from the *you*-try-keeping-up-with-a-bunch-of-children-all-day dept.
From Medium article:
https://elemental.medium.com/what-makes-women-strong-2c927bf286ef
"What Makes Women Strong?
Science is revealing that when it comes to physical prowess, women may actually be the more powerful sex""If discussions of human physical strength used endurance as the yardstick, women would be strongest. Women have already caught up to, or surpassed, men in some sports like long-distance swimming and ultrarunning, racking up the wins in mixed-gender races (with less support and training than the men). Recently, Camille Herron won 2018's Desert Solstice run, which lasts for 24 hours (she ran 162.9 miles in that time) and Courtney Dauwalter has won 11 mixed-sex ultramarathons, including the Moab 240, a 238-mile race along the Colorado River in Utah. Dauwalter beat the next-fastest competitor there, a man, by 10 hours.
In fact, plenty of research points to the idea that the longer the distance, the better chance a woman has in beating a man, possibly due to a combination of factors like high pain tolerance and less muscle fatigability. There could also be metabolic reasons — some researchers theorize that women burn energy in a way that supports long-distance energy needs. As investigative reporter David Epstein notes in his book, The Sports Gene, when a man and a woman are evenly matched, "the man will typically beat the woman at distances shorter than the marathon, but the woman will win if the race length is extended to forty miles."
[...] "Women are also bodily powerful (the definition of strong) in other ways: Women are also more flexible. "Women tend to have somewhat more laxity in their tendons than men; they are more limber," Dr. Steve Jordan, an orthopedic surgeon at the Andrews Institute for Orthopaedics and Sports Medicine, told The New York Times. Limber people are less likely to get hurt — less time spent on the sidelines or in surgery. Woman also have a very high degree of accuracy — and depending on the physical pursuit, that can make one athlete stronger than the next. Women on the Ladies Professional Golf Association tour regularly significantly outdrive professional men. And according to the National Rifle Association's Colonel Kenneth Haynes — a military logician in the Army who taught both men and women to shoot over a multi-decade career — women shoot guns more accurately: "My units had around 20 percent female personnel in both officer and enlisted ranks. All the women fired Expert their first day, but less than a third of the men did so," writes Haynes."
So, I really wanna hear the fireworks....
(Score: 5, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 14 2019, @11:43AM (1 child)
How did I end up on Slashdot? Could have sworn I was going somewhere else....
(Score: 2) by RS3 on Saturday June 15 2019, @03:03PM
Colorblindness. Inability to discern red from green is the most common.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 14 2019, @11:49AM (10 children)
If this is all we have to post to SN, may I suggest just we post fewer stories.
Stop the click-bait agitation feedback loop.
(Score: 5, Informative) by NotSanguine on Friday June 14 2019, @03:22PM (2 children)
Don't like the stories? Submit ones you do.
You have the power to determine what goes on the front page. And guess what, complaining about stories you *don't* like won't do that, submitting stories you do like, will.
Just sayin'.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 14 2019, @04:58PM (1 child)
I know that stories come from Soylentils.
I just stated my preference that we choose to publish less if all we have are stories of this caliber.
The benefit of that approach is that it is even more evident people need to submit stories.
But if you enjoy stories like this, then that's just a difference of opinion between us.
(Score: 2, Touché) by NotSanguine on Friday June 14 2019, @05:49PM
I'd point out, in case it wasn't clear in my first response, that in the time it took you to state your preference and wonder aloud as to the differences in how you and I view various types of stories, you could have submitted a story that *you* like instead.
I posit that such a story submission would be more effective in getting those points across than in posting that comment.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Snow on Friday June 14 2019, @03:47PM (4 children)
Personally, I like the stories that generate conversation. I find the conversation more interesting than the story 90% of the time.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday June 14 2019, @09:15PM (3 children)
Anyone who doesn't is on the wrong site. If you're looking for just a news feed, there are plenty of them out there that are more thorough and more timely. There aren't many out there with a community like ours though.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 14 2019, @09:32PM (2 children)
Seriously? Seems only Runaway submissions make it to the frontpage lately. Dude has, shall we say, "Fox News" type tastes.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday June 15 2019, @12:16AM
Get aristarchus to sub something that's not part of his alt-right crusade, without ten miles of editorial snark, and it'll likely get published.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Sunday June 16 2019, @07:30AM
Perhaps you ought to read the submitters' names more closely, for example, over the last 36-48 hours we have had stories from:
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 14 2019, @04:17PM
Hi troll, did you eat breakfast today? If not maybe that is why you're so cranky.
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Sunday June 16 2019, @07:23AM
I'm not at all sure why you dislike this particular story. And I do not agree with you that it is clickbait.
The source is not from a scientific journal but you are probably aware that we also cover stories from outside the usual STEM topics. Any subsequent discussion arising from this story can justifiably discuss the claims that it contains or try to counter the facts quoted by providing alternative data from other sources. However, the claims all come from sources that should be expected to have knowledge about the subject matter, and seem perfectly reasonable.
As for the 'clickbait' assertion - you can read sufficient information in TFS without having to click anything to decide whether the story interests you or not. If not, please wait because there will be another story along in a short while.
I do not expect everybody to agree with the claims made, but there is nothing wrong with either the claims themselves or the people or organisations making them. But that is why we have a discussion site. People on this site tend to be able to discuss topics without getting hung up on the claims / counter-claims, or at least for any topic other than politics, and this in my view is far better than any story on politics.
As others have already pointed out, please submit something that does appeal to your own interests and we will see if we can get it on the front page. And if you are simply looking for news then there are plenty of other sites catering to your needs.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by bradley13 on Friday June 14 2019, @11:53AM (42 children)
You'll get no fireworks from me. Genetics play a role. Men and women are genetically different, and this influences all sorts of things. In fair competition, men are going to be better at sports that require strength, women are going to be better as sports that require long-term endurance and (arguably) dexterity. In yet others, there is no discernible difference (example: target shooting).
