You can login if you already have an account or register by clicking the button below.
Registering is free and all you need is a username and password. We never ask you for your e-mail.
I always figured that, like Greek original Olympics, the competitions (all men) were designed to show off the high excellence of what men's bodies could excel at. And youth, training, special builds, men's diets, etc. were really what was on display. So fast-twitch muscles, great at 50 yard sprints due to quick starts and short endurance were designed as the proper events. Stuff male bodies were excellent for.
Of course, put men vs. women in a newer event, racing 10s of miles across ice, or tolerating certain pain in other events (giving birth over 24 hours?), then maybe all the medals go to women? I bet the design of what we consider competitive sport, from the length of races or even football fields are made to show off men's physical excellence, and so they win head-to-head contests. But redesign of all the competitions, race lengths, race temperatures, agility, durability, changing the medium AWAY from the Olympic celebration of body, and I'll guess you see not just parity but places where females would consistently exceed males in competition.
But really, so what? I suppose the worst thing you could say is that the 1000 year old race boundaries influence incorrect ideas about male vs. female torsos that lead to poor conclusions about things like leadership or general power in life. Ultimately, is there a competitive design for games and play where equality of the matches is quite close regardless of sex? That might be a great rewrite in sports.
Of course, put men vs. women in a newer event, racing 10s of miles across ice, or tolerating certain pain in other events (giving birth over 24 hours?), then maybe all the medals go to women?
No, they don't. The medals still go to men. The old chestnut that women can endure more pain then men was exploded long ago. It's false.
view the rest of the comments →
[–] snarkon 1 point -1 points 0 points (+0|-1) ago
I always figured that, like Greek original Olympics, the competitions (all men) were designed to show off the high excellence of what men's bodies could excel at. And youth, training, special builds, men's diets, etc. were really what was on display. So fast-twitch muscles, great at 50 yard sprints due to quick starts and short endurance were designed as the proper events. Stuff male bodies were excellent for.
Of course, put men vs. women in a newer event, racing 10s of miles across ice, or tolerating certain pain in other events (giving birth over 24 hours?), then maybe all the medals go to women? I bet the design of what we consider competitive sport, from the length of races or even football fields are made to show off men's physical excellence, and so they win head-to-head contests. But redesign of all the competitions, race lengths, race temperatures, agility, durability, changing the medium AWAY from the Olympic celebration of body, and I'll guess you see not just parity but places where females would consistently exceed males in competition.
But really, so what? I suppose the worst thing you could say is that the 1000 year old race boundaries influence incorrect ideas about male vs. female torsos that lead to poor conclusions about things like leadership or general power in life. Ultimately, is there a competitive design for games and play where equality of the matches is quite close regardless of sex? That might be a great rewrite in sports.
[–] ardvarcus 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
No, they don't. The medals still go to men. The old chestnut that women can endure more pain then men was exploded long ago. It's false.