball's pay structure enables players to extract far more compensation from owners than would otherwise be possible. Because the wealthiest teams win all the time and the small markets struggle to make the playoffs twice a century.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2015 17:44
|
|
|
PerniciousKnid posted:Because the wealthiest teams win all the time and the small markets struggle to make the playoffs twice a century. Well boo fuckin' hoo for them. And some major markets have teams that haven't won the world series in more than a century, and others that didn't win for 86 years.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2015 17:56
|
|
|
Let's not forget, people like Matt Walsh and many many Christians believe it is unbiblical and wrong for a woman to be a pastor
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2015 17:56
|
|
|
hallebarrysoetoro posted:Wendy's 3 Tour is split pretty evenly between seniors, men and women's players. Not exactly all top tier talent but golf is arguably the closest sport between the genders, especially at lower levels when consistency matter more than length. The PGA was specifically mentioned. Nintendo Kid posted:Seeing as there's only 1696 players across all NFL teams I don't see how it'd be hard to find a sufficent number of women of the right build. You could probably find a good say 500 bulky tough women across the country. Right build yes, but also talented enough to play, and also of a competitive build, not just checking the weight and height boxes. Even bad nfl players put up numbers better then women's world records when they were in high school. Like, women could not be corner backs or wide receivers since they just are not fast enough. For example, Travis Benjamin, the 3rd string receiver for the notoriously bad Browns, ran the 100m dash in 10.40s. That is a 10th of a second faster then Flo-Jo. No matter how skilled the woman was at defending, no matter how good she is at selecting routes and juking players, she will be outrun on most plays and would just be the most targeted cornerback on the team. That's 512 of the active spots right there. Now you are left with QB, where its theoretically possible but unlikely. Running back is also a possibility, though they only last about 3 years in the league as it is due to injury, so just making it to the NFL is a miracle. RB would also be affected by speed as well, since even if she is an amazing talent at evading the defensive line, she would be limited in how much she can capitalize due to being run down by the defensive backs. Defensive or Offensive line is a possibility, however a woman like Holley Mangold was able to play in high school as an offensive lineman, but not past that level. And she is a badass through and through. its just a really, really, tall order to try and find a woman who could actually compete. The game was designed for men and it just places far too much emphasis parts of the human body most effected by dimorphism. I'd love nothing more then to see someone like Holley make it and wreck the poo poo out of a bunch of d-lineman, but it just seems like it is not going to happen. WoodrowSkillson fucked around with this message at 18:02 on Aug 19, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2015 17:58
|
|
|
LeftistMuslimObama posted:Why would you want a salary cap? Salary caps enable owners to extract most of the profits from their laborers. Baseball's pay structure enables players to extract far more compensation from owners than would otherwise be possible. Because only a select few players actually reap that benefit, and it hurts the overall game due to a lack of competitive parity.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2015 18:01
|
|
|
PerniciousKnid posted:Because the wealthiest teams win all the time and the small markets struggle to make the playoffs twice a century. The concept of "small markets" is a lie agreed to by all the owners to enable them to pocket more money by cheaping out on salary and then claiming poverty. The answer isn't to put a cap on players' earning potential. The answer is a minimum payroll as a percentage of team revenue.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2015 18:03
|
|
|
I'm sorry for just dumping this on you guys like it's homework but I'm really lost here and I need some insight. http://imgur.com/gallery/LNjGjG1 comments like 'she's a corrupt power grabbing Tom Clancy villain wannabe' leave me scratching my head on what Hillary Clinton has done wrong in the past. Not even counting the non-substantial Benghazi poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2015 18:16
|
|
|
WoodrowSkillson posted:Right build yes, but also talented enough to play, and also of a competitive build, not just checking the weight and height boxes. Even bad nfl players put up numbers better then women's world records when they were in high school. No one's saying they'd magically be ready to take the field in the opening games of this very season dude. The dudes who actually will take the field wouldn't have been able to if they'd not been in the NFL and other training for the past whenever, but were instead working middle management in Cleveland for the same time.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2015 18:17
|
|
|
Let's be honest here; American football is a lovely, lovely sport that men shouldn't be playing either.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2015 18:22
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:No one's saying they'd magically be ready to take the field in the opening games of this very season dude. The dudes who actually will take the field wouldn't have been able to if they'd not been in the NFL and other training for the past whenever, but were instead working middle management in Cleveland for the same time. I am saying there are so few that would actually make it, that creating the infrastructure to do it would mostly be fruitless, and would be better served either creating a women's league or developing other women's sports. And why would it be preferable to take the cream of the crop and force them to be middling at best NFL players as opposed to stars in a women's league?
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2015 18:23
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:Power lifting doesn't have anything to do with any popular team sports. I'm sure we can find 500 NFL-ready women out of 310 million plus people. I brought up that example because basically all football players lift weights, and yes it is very important and relevant for NFL players. I'm sure my experience and knowledge of football training means nothing compared to Fishmech having Strong Opinions on an issue though. NFL scouts care a lot about specific physical attributes of players because it's really important for success in the NFL, there's a lot of good players out there and if one guy can run a 40-yard dash 0.2 seconds faster than another guy that's a big deal. There simply aren't 300lbs women out there who have the right combination of brute strength and speed that they are looking for in NFL linemen for example. To prove that point I showed that even the strongest women are weaker than an average high level college player, which is a totally relevant thing to point out when talking about women playing in the NFL.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2015 18:28
|
|
|
WoodrowSkillson posted:I am saying there are so few that would actually make it, that creating the infrastructure to do it would mostly be fruitless, and would be better served either creating a women's league or developing other women's sports. And why would it be preferable to take the cream of the crop and force them to be middling at best NFL players as opposed to stars in a women's league? Yeah, 500 women out of 150 million american women is very few. But so is ~1700 men out of 150 million american men. What's the big deal? MaxxBot posted:I brought up that example because basically all football players lift weights, and yes it is very important and relevant for NFL players. They don't do professional power lifting, it has no relation to football. Football players also run, but marathon runners have little in common with NFL players as well.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2015 18:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 23:03 |
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:They don't do professional power lifting, it has no relation to football. Football players also run, but marathon runners have little in common with NFL players as well. Again, NFL scouts look for very specific, quantifiable physical attributes in their players. A typical NFL or good college player can squat or bench more than even world record holding women, strength is something that scouts and coaches care a lot about and it is measured in the NFL combine. They also care deeply about speed as measured by the 40 yard sprint, so yeah running performance of the players is very important as well. You just aren't going to have a woman at the size of an NFL lineman (over 300lbs) able to put up the numbers they are looking for on the bench, 40, vertical, cone drill, etc. We're talking about men who are multiple standard deviations above the mean in almost every physical category, it's impossible or nearly impossible for women to be able to match that.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2015 18:38
|
|