Where I may provoke fireworks is by poking at the progressives who think that differences only exist where they are politically correct. Remember Lawrence Summers, when he pointed out that women have fewer outliers on the IQ curve: fewer morons (that would be ok), but also fewer geniuses (my god, the uproar). This sort of insistent denial of reality is hugely counterproductive.
Of course, outside of defining sports categories, the group average isn't important. Treat each person as an individual. If it happens that more women then men gather in one area; more men than women in another - so what? As long as each individual is fairly treated, it doesn't matter. How would an HR department react, if you asked them to ensure that blue-eyed people are equally represented in all departments? In an ideal world, asking a company about gender equality would be just as bizarre as asking about eye color.
Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 14 2019, @12:20PM
No, they are NOT. The Y chromosome is a cultural artifact!!! (large trollish grin)
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 14 2019, @01:09PM (40 children)
Absolutely. Until the attitudes (and people) that forced women to have male co-signers to get a credit card well into the 1970s are dead and buried, we won't have that will we?
Sad but true [smithsonianmag.com].
(Score: 0, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 14 2019, @01:21PM (34 children)
O guess you're in luck. Virtually all of the people responsible for those policies are, in fact, dead and buried. (I would say all, but there's probably some 100 year old fossil in a nursing home somewhere hitting on the nurses). The 1970s were long enough ago that most of the people responsible for *ending* those policies are also dead and buried. The youngest people who would have even experienced that particular discrimination are now in their 60s.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 14 2019, @01:27PM (33 children)
So why do women still pay higher interest rates than men?
Why is there still a gender pay gap?
Why do women, despite working just as hard and long as men, still do most of the household chores?
Culture changes slowly, friend. Which is why said *attitudes*. Many of those people are, in fact, dead. But the attitudes and the legacies are still with us.
If you can actually get a woman to talk to you (other than your mom), why don't you ask them about it?
(Score: 2) by PiMuNu on Friday June 14 2019, @01:56PM (17 children)
I agree with your points, AC; but because I am an egalitarian:
Also why do women pay lower car insurance? Why do women get more time on parental leave? Why do women get to work part-time more? Why do men have higher suicide rates?
(Score: 3, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 14 2019, @02:21PM (3 children)
I am also an egalitarian. As such, the attitudes and cultural biases that hamstring women make me sick.
For a wide variety of reasons that are a complex interplay of culture, social dynamics and genetics.
I'm not going to write a thesis on the subject here. You seem like a pretty smart person, I'm sure you can get a pretty good idea with a little research. Although I suspect that if you are, as you say, an egalitarian, you have a general idea already.
Women pay less for car insurance because the actuaries say they should.
The underlying reasons are varied and complex and are similar to the reasons that men are 900 times more likely to commit an act of violence against another person than are women.
As for suicide rates, the reasons are similarly varied and complex.
Not sure where you live, but in the US, parental leave is a rare exception *for anyone* (at least with a guarantee of your job back, and certainly not with pay).
Again, not sure where you live, but most women *need* full time work and don't get it. That's not a feature, that's a bug -- and related to the attitudes I mentioned.
Why is it that more than 50% of women murdered are killed by their intimate partner [theatlantic.com]? Is that because women are seen as equals by the (overwhelmingly) men who do so?
The attitudes and cultural markers are deep within society. Changing those takes time. Would it be better if that weren't the case? Definitely. But it's not, and ignoring or whitewashing the issues won't make change happen faster -- just the opposite IMHO.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 14 2019, @05:46PM (2 children)
Feminist AC, you're not the sharpest tool in the shed.
I shouldn't have to clarify this, but for you I know I must:
THAT WASN'T A JAB AT YOUR SEX OR GENDER! It was a jab at your sexist superiority complex!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 14 2019, @06:14PM
Which part of my comment did you think was lacking in reasonableness, clarity of thought or logic that you would reach that conclusion?
What about my comment would lead you to believe that I consider one gender to be superior to another?
In a nutshell, I said that the reasons for a variety of differences between men and women were the result of culture, social dynamics and genetics. What about that gave you the idea that I held one sex in greater esteem than another?
While I realize that you're trying to get a rise out of me (I suspect because you think that I am and/or identify as female, neither of which are true) by attempting to insult me (a classic trolling tactic), I'm not taking the bait. Sorry about that.
What I'll do instead is ask you to explain:
1. What was it, specifically, that gives you a reasonable idea that I am, as you said, "not the sharpest tool in the shed"?
2. What was it, specifically, that gives you a reasonable sense that I have a "sexist superiority complex"?
I'm really curious about that for a couple of reasons. I'd be really interested to know what might give you the impressions you did, as I don't see it at all. The second is to confirm my suspicion that, for whatever reasons, you don't agree with me and rather than making arguments to rebut or counter mine, you chose to troll instead.
I expect that you won't respond at all, except possibly to once again attempt to bait me, but this reply is evidence of my hope that you'll engage in a real discussion that might garner some interesting ideas. I won't hold my breath.
I hope you prove my pessimism to be unfounded.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 14 2019, @07:26PM
I imagine this is right up your alley [motherless.com] [NSFW], huh?
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Thexalon on Friday June 14 2019, @02:29PM (12 children)
Because women wreck their cars less often and less severely on average than men do. Men speed more. Men also account for a strong majority of DUIs. Also potentially relevant is that men on average choose riskier vehicles than women, e.g. a jacked-up pick-up with a huge rollover risk rather than a relatively safe sedan.
You want to help change this? Stop driving like a dumbass, or help self-driving cars become the norm so the gender of the driver doesn't matter.
Because men are paid more on average, so a rational financial decision for any family is to do without mom's smaller paycheck rather than without dad's larger paycheck. In countries where parental leave is paid rather than unpaid, and especially when there are policies in place encouraging dad to take time off to raise baby, dads are taking a lot more parental leave.
They get hired less often for full-time managerial roles, they get lower salaries for full-time roles, and employers of some professions dominated by women push them to work part-time so they don't have to pay benefits. After the ACA in particular, an awful lot of jobs suddenly became 29 hours a week, just under the threshold for requiring employers to pay for health insurance.
I'm not sure I'd describe this as "get to": There are a lot of women who would work full-time if they could, but can't, and it's one of the reasons for the pay gap between men and women.
There's been a lot of research into this, but two major reasons are:
1. Men are less likely to seek out therapy when they need it. Mostly because of cultural stereotypes that suggest it's unmanly to get help no matter how much you need it.
2. Women are more likely to attempt suicide, but men are more likely to succeed at offing themselves because they tend to shoot themselves in the head rather than overdose or cut or hang themselves.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2) by PiMuNu on Friday June 14 2019, @02:55PM (8 children)
So for women, it's all unconscious (or otherwise) bias. And for men, it's all "well sucks to be a guy"?
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 14 2019, @03:02PM
Wow! That's some non-sequitur you've got there.
Does that come naturally, or did you take a class?
(Score: 5, Informative) by Thexalon on Friday June 14 2019, @03:31PM (4 children)
It doesn't suck to be a guy. I'm a guy, and I've never thought to myself "Oh, woe is me! I hate having to get paid 30% more for my work, or having to pay 15% less on my personal care products. I hate being able to go about my life with little reason to think someone will rape me. I hate that I get better prices on cars because dealers assume I know what I'm talking about in a way they don't for my female friends, even those who've done far more work on cars than I ever have. I hate my significantly smaller risk of UTIs and breast cancer, and my complete lack of having to deal with periods and yeast infections and pregnancy and childbirth. I hate being on average able to fairly easily out-muscle about half of everybody around me if I needed to (and I've needed to)."
There are some aspects of being male that are less than desirable, but the stuff I just mentioned is what happens when I'm going about my life not trying to take any sort of advantage of my male-ness.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by PiMuNu on Friday June 14 2019, @04:15PM (3 children)
I get it. There are features which give guys advantages in many circumstances. I just point out, for balance's sake, that there are also biases which give women advantages in some circumstances as well. I can add a few more in: massive bias in law courts when it comes to custody cases; increased likelihood of being victim of violent crime; increased likelihood of being a perpetrator of violent crime; increased likelihood of some other forms of cancer that are not breast cancer.
(Score: 4, Informative) by Thexalon on Friday June 14 2019, @04:51PM (2 children)
Except that in 1980, the legal doctrine about who should get custody changed significantly, and now it's pretty standard for dad to get at least shared custody if he wants it unless there's a good reason for him not to. In short, your argument is about 30 years out of date.
And an awful lot of that comes down to "Don't join drug gangs, you idiot!" and "Don't get into bar fights, moron!"
OK, now you're really grasping at straws. If you attack somebody, and are punished for it, that's your own damn fault, and you know it.
Yeah, cancer sucks in all its forms. That's why there are colonoscopies, prostate exams, and other efforts to detect and prevent cancer in men.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Saturday June 15 2019, @09:25AM
Ah, the whole world has only one shared legal system? Or are you referring to less than 5% of the world with your sweeping statement?
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by PiMuNu on Monday June 17 2019, @08:12AM
> In short, your argument is about 30 years out of date.
I'm going on the basis of anecdotal evidence from a friend who works in family law (in UK).
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 14 2019, @06:47PM
Sucks to be a guy? Far from it. Guys don't have to deal with menstruation, menopause, breasts, pregnancy etc. And if they don't get too mired in "country matters", they could get a pretty nice life out of it.
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Saturday June 15 2019, @07:22AM
I've always been a guy. I never thought it was bad, or felt that I was missing out or being ill-treated.
I like being a guy.
I've never thought that I was getting a raw deal because I was a man. I've had traumas (some really fucked up ones too) and been jerked around some.
And I've made some poor choices. But those were *my* choices.
Honestly, when you say "well sucks to be a guy." I don't get it. Why does it suck to be a guy?
There have been plenty of times when my *life* sucked. But I don't think it would have sucked any more or less if I was a girl. It was just 'life'.
I'm not trolling here. I honestly don't get it. I'm not asking for your life story or anything,
I'd just like to get a sense of what makes being a guy any more or less good or bad than being a girl.
Seriously. Am I missing something important here?
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 14 2019, @08:29PM (1 child)
Do they though? Or do women just get let go with a warning more often than men? Oddly enough, the vast majority of people I know that drive SUVs are short women (it "makes them feel safer") and the guys drive sedans.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Friday June 14 2019, @11:06PM
Tee-hee! Let go with a warning after a roll-over accident.
Maaan, it's good to be a woman. (grin)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 14 2019, @10:46PM
Even if you as an individual don't drive like a dumbass, you're still being discriminated against on the basis of sex. Kind of like with women paying higher interest rates.
(Score: 2, Offtopic) by Runaway1956 on Friday June 14 2019, @02:38PM (7 children)
Do women pay higher interest rates than men? I've never even heard that, so I'm not going to believe it just because you said that it is so.
Gender pay gap? You're right - my boss makes a lot more money than me. I'm marching into HR on Monday, and demand equal pay! Just because she has been with the company since Methuselah was a pup, isn't cause for her to get more money! Paranthetically, how many women work all year, every year, for the same company, for fifty years? They expect to be able to take five years off, to start a family, then walk back in the door, and make the same money as the guy (or even the girl) who DID NOT take those five years off? It's not so much a "gender gap" you see in most cases, as a "mother gap". That's life - just get over it.
Women and house work. Want one anecdote? The wife doesn't like the way I do laundry. She banished me from her laundry room. Things have stayed very much that way, for a very long time. Now that the children are grown up, and it's just her laundry and mine, she has allowed me back into the laundry room. The woman did all that work because she couldn't be happy with my work. I don't play that "Do it my way, or not at all!" game - I'll choose "not at all" every time. Culture? No, that is personal relationship 101 - don't be a shit, and you won't get shit on.
Actually, from the pissy tone of your post - I think that you just don't like men. And, no, I don't want to hear that worn out racist thing, "Some of my best friends are men!" Exploiting the men in your life doesn't make them your friends.
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 14 2019, @03:00PM (5 children)
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/forty-years-ago-women-had-a-hard-time-getting-credit-cards-180949289/ [smithsonianmag.com]
Equal pay for equal work -- that's not the case. You're a grunt and she's the boss. Savvy?
I don't exploit *anyone*. That would be rude and sociopathic. I try (sadly, not always successfully, but I do my best) to treat people the way I'd like to be treated.
As for men, they're okay. *One* of my best friends is a man. And there are assholes of every stripe, including women.
I don't like to fuck them, but otherwise men are just fine. I like to shove my hard, throbbing cock into women. It's not that I have anything against fucking men, I just never met a man I wanted to fuck. That's my way of saying that your biases are showing, as I am both genetically and socially male. I'm even an unapologetic heterosexual with a penchant for Dominating [wikipedia.org] women.
So Runaway, once again your ignorance and small-mindedness is showing. What a shocker! Not.
(Score: 1, Troll) by Runaway1956 on Friday June 14 2019, @03:37PM (1 child)
Got it. You and *one* other guy are knights in shining armor, and all the rest of us are just assholes. Do me a favor, and remember that I'm the ASOCIAL asshole.
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 14 2019, @03:57PM
That's not what I said. I have two *best* friends. One is a male. I have many friends of both sexes.
But you're just being disingenuous because you disagree with me but cannot refute what I say with argument or evidence.
And I most certainly did not call you asocial or an asshole. I said you were ignorant and small-minded. Don't put words in my mouth.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 14 2019, @05:58PM (1 child)
Yes, and I am both genetically and socially a UFO (no, not a green alien, a UFO), at least that's how I identify online where no one knows that I'm actually flying jellyfish with hair!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 14 2019, @09:32PM
As an attack helicopter, you should be more open to varied experience.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 14 2019, @11:10PM
I followed the trail back to the original study. It's no longer up, but you can get it in the wayback machine [archive.org].
It found that, while women do pay higher interest rates, they're also more likely to miss payments and less likely to comparison shop for the best deal among competing credit card offers. However, the difference vanished with higher levels of financial education.
Nevertheless, women still pay higher interest rates, even when these factors are taken into account. Interest rates, of course, do not tell the whole story. Gender bias is one possible explanation, of course, but not the only one. It might be that men are more likely to get a card with an annual fee in exchange for lower interest rates, or that women are more likely to favor cards with better rewards programs in exchange for higher interest rates. The study does not claim to identify the reason for the difference (which means that writers should not cite it as evidence of gender bias... but of course this one did).
The study did cite another study which showed significant evidence of gender bias [nber.org]... but only in Italy.
(Score: 3, Funny) by Gaaark on Friday June 14 2019, @03:46PM
It's the same here: my wife doesn't ask me to dust anymore. Rarely asks me to vacuum.
But I clean the toilet and bathroom.
We both have jobs we do, but when she goes on about how she hates the way I do something, I stop doing it, therefore SHE has to do it.
Anecdote? She does NOT complain about the way I do the toilet and bathroom, lol.
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 14 2019, @05:50PM (3 children)
Because none of those things are true. The gender pay gap exists because women prefer other forms of compensation such as a more pleasant work environment and the ability to take vacations. If women gave those things up, they'd be making the same as men. What's more, for women that choose not to get married and have children, they make more than the men with similar circumstances do.
As far as the household chores go, from what I've seen it's a statistical tie with the women maybe working an extra hour than the men. The reason why it seems otherwise is that women don't spend as many hours working at a job as the men do.
As far as asking women about this, this is why these perceptions remain. Women are notoriously poor judges of what men are up to. For some reason people like you think that men know nothing about what being a woman is like, but somehow women know what being a man is like. In practice we know that's not the case, women that transition to men face a harsh reality when they do so as they're actually treated as poorly as men. Which as a side note pretty much proves that they're not doing it to get ahead in life.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 14 2019, @07:37PM (2 children)
I'm guessing that these are the sorts of resources [motherless.com] [NSFW] you use for your "data."
Because it's not coming from the Encyclopedia Britannica, the Bureau of Labor Statistics, that's for sure.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 15 2019, @03:18PM (1 child)
Not the AC you replied to, but I have seen an article, I think on the WSJ about a year ago where someone who transitioned to a man (who was previously a feminist!) was absolutely shocked at how difference the experience was as a man compared to a women, concerning social interactions with other people. The article detailed how people didn't listen to his opinion as much, how he was more often ignored than he was as a she, how it was harder to find help, how he even had a door almost hit him in his face after assuming the person in front would hold the door for him since he had come to expect that kind of behaviour from people before. Unfortunately I can't immediately find the article, but it was a very interesting read.
However given the link you posted, I'm thinking that perhaps you were just trolling anyway.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Saturday June 15 2019, @04:10PM
I vaguely remember the article you're talking about being discussed here (couldn't find it yet). But you can very easily find the opposite opinion with a Google search:
My Voice Got Deeper. Suddenly, People Listened. [nytimes.com]
25 Ways I Was Granted White Male Privilege After I Transitioned – and Why ALL Men Must Speak Up Against Sexism [thebodyisnotanapology.com] (possibly NSFW images popping up)
Trans actor Jake Graf recounts how Hollywood treats him differently since he transitioned [qz.com]
Transgender Men See Sexism From Both Sides [time.com] (they identify downsides in the "Walk Like a Man" section at the end)
It could just be a politically correct hivemind boosting these, but it certainly seems that the view you are talking about is in the minority.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 15 2019, @01:21AM
From the study linked in the article you linked, it sounds like it's because they don't pay their bills on time. Just as men who never drink still pay higher car insurance premiums because men are more likely to drink and drive, women who pay their bills on time still pay higher interest rates because women are more likely to miss their payments. It would be better to get this data at higher resolution instead of using gender as a proxy... but that would have very bad privacy implications.
Probably because women are more than 40% more likely to graduate from college [aei.org], and are much more likely to be guided into high-paying white-collar jobs instead of low-paying blue-collar jobs.
Oh, wait. You think there's still a pay gap favoring men. That's cute. It turns out that single, childless women under 30 (you know, those whose lifestyles are actually similar to male peers) actually earn significantly more [time.com]. Of course, that study is a few years old now. It's funny, isn't it, that nobody can get funding to update this study, or see how things have changed since then? Instead the leftists like to trot out old numbers from the 70s. Better stick with old numbers even if they're wrong, than get new data that might undercut your talking points. But still people occasionally manage to do some actual research... and across the board, it turns out the actual disparity - same job to same job, same hours to same hours - is about 4% [washingtonpost.com]. 4% isn't perfect. But it isn't much of a talking point, especially when it is concentrated among older workers who will soon be retired. The biggest gap is at age 58 [businessinsider.com].
Nobody will dispute that women *did* face various disadvantages, in the 50s, 60s, and 70s, and that has lifelong impact. But you don't go to someone who is 60 and who has been a schoolteacher all her life and say, congratulations, you are now a neurosurgeon. The only thing you can do is remove the barriers so that everyone has the same opportunities. And that has happened. It happened years ago.
The most significant impact on total wage pay gap today happens when women get married or have children. But of course this confuses the reality of the situation. You have young women, early 20s or teens mostly, and frequently in rural areas, having children without adequate support or career prospects. This is very bad for them. And then you have middle and upper middle class women who have children in their mid to late 30s and cut back on their work hours because they can - they have a good life, probably a husband with a good paying job, and no particular financial hardship. Both make the pay gap appear to increase, but only one of these is actually bad. The other is a luxury.
Sometimes you'll see people compare white men to black women [surveymonkey.com] when they want to pretend they can prove there's a wage gap. If you need a gender wage gap and don't have one, sleight of hand in the race wage gap instead, maybe nobody will notice.
If there's a real problem to address here, it's unplanned pregnancy. Unplanned pregnancy is bad, and it causes lots of struggle for both the parents and the children (and the grandparents, often as not). This is why second wave feminists wanted free 24-hour child care for everybody [theatlantic.com]. Having everyone send their children off to government community centers to be raised is a little Brave New World for my tastes, but it would have eliminated one of the few remaining actual barriers to gender equality. Since, you know, men are not going to start having the babies. We could do more in this department. We need more contraceptives and better sex ed, for one.
[citation needed]
I live alone, so I do 100% of the household chores.
I used to have a female roommate, and she did far less than her share of the household chores. She wouldn't even clean up after her cat, and as a result I had to replace all my downstairs carpet, and have my heirloom furniture refinished (all of which I had to pay for). So my personal experience is that this gap is strongly opposed to what you think it is.
I did some of your homework for you, and found this article [theatlantic.com] that purports to show that what you say is true. I followed the data, though, to one of the actual studies [pewsocialtrends.org] it cites ... and the study finds, over and over, that among couples of any age or parenting status, men spend more total hours working (counting both household and breadwinning work). Women only start doing more total hours of household work when children come into the picture... at which point they also cut back on their work outside the home. So I guess if your data doesn't support your conclusion, just cite it anyway, and maybe nobody will bother to check? Is that the strategy now?
Well, she's been dead for a decade, so good luck with that.
And, of course, "why not ask an actual woman" ... because men have no idea what it's like to be a woman, but women, of course, know all about what it's like to be a man. Well, a few people - those who are transgender - actually do [washingtonpost.com] have experience with both, and they find out that being a man isn't actually better.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 15 2019, @03:03PM (1 child)
When I got married, my wife said "as a woman, I don't want to work, I want to be a housewife" and honestly I didn't even get any say in the matter - it's just what she did. We don't have kids so there's no need for such a role, and honestly she does little more than cleaning (which I still seem to do the bulk of), wash (which I help with when not at work anyway - which is most of the time since she deliberately waits for me to be home to do it, and she doesn't iron, and I do all the folding too) or "cook". When it comes to cooking, in her case this means instant noodles, or ordering delivery of her choice - or even ordering something and then telling me to pick it up! Meanwhile, I often work ~50 hours a week at my primary job, and then a second casual job on the side because I'd like a shot at owning a house before I'm 50 (probably not going to happen since I don't think she can budget).
Throughout my life I've only ever been physically assaulted on three occasions that I can recall; by a guy at middle school 7th year, and by two different women on different occasions as an adult. I consider the two later incidents to be more serious, in part because I knew it could end in disaster for me if I tried to defend myself. It is my personal experience that women are more prone to violence.
I've also experienced written abuse (vulgar language) in a workplace environment by a colleague who was a women - something I've never experienced from any man in my entire career, despite butting heads over technical work issues with many men on numerous occasions.
On other occasions I've had to be very cautious of words I use in conversations at my workplace because I've angered women who disagree with my opinion to the point where I have triggered complete outrage! If I'm with guys I can simply say "I hate it when..." or "I think such and such of an approach is a waste of time..." but if women are around I sometimes need to say "I prefer not to use X because it didn't really work for me" or something to tip-toe around what I really want to say. It's like I'm living in Japan only I'm not.
So I don't want to hear complaints about a gender gap! I've done my absolute best to be equally respectful to women and men (and I'm certain I'm completely successful in this endeavour wherever humanly possible), but some people just make it so very hard. And incidentally, it often seems to be the ones that complain about gender inequality that cause the most unnecessary drama.
For the record, the people I have had a problem with are in the minority of women I've known. The vast majority of women are great and no issue at all. But if you want to talk about changing attitudes, instead of blaming "legacies", maybe look at other members of your own gender? Yes ideally everyone would treat everyone a person-by-person basis all the time and not care about gender at all, and that's certainly the way I look at people. But if certain women really wanted and expected that from everyone, they would fight for equality instead of feminism wouldn't they?
Maybe there are times when men have it better. I'm not sure as I personally have never noticed witnessing this. I highly doubt there's a gender pay gap in my workplace - a previous female manager even openly joked once that she could fire any of us if she liked due to a promotion. But when women have it better, they have it one hell of a lot better from what I've seen throughout my life. They can get away with things the rest of us wouldn't even consider.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 15 2019, @04:19PM
And having a wife is helping you how? Does she at least let you fuck her at times?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Entropy on Friday June 14 2019, @03:09PM (4 children)
This isn't the 1970s. That was basically 50 years ago. Stop talking about crap that happened a half century ago.
(Score: 0, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 14 2019, @04:18PM (3 children)
The attitudes and behaviors continue to this day. Things have improved significantly over the past 100 years, but culture changes slowly.
Look around you. You don't have to look far. Just read the comments on this story.
Ask your sisters (in-law) about it. Ask your female friends and co-workers. Stop women on the street, Count the news reports about women being murdered by their (male) partners. And count the news reports abut how many men are murdered by their (female) partners. The difference is *stark*.
These attitudes are still embedded in our culture. Claiming that they don't exist won't make them go away, as much as you might want it to.
I'm not saying that you're bad or wrong for being male. I'm not saying you should be penalized or punished for it. I'm saying that equality for *everyone* is a goal to be worked towards. We're not there yet. Why don't we work together to make it happen?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 14 2019, @05:55PM (2 children)
There's a reason for that. Women victims of domestic violence are provided with far more protection and support than male victims of domestic violence are. In most cases, nothing is ever done when it's women committing the crimes and as such, there's far less likelihood of them going that far. The murders tend to happen when the abuser thinks the victim is going to leave. Or has already left.
That being said, even when it does make the news, the reporters rarely cover it as a domestic violence issue. How many articles correctly indicated that Phil Hartman's or Steve McNair's deaths were the result of domestic violence? It was sort of in there, but it wasn't something that I saw explicitly stated.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 14 2019, @07:57PM (1 child)
I see. So the solution is to stay and get beaten instead of leaving and be murdered.
You're a genius! You'll get the Nobel Prize for this!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 15 2019, @01:24PM
Ahem, Incelrize
(Score: 0, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 14 2019, @11:59AM (1 child)
More bait and switch tabloid style methods of grabbing attention.
(Score: 0, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 14 2019, @12:04PM
Careful, you'll get modded "off-topic" for pointing it out. That's not the sort of argument they're trying to foster.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by epitaxial on Friday June 14 2019, @12:19PM (15 children)
This is going to get the neck beards all riled up. I predict a thoughtful and enlightening discussion.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 14 2019, @12:45PM (13 children)
It already has. Look at the bunch of anonymous incel loosers who posted so far.
And these assholes wonder why no woman wants to be anywhere near them. In fact, no person in his/her right mind would want to have anything to do with such a bunch of misoginistic, angry, bitter loosers.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 14 2019, @01:24PM (1 child)
Looser == Not as tight
Loser == Not a winner
Do you get paid by the 'o' or something?
Other than that, you're spot on!
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Friday June 14 2019, @02:43PM
Doing laundry regularly helps to avoid those spots, not to mention the racing stripes.
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 14 2019, @01:34PM (7 children)
le incel meme!
Maybe we just don't like clickbait social politics on an ostensibly technology oriented news aggregator? You know damn well the only reason this story here is to rile, so why are you acting surprised?
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 14 2019, @02:30PM (2 children)
Oh I'm not surprised, I'm disappointed. But mostly sadened, sadened to see that there are so many people out there that are unhappy and hate their lives, while simultaniously trying to convince everyone, but mostly themselves, that them living in a constant state of frustration, anger and bitterness is somehow perfectly rational and justified.
Had this topic been the other way around, i.e. painting men in a better light than women, it would have been equally "clickbait social politics"-y. And yet, are you telling me that it would have triggered and equal amount of trollish, flamebaity, hatefull comments as this one did ?
If your sincere, honest answer is "yes", them I feel sorry for you. Keep deluding yourself.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 14 2019, @02:44PM
Sadists are often sadened, right?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 14 2019, @02:59PM
Yes, it absolutely would have still been clickbait politics, only if it were in favor of men it would be more fashionable to call it out as such. As far as this article stands, I see way more virtue signalling than trolling and hate. A handful of people calling this out as clickbait isn't trolling or hateful.
Men and women are different. I don't come here to read about it, or I would be on Jezebel. Or some male-oriented news aggregator.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by NotSanguine on Friday June 14 2019, @02:32PM (3 children)
So articles discussing scientific research into *physiological* differences between humans, and the impact that those differences have on athletic performance is "social politics?" Huh? You lost me there.
Now if this were an article about how women make better managers, nicer people, worse software developers, or how women skew more D than R, you might have a point.
But comparing how the *physical* differences between men and women with respect to athletic performance in different scenarios is "political?"
You may disagree with the findings, the methodologies or the data itself, but testing hypotheses about physical performance doesn't seem like anything "political" to me.
If you ask me, scientific research [bmj.com] (that link is from TFS, BTW) is absolutely appropriate for this site.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 0, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 14 2019, @02:53PM (2 children)
I don't particularly want to read a bunch of articles about how men are better heavy-weight lifters than women, regardless of how scientific the process is.
It isn't because I disagree with the conclusions, it's that I find the study redundant and its existence only serves to engender stupid gender political arguments.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by NotSanguine on Friday June 14 2019, @03:11PM
Fair enough. If that's so, who forced you to read TFS *and* the comments, and then insisted that you express your disinterest in a confrontational fashion?
If I found an article here uninteresting and redundant, I would just move on to the next article, with my non-interaction being a clear statement of my disinterest.
Given that, I have to wonder if your negative and confrontational comments are more than just disinterest. I suppose I could be wrong, but if you really don't care/aren't interested, you're sure expending a bunch of time and energy on it.
Perhaps that time and energy might be better used submitting articles that you *are* interested in. Wouldn't that improve the front page much more for you than complaining? Just a crazy thought.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 3, Insightful) by AthanasiusKircher on Friday June 14 2019, @03:58PM
And you won't, because that's common knowledge. People rarely write lots of articles on stuff that's common knowledge (except for children).
In fact, generally speaking, it's "common knowledge" that males are better at females at almost all athletic events. That's the rationale behind having separate divisions for men and women in most sports. And physiologically, male bodies seem equipped to do better in a lot of ways athletically.
BUT, this article talks about successes women have had lately in performing BETTER than males in some ways in certain sports. Perhaps you were aware that women have been winning some long-distance races against men in recent years, have been outperforming men in some endurance swimming events, have better stats of some types than top in men other sports (e.g., accuracy in driving in golf). If you knew all of that before visiting here, I applaud you for being supremely informed... better than I am.
But I sincerely doubt you knew all of that. Therefore, TFA is NOT "redundant" as you would claim.
I do agree that TFA is poorly written and misrepresents some of its findings (as I've discussed in other comments on this thread). But unless you're a whiny male who is threatened by the fact that women might actually perform better in certain physical tasks, why would you complain about information that defies "common knowledge" and may tell us something useful about genetics and physiology (that enhances and provides nuance to the standard scientific narrative)?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 14 2019, @03:27PM
FTFY
Also a digression for consideration:
This is an adequate description of some sections of the feminist movement (perhaps even the misogynist part). Instead of referring to those sections as "radical" "feminists" of some exclusionary kind, I propose that we start calling them incels... because really, they sound to this outsider just like these losers but with a gender swap. Maybe inceldom can be a big tent uniting the alt-right with their pseudo-feminist sisters.
...if we're lucky they'll just kill each other so we can begin building a nice, postgender socialist society.
(Score: 2) by Gaaark on Friday June 14 2019, @03:48PM
Ayup!
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 14 2019, @06:05PM
Yuu rr mot snartr tan uh fit gwadr.
There you go, I'm fluent in English and whatever you call your language, I assume you call it "eengwich".
(Score: 2) by RamiK on Friday June 14 2019, @12:48PM
Riled up?! I'm printing it out and sticking it on the pickle-jars shelf! One less reason to get off the couch or step out of the basement! Woo Hoo!
compiling...
(Score: 2, Insightful) by jon3k on Friday June 14 2019, @12:33PM (5 children)
I didn't have time to read the whole article, but I assume this is the relevant section:
But that specifically says amateur men. Was there another quote or was the article just misrepresented in the summary?
(Score: 4, Interesting) by AthanasiusKircher on Friday June 14 2019, @02:39PM (4 children)
I assume what TFA was talking about was the balance of driving distance vs. accuracy. From later in the article you quoted from:
That article basically seems to be arguing that aside from driving distance off the initial tee, women tend to excel over men in golf due to higher accuracy of hits and making less risky choices (e.g., a man might choose a higher powered club for a similar shot but then have a lower chance of hitting an accurate shot).
Anyhow, it depends on your definition of "outdrive." I would argue that focusing solely on distance is a very stereotypically "masculine" way of evaluating driving performance. ("I'll just beat the crap out the ball and swing like hell...") Looking at driving accuracy, LPGA women do really well, though, many with much better stats than top PGA men.
This kind of stuff is what makes TFA incredibly annoying to me, though. I was really excited to read it. I love hearing about great achievements of all sorts of people, and hearing about some recent achievements of women in some sports is great. Getting hints about what physical or genetic aspects may be behind these gains is fascinating too.
But it seems like over half of TFA's cited stats or anecdotes are misleading and presented in such a way as to distort the claims from "women are doing really well, and in some cases better than men" to an argument like, "Women might actually be physically superior to men!" Maybe the latter is true, depending on your definition of "superior," but I prefer a more nuanced and accurate perspective. For example, regarding golf, why not just say, "LPGA golfers have made significant gains in driving distance, outperforming even very highly skilled amateur men. In other metrics, though, they are outperforming even pro men -- the top three dozen LPGA golfers have higher driving accuracy than the best men on the PGA tour." Or something like that.
That would still be awesome and interesting to read. Instead, though, you get these more vague and sometimes deliberately misrepresented claims in TFA, which just allow trolls and jerks to shoot holes through the article and get annoyed at "feminism."
Why can't an article like this be written in a more balanced manner? Celebrate the cause of women, celebrate their achievements, point out in some places they may even be surpassing men... and just be fair in quoting your sources and presenting their data. Why is that so hard?
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Friday June 14 2019, @02:53PM (2 children)
Your manner of stating things does sound more accurate. But, I'm not digging into the trivial details to figure it all out.
One note, regarding shooting: As a wee little guy, I was told by an uncle that girls are more "natural" shooters. Us guys have to figure out how to shoot, whereas, girls just pick up a gun, and shoot. Generally, guys pass the girls up, because we keep at the shooting, and continue to learn. Girls tend to get bored with shooting, so many of them never improve from their initially high plateau. On those occassions when I meet a chick who can out-shoot me, I am only very mildly surprised. As I see it, girls are genetically better shooters. But, someone will take offense at that, I'm sure.
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 0, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 14 2019, @03:02PM (1 child)
No one here will ever take offense to you saying girls are better at something. Only if you say they're worse at something. Then you're sexist incel scum like James Damore.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 15 2019, @03:56PM
Um, have you seen the rest of this comment section?
(Score: 2) by istartedi on Friday June 14 2019, @04:05PM
a man might choose a higher powered club for a similar shot but then have a lower chance of hitting an accurate shot
Obligatory Simpsons clip [youtube.com].
Appended to the end of comments you post. Max: 120 chars.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 14 2019, @12:35PM (1 child)
Is it still "keeping up with a bunch of children" a woman's duty even today?
Are blondes still stupid and women bad drivers?
Maybe even women are hysteric by nature and need to be slapped out of it from time to time?
Zumi, 2¢ for your thoughts on it. I promise I'll donate them to S/N editors, maybe they could buy a lollipop to fit with their infantilism.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Friday June 14 2019, @02:54PM
You spelled 'Zumi wrong.
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 14 2019, @12:44PM (2 children)
Scientifically proven.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 14 2019, @03:05PM
So at small window in human development Girls are stronger than Boys, ergo Girls are stronger than Boys! My fucking sides. Rerards actually gobble this nonsense up.
(Score: 2) by Entropy on Friday June 14 2019, @03:12PM
Um.. You mean before boys get testosterone? Even if they have the same amount of testosterone at that age, they haven't yet been influenced by it(muscles) for long enough for the results to manifest.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by JoeMerchant on Friday June 14 2019, @01:11PM (3 children)
At least in the ultramarathons, women genetically store more fat in more places, and probably access it more easily.
Україна досі не є частиною Росії Слава Україні🌻 https://news.stanford.edu/2023/02/17/will-russia-ukraine-war-end
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Friday June 14 2019, @02:57PM
"in more places"
Never thought of that. It probably takes more energy/work to derive energy from a larger mass of fat, than from more diffuse areas. I got nothing to back that up, but it's an idea.
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Gaaark on Friday June 14 2019, @03:55PM (1 child)
And women use oxygen more efficiently: in scuba diving have you noticed that women go down with one tank whereas men need two?
Oxygen efficiency is needed for the long haul: not so much for short bursts.
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Friday June 14 2019, @04:56PM
Our instructor (in 1983) attributed that mostly to the women's smaller muscle mass and therefore lower baseline energy consumption. They also need more lead to achieve neutral buoyancy, mostly attributable to higher bodyfat ratios. Of course, he also called a Porgie a Yellowtail Snapper, so I didn't really consider him a complete authority on everything.
Україна досі не є частиною Росії Слава Україні🌻 https://news.stanford.edu/2023/02/17/will-russia-ukraine-war-end
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 14 2019, @01:12PM (1 child)
I recently read some articles about the ultimate limit of human athletic endurance in a variety of media sources. The science boiled down to the limit being the ability to convert chemical stored energy into kinetic energy - a function primarily performed by mitochondria, which do not differ between men and women. Since women are carrying around less overall bulk and less energy-consuming, but essentially useless for running, upper body muscle, it's reasonable that women could outperform men in extremely long runs.
Lower overall body mass would not likely play much of a role in endurance swimming, however.
I would take the anecdote from one military trainer with a grain of salt, though. His situation is not only anecdotal, but influenced by a large number of uncontrolled social factors. It would be better to look at the results of high level competitive target shooting. My guess is that, since the article cited hard data for the endurance running and the scientific studies about low-exertion endurance but anecdotes for the target shooting, that either there was no data, the data showed that the men were better, or that there was no difference. It doesn't seem like an area where there should be a major difference, although strength does play a role (target rifles are surprisingly heavy, but not so heavy that a serious athlete of either gender would have trouble). Overall, the article does not justify its claims that women are superior at precision (which seems to show the very gender bias that it claims to be opposed to).
(Score: 4, Interesting) by AthanasiusKircher on Friday June 14 2019, @01:51PM
I would take most quotations in TFA with a grain of salt, as they are not necessarily giving the whole picture. If you actually click on the link to the original article by the military trainer (here [nrafamily.org], as linked in TFA), you'll see that he did NOT use the cited fact to claim that "women shoot guns more accurately." Instead, the very next paragraph after the quoted portion says the following:
In other words, in initial training, women were less bull-headed than men. That's certainly a positive trait too, but it doesn't say that women can shoot better than men. Maybe women CAN shoot better than men (and indeed, that's what the linked NRA article was proposing to discuss), but this anecdote isn't presented as proof of that necessarily. TFA distorted the findings of an article it linked to, which makes me less likely to believe some of the other stats taken out of context as well.
Note that I'm all for encouraging women to do the best that they can. I'm all for praising the fact that they have won some competitive long-distance events against men. I'm all for encouraging more sex integration in sports where women want to compete alongside men to give them challenges (as TFA suggests). I deplore the fact that historically (and still today) women were often viewed as "weaker" for reasons rooted in bigotry.
But half of the stats in TFA sound fishy to me, in the sense that they sound like one bit of data taken out of context. Those data points are important -- and they strongly suggest in some areas of physical prowess that women are competitive and perhaps superior to men. But it does NOT help to present disingenuous arguments by citing stats taken out of context. It just provides fodder for people like the trolls who have already commented on this article here.
(Score: 5, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 14 2019, @01:49PM (2 children)
Women and men are exactly the same except for the ways that women are better.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 14 2019, @02:32PM
STFU you incel!!!
(do I get +5 insightful for my white knighting?)
(Score: 2) by Gaaark on Friday June 14 2019, @04:03PM
"Women and men are exactly the same except for the ways that women are better." and except for the ways they're not.
I think that's why I love my wife so much: she's good where I fail but needs me for where I don't.
But GODS women are wonderful.
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 2) by Alfred on Friday June 14 2019, @03:08PM (1 child)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 14 2019, @03:15PM
I can see not reading TFA. I'm constitutionally opposed, myself.
But you could at least read TFS, no? Copied here for your convenience, and you're welcome:
162 mile races? 238 mile races? That seems to be pushing limits, wouldn't you agree?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 14 2019, @03:53PM
I'll just leave this here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X8arM0MSk70 [youtube.com]
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 14 2019, @04:40PM
but women are more ruthless. Women's hate, when there, has no limits. It is also often cold blooded hate. That's another reason Russians were using female snipers for a long time. They shoot better and have no compassion to the enemy whatsoever.
It also helps when endurance is needed.
(Score: 2, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 14 2019, @05:09PM (1 child)
There is no limit to how well women can do in sports.
Ever since trans women have been allowed to compete, women's sports records have been shattered on a weekly basis.
(Score: 2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 14 2019, @08:16PM
So stunning and brave